|
State
Defense Forces, an Untapped Homeland Defense Asset By
LTC Brent C. Bankus
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Introduction Since the
September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington DC, a
comprehensive federal government review of homeland security and homeland defense
has led to a massive effort to coordinate assets at the local, state, and
federal level, with an emphasis on contingency planning and information
sharing. In addition, several new
organizations were formed to address homeland security and homeland defense
issues including the Department of Homeland Security and DoDs Northern
Command (NORTHCOM), at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado. Also, civilian volunteer programs such as
the Federal Emergency Management Agency sponsored Citizen Corps and the White
House sponsored USA Freedom Corps were formed.[1] In the U. S. National Security Strategy,
President George W. Bush makes it clear, “Defending our nation against its
enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal
Government. To defeat this threat we
must make use of every tool in our arsenal – military power, better homeland
defenses, law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to cutoff
terrorist financing.”[2] Additionally, in a recent interview
Democratic Presidential hopeful, retired General Wesley Clarke announced his
proposal to create the “Civilian Reserve.” His plan consists of a "Civilian
Reserve," and will comprise a cross section of everyday Americans using
their skills in efforts to address community based problems ranging from
repairing local schools structures to less tangible goals such as
"securing the homeland."[3] Yet, little has
been written about expanding the use of current volunteer organizations,
specifically State Defense Forces (SDF), who continue to play an important
but unheralded role in defending the homeland. These local volunteer organizations have historically been
referred to as State Militia, Home Guards, State Guards, or State Guard
Reserves and represent a heretofore untapped asset and potential additional
force for Homeland Security/Defense in the Global War on Terrorism. Since before World War I, State Guards and
Naval Militias have been called upon to fill the void left by the federalized
forces, particularly the National Guard, and have ably carried out their
assigned duties. Also, as currently
demonstrated, state recognized SDFs and Naval Militia units carry on the
tradition of their predecessors in approximately half the states and
territories of the United States, with little fan fare mostly on a limited
budget, and without standardized policies and procedures. Historical Roots Colonial America Similar to the
U.S. Army, Army National Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve, State Guards/ State
Defense Forces trace their roots to the colonial militia. The militia tradition in early America
obligated all able-bodied men to bear arms when called upon by the government
fulfilling two requirements: ·
Providing
local defense and security service (resisting enemy attacks, suppressing
insurrections and enforcing laws), ·
Providing
manpower for expeditions during wartime.[4] Subsequent to the
American Revolution, the Founding Fathers attempted to institutionalize their
distrust for a large standing active force by depending on local militia
units as the first line of defense.
This idea was abandoned due to defense requirements for an expanding
nation, command and control, and reliability challenges associated with
militia troops. [5]
As an alternative, in 1789 Congress granted special permission to
maintain a small military force autonomous of state control with the
understanding the militia would be used as augmentation for emergencies. This system was
viewed as adequate as militia or volunteer units served on numerous occasions
throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries,
participating in domestic and overseas actions ranging from defending their
homes from Indian attacks, (Indian Campaign 1867-98), to traditional
operations (War of 1812, Mexican War 1846-48, Civil War 1861-65, Spanish
American War 1898) to Military Operations Other than War ( Philippine
Campaign, 1899-1903; China Campaign 1900; Cuban Pacification 1903; and the
Puerto Rico Occupation 1899-1903) to name a few. However, the
increased federal demands on local militia or volunteer units beginning with
the Spanish American War in 1898, caused concern among decision makers with
respect to personal readiness and equipment interoperability when supporting
the active forces. This prompted a
review of the effectiveness of the Militia Act of 1792, the first attempt to
regulate local militias. It stated
that “all able bodied males citizens between the ages of 18-42 to arm
themselves and attend regular muster.”
While well meaning, the Militia Act of 1792 was never widely enforced
and unit effectiveness varied.[6] In response to
these problems, Congressman Charles Dick of Ohio sponsored legislation, later
named the Dick Act of 1903, which differentiated between the organized
militia and the unorganized militia by granting Federal recognition to the
land forces of the organized militia and designating them as the “National
Guard.” Federal recognition was crucial since it provided federal funding for
monthly drill periods and a five-day summer encampment to units that had
previously been only state sponsored. In addition, National Guard units were directed to emulate the
active force in structure and training.
The Act also stipulated that the duration of Federal service would not
exceed nine months and overseas assignments were forbidden. In 1908, this legislation was amended,
effectively lifting sanctions on length and location of federal service. [7] Arguably, the
National Defense Act of 1916 proved the most influential as the National
Guard was officially designated the Nation’s second line of defense giving it
dual status as both a state and Federal force under Title 10 United States
Code. Consequently, National Guard
soldiers were required to swear two oaths of allegiance, one to their state
the other to the federal government.
In addition, National Guard units were permitted to retain their unit
designations while in federal service, thereby preserving lineage and honors.[8]
More importantly, there was concern, that if large numbers of National
Guard units were federalized, states would be without the necessary means for
self protection, since most state police forces remained relatively small and
were unable to cope with large scale state emergencies. Mexican Border Campaign and World War I Federal service
for the new National Guard was soon tested as large numbers of units were
mobilized for the Mexican Border Campaign in 1916. An American Expeditionary force augmented by National
Guardsmen, was sent to the southern border with Mexico to apprehend Pancho
Villa, who had recently raided U.S. border settlements. Although Villa was never captured, the
expedition proved valuable as National Guard units received extensive
training and experience that would later prove valuable in World War I. As the Mexican
Border Campaign stabilized, National Guard units were returned to state
control in 1917 only to be re-activated in preparation for World War I. With their National Guard units
federalized numerous states found themselves ill prepared to provide a
similar force to accomplish traditional state missions such as law
enforcement assistance, and providing flood and disaster assistance to local
authorities. Consequently, state
governors inundated the War Department with requests for federal troops. These requests went largely unmet because
the War Department could spare few federalized forces for traditional state
missions, and governors were advised to organize replacement units. Prior to World
War I, federal laws prohibited states from maintaining armed forces other
than the National Guard. However, the
passage of the National Defense Act of 1916 provided cursory authority to do
so as the last sentence of Section 61 stated, “that nothing contained in this
act shall prevent the organization and maintenance of state police or
Constabulary.” Governors used this clause as permission to begin preparations
for organizing replacement National Guard units. The stipulation being, replacement forces were designed only
for state service and would not be eligible for overseas duty as a unit,
although individual members could be federalized.[9] The Federal
government made several additional attempts to assist State Guard programs by
passing the Home Guard Act of 1917 and the subsequent War Department Circular
#3 of March 1918.[10]
This 1917 amendment to the Dick Act provided for Federal aid to State
Guards when practicable, and the circular stated State Guard units organized
and recognized by federal authorities after August 5th 1917 would
be furnished arms, equipment, and uniforms by the federal government.[11]
In reality, the organization and maintenance of State Guard units
defaulted to the governor, principally due to inadequate supplies in all
categories of war stocks. Composition of
World War I State Guard units routinely consisted of retired or prior service
personnel, many former National Guardsmen, or those who for one reason or
another were ineligible for federal service.
Training varied as several states pressed Civil War and Spanish
American War veterans into service as training cadre. Additionally, the reliability and
efficiency of State Guard units varied, depending on location, local and
state government support. Several of
the more effective units were established in the Northeastern states
including Massachusetts and Connecticut.
These states created effective and centralized state military forces
that provided invaluable assistance during the “Spanish Influenza” outbreak
in 1918 supplying much needed manpower, transportation, and medical assets
for this emergency.[12]
Texas also extensively used State Guard units to fill the void. Due to the recent raids by Pancho
Villa, an additional five cavalry and
three infantry regiments were organized for strictly state service, guarding
the border with Mexico. Fortunately,
other than labor strikes and associated local contingencies, no incidents
required large scale domestic military intervention and the presence of State
Guard units provided a calming effect to the local populace. Approximately 27 states created State
Guard units representing an additional 79,000 soldiers for strictly state
duty.[13]
After the war, as the nation turned its attention to prosperity and
internal affairs, State Guard units were mostly disbanded, but would again be
called upon to serve in World War II. World War II As World War II
began in September 1939, the United States was caught in the throes of
preparations for mobilizing a long neglected military. National Guard units were again called
into federal service in late 1940, with the first peacetime draft in American
history. Originally recalled for one
year, this length of service was later extended to eighteen months. Recognizing the impending dilemma, and
with advice from General George C. Marshall, President Franklin D. Roosevelt
signed the State Guard Act of October 21st of 1940.[14]
More comprehensive than the previous Home Guard Act of 1917, the 1940
Act clarified the constitutionality of organizing State Guard forces as
replacements for the federalized National Guard and permitted access to Federal
supplies and equipment, when available.
As part of the organizational process, State Guard command and control
policies and procedures were established as the Militia Bureau (later
National Guard Bureau), became the strategic command and control headquarters,
while each state Adjutant General exercised operational and tactical control
of State Guard units.[15]
However, while the State Guard Act of 1940 effectively relieved the
War Department from supervision of many State Guard functions and responsibilities,
Guard possession and use of Federal small arms and related equipment placed
State Guards under scrutiny of the U.S. Army.[16]
As such, State Guard units were subject to periodic inspections to
ensure proper care and maintenance of Federal facilities and equipment. At first, these inspections caused
consternation between state forces and their Federal inspectors. As the war progressed, these tensions
subsided and the two sides grew increasingly interactive and cooperative, as
the nine Service Area Commands within the United States incorporated State
Guards into their defense plans, and furnished training programs specifically
designed for these replacement National Guard units. State Guard
forces were autonomous of Federal control, but the Hawaiian Territorial Guard
was an exception. Due to their
strategic location, and credible status they were placed under operational
control of the Commander, Army Forces of the Pacific from the beginning of
the war through May 1942. They
demonstrated their ability to perform as part of the overall defense plan.[17] Missions outlined
for World War II State Guard forces mirrored those of the National Guard and
included performing the peacetime duties such as response to natural and
manmade disasters. They performed
full time guard duty in coastal regions and other vital areas, trained for
combat to ensure interoperability with federal troops in the event of an
invasion and performed internal security functions. All of these duties were
reflected on their Mission Essential Task List (METL). [18] Drill periods
also followed the National Guard model, e.g. training one night a week at the
local armory, and conducting a five-day annual training period, usually
during the summer months, using standard Army training manuals as their
doctrinal base.[19]
Since State Guards were volunteer organizations, weekly drill periods
were conducted in a non-pay status.
However, soldiers normally received full pay and allowances for the
annual training period or any state active duty service. Training courses were sometimes in a pay
status, when funding was available. Personnel
readiness standards were also established as modified physical examinations
were given to all enlisted members to account for the variation in age, which
ranged from 21-50. No maximum age
limit was established for the officers however, in order to optimize the
prior service manpower pool available at the time. Some men much younger than the above stated range, were
accepted into service with State Guard units.[20] However, the constant turnover of
personnel due to Federal service became an important readiness issue for
State Guard units. Many units
experienced 100% turnover in a year’s time.
While detrimental in one sense, training received in State Guard units
was valuable preparation for personnel later serving as active component NCOs
during the war. Frequently, recruits
receiving training in State Guard organizations prior to entering federal
service attained promotion more quickly than those with no prior training.[21] Equipment for State Guard units, particularly small arms, was in short supply during the war. Available arms included M1903 Springfield bolt action rifles, military issue shot guns, Reising and Thompson sub-machine guns, and turn of the century derivatives of the Colt machine gun. Officers were responsible for obtaining their own side arms and ammunition. As the war progressed and federal stocks were more plentiful, uniforms, equipment and weapons were upgraded.[22] Research indicates the weapons arsenal for State Guard units primarily consisted of small arms, but in some cases, such as Pennsylvania they had M-3 half-tracks later in the war. Employment of State Guard forces during the war varied from state to state. Understandably, they were extensively used in strategic areas such as the West Coast of the United States, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. While governors were permitted wide latitude on force structure, most modeled their units after the National Guard with Infantry forces being the dominant. During the
critical period several weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack, approximately
13,000 State Guard troops were called to service and prepared to defend the
homeland. As the emergency subsided
in late January 1942, units were returned to their normal status of drilling
one night a week and one-week annual training. However, again, due to their strategic location, states such as
California kept a portion of their State Guard on state active duty for the
balance of the war.[23] Although never
called for combat actions, these volunteer units proved valuable in providing
homeland defense for the nation.
State Guard units provided comprehensive security assets and
assistance during times of civil unrest and labor disputes. In addition, their success as an
additional armed force freed personnel needed in other areas of the war
effort while also providing a sense of security for the population. Approximately 35 states, Alaska, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the Canal Zone created State Guard forces for service during
World War II. Several State Guards,
including Pennsylvania remained active into 1948, as an interim force while
National Guard units returned from World War II service, were reconstituted
and returned to state control.[24] The Korean War and the Cold War As National Guard
units returned to state service after World War II, interest in State Guards
effectively vanished. This situation
changed following the surprise move in June 1950, when Communist North Korean
forces crossed the 38th Parallel and invaded pro U.S. South
Korea. Renewed interest in State
Guard programs was experienced throughout the nation. While the U.S. response to North Korean
aggression was immediate, it was of a lesser magnitude than that of World War
II. Nonetheless, President Harry S.
Truman authorized a Presidential Selected Reserve Call Up as National Guard
units were sent to Korea, while others were replacements for active component
units sent into the theater of operations.
In total, eight National Guard Infantry Divisions, three Regimental
Combat Teams, and 714 company size units were called to federal service for
the Korean War.[25] For the fourth
time in the first half of the 20th century, the departure of large
numbers of National Guard units left states without substantial means to
execute traditional National Guard missions.
During the Korean War, several states re-activated their State Guards
to replace the departed National Guard.
For example, Pennsylvania activated at least one Regiment for service
in the western portion of the state.
Missions for the Korean War era State Guards was not substantially
different from World War II, with the exception of defending against gas
attacks.[26] In the post-Korean
War era all but a handful of states disbanded their State Guard units. During
much of the 1950s and 1960s enthusiasm for the State Guard declined until
1972 when Defense Secretary Melvin Laird began the Total Defense Policy, that
called for increased reliance on Reserve Component organizations to assist
the nation in its ability to wage war.
However, substantial interest in State Guard programs was again not
noticeable until after the collapse of U.S. – Soviet détente in the late
1970s.[27] By the spring of
1985, interest in State Guard units (now known as State Defense Forces or
SDFs) had risen to the point of the State Defense Force Association of the
United States being formed. This
group (changing their name to the State Guard Association of the United
States, or SGAUS in 1993) “was organized to promote the role of state
authorized and organized defense forces, state guards, or state military
reserves, and to foster and encourage cooperation between the various state
defense forces, the Department of Defense, the National Guard, the active
armed forces and their reserves, other government agencies, and the general
public.” SGAUS acts as an advisory
council for the collective of all the State Defense Force units and provides
guidance on missions and related State Guard issues.[28] 21st
Century Issues Military/Military Support to Civilian Authorities Capabilities Present SDF
missions and related training generally mirror their World War I and World
War II counterparts as National Guard replacement units. Potential missions include meeting
domestic emergencies within the state, assist civil authorities in the
preservation of order, guard and protect critical industrial installations
and facilities, prevent or suppress subversive activities, and cooperate with
federal military authorities. Also,
since National Guard units are being mobilized in increasing numbers, SDFs
are charged with assuming control of state armories and Federal property and
when directed, assist in the mobilization process. [29] Today’s SDFs
continue their traditions of World War I and World War II by providing
value-added assets in the areas of manpower and specialized expertise. These assets include infrastructure site
security, emergency operations center operations, search and rescue
capabilities, medical, religious, legal, Weapons of Mass Destruction/Effects
and air assets. Several SDF units are
modeled after a Military Police organization or have substantial Military
Police assets within their force structure due to the current emphasis on
site security. For example, the
Alaskan SDF, primarily a Military Police organization, provides security for the Alaskan pipeline
and harbor’s of Anchorage and Whittier, using four patrol craft armed with
crew served weapons.[30] Their
training focus reflects this emphasis as core courses of formal instruction
are in law enforcement. With an
instructor cadre of either current or former state troopers, graduates of the
Alaskan SDF Military Police academy have the same certifications and arrest
powers as Alaskan state troopers, thereby increasing the law enforcement
strength of Alaska by several hundred.
Due to strategic importance, vast expanse and sparse population,
utilizing Alaska’s SDF in a Military Police role compliments well the
security assets of the region, to include the active and reserve Federal
forces. In the aftermath
of the 9/11 attacks, several states utilized their SDFs for security. Alaska’s SDF was on duty for five months
protecting critical infrastructure sites.
In addition, the New York Guard (NYG) Army Division’s Military Police
Brigade was used for perimeter security at Camp Smith, NY and critical
infrastructure sites within the city.[31]
However, Army SDFs are not the only volunteer organizations that provide
security assets. For example, the
“blue suit” or Air Force SDFs are the second dimension of volunteer
organizations providing security assets.
Air Force SDFs routinely augment security forces, particularly in the
states of New York and Texas, providing security for Air National Guard
installations (see Table 2).[32] Naval Militias are the third dimension, providing water borne patrol assets for security missions, particularly critical in coastal areas on the Great Lakes or in states containing sizeable rivers. For example, the New York Naval Militia was extensively used in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, providing routine security for the nuclear power plant at Indian Point, NY and providing transportation assets to and from the crash site. Ohio also routinely utilizes their naval militia for patrolling Lake Erie in the vicinity of Camp Perry, site of the national rifle matches, and complimenting the U. S. Coast Guard in the region. The authority for
volunteer Naval Militias is provided by either Title 10 OR Title 32 United
States Code. Of the four active Naval
Militias (Alaska, New York, New Jersey and Ohio), Alaska and New York are
organized under Title 10 USC. This legislation
stipulates that 95% of personnel must be drilling reservists of the Navy,
Marine Corps or Coast Guard Reserve, hence, they are a federally recognized
force.[33]
Conversely, Ohio is strictly a state recognized Title 32 organization,
while New Jersey is a combination with one battalion of drilling reservists
and two battalions of non-reservist volunteers. The distinction between Title 10 and Title 32 authority is
important since Federal recognition equates to Federal funding. Conversely, a Title 32 organization is
strictly a state force and therefore ineligible for Federal funding. As a consequence, state funding does not
always satisfy unit requirements, particularly in the areas of material and
supplies and overall readiness. Title
10 also affects mission support, if called to state active duty by the Naval
Militia and by their reserve unit, members are required to serve with their
Federal reserve unit, effectively rendering the volunteer Title 10 Naval
Militia non-available for duty. Table 1 provides
a comprehensive view of current funding levels for SDFs. Table 1.
State Defense Forces - Army
*Note:
Approximate age. Support for
county and state Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs) is another important
mission SDFs frequently support. With
many retired or former National Guard personnel in the force, SDF assets
represent an experienced force knowledgeable in state and National Guard
emergency operations processes and procedures. The Louisiana SDF for example, provides a team of soldiers and desk officers for each parish
(county) EOC, consisting of subject matter experts in operations and
logistics. They are part of the
integrated civil, military team manning these centers.[34] As an integral part
of the Georgia Department of Defense, the Georgia SDF is a major contributor
in providing EOC assets. They have a
robust training program evidenced by their recent participation in a Weapons
of Mass Destruction command post exercise, reacting to a “dirty bomb”
scenario, detonated in the port of Charleston, SC. In addition to providing trained desk officers for the National
Guard Joint Emergency Operations Center at Dobbins AFB, Atlanta, GA, they
operated their own headquarters tactical operations center. Training, appearance, and mission
execution was not substantially different from any battalion Tactical
Operations Center, and all staff sections were exercised. In addition to refining tactical standing
operating procedures, exercising command and control of subordinate units,
issuing operations orders and FRAGOs and coordinating communications
protocols with a variety of state agencies. In addition to
traditional missions, support to civil authority, such as search and rescue,
are an important part of several SDFs METL.
Search and rescue assets vary from state to state, and can include
personnel with medical training such as emergency medical technicians, and
enhanced search capabilities including horses and fixed wing aircraft. For example, with former Special Forces
and Ranger members, the Tennessee SDF has a robust search and rescue
organization somewhat modeled after a Special Forces “A” team. The team contains licensed paramedics,
civilian structural engineers, communications specialists, and a canine
section that are both airborne and scuba qualified, adding to their
capability for insertion into austere locations. While they extensively use current Special Forces and Ranger
doctrine for military task training, such as map reading, their certification
for search and rescue tasks are
accomplished by utilizing the National Association of Search and Rescue
standards.[35] Although SDFs are
predominately land based, several states including Tennessee, have privately
owned fixed wing aircraft detachments, sometimes augmenting the local Civil
Air Patrol in search and rescue operations.
Virginia extensively uses their aircraft by supplying aircraft as
drones for WMD scenarios, providing realistic training for air defense units
of the Virginia National Guard. They are also active in assisting the
Virginia Fish and Game Commission by flying reconnaissance missions over the
Shenandoah Valley searching for poachers as bear poaching is on the rise in
the region and the vast land expanse requires additional air assets. The Connecticut SDF, while predominately a
ceremonial organization, used their cavalry detachment for cross-country
search and rescue missions augmenting the ground search operation on at least
one occasion. These examples are a
sampling of the capabilities available in SDFs units. To help face the
growing threat of possible Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) terrorist
attacks, several SDFs provide relevant professional services. For example, the Georgia SDF has robust
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives (CDRNE)
capabilities. With the Center for
Disease Control and several well know hospitals located in Atlanta, the
Georgia SDF has acquired the skills of a number of chemists, medical doctors
and various other professional skills relating to WMD to fashion an
organization to advise, assist and train with specialized National Guard
Weapons of Mass Destruction, Civil Support Teams. [36] Other SDF
professional service capabilities for external missions include legal,
medical, and religious support assets.
With the current high operations tempo, SDF professionals in the
medical, legal and religious fields are highly desirable and used
extensively. For example, the NYG
supplied legal and religious support in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, in
addition to manning the medical clinic on Camp Smith, NY to include a full
compliment of licensed Chiropractors.
In total, the NYG 244th Medical Detachment treated 844
patients, mostly at the crash site.[37]
Other states specifically Georgia and Virginia routinely provide legal
support to their National Guard units during mobilization for federal
missions. Table 2 provides a list of the missions SDFs regularly support. Table 2.
State Defense Forces – Army – Missions/Capabilities
|