Skip to comments.Google News Search: "National Guard" Deploy Afghanistan
Posted on 01/30/2013 5:47:16 AM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
So are we ending the war in Afghanistan? Is that why National Guard troops from all over the country are heading there?
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Obama feels his ROE haven’t gotten enough of our guys killed.
Could it be so that the First Moslem can substitute
HIS brown shirts, eager to murder Americans, for the
patriots in the Guard?
Could be back room deals with China.
[...HIS brown shirts, eager to murder Americans, for the
patriots in the Guard?]
You got it.
Quite possibly because the National Guard are FAR more likely not to fire on the general population; and why? because they are, most of the time, a part of the general population.
If the general population is preparing for war, as the scarcity of ammo, some firearms, and firearms-paraphernalia attests... then we should assume that the other side, our government, is also preparing... and that includes measures to alter the availability of those who know war.
Something to remember, one of the “reasonable” gun control measures will be the inclusion of mental health records. All folks who have served in combat will likely be designated as having PTSD. This will keep them from lawfully purchasing firearms.
This would take a large number of folks out of any future equations where gun control is the issue.
The ANG has been part of Afghanistan deployments for years now. A relative in the Guard was deployed for a year a few years ago now. My son’s unit may deploy this year to tear down.
The National Guard and Air National Guard are leveraged more frequently under the Total Force Concept than they were in previous decades.
Air Force Introduces Future Total Force Concept
They are just as mission ready as active duty units and preform regular rotations during wartime.
Why have them if you aren’t going to use them?
Not to completely disagree with you, because you had the qualifier, "likely," but...
There have been quite a few times the Guard has fired upon American citizens. Waco, Kent St., and Watts come to mind.
Combat operations will “officially” end but our presence will extend for a decade at least. The question you really need to ask is “why AD/NG are still deploying to Iraq”(?). Rinse and repeat with Afghan.
This is true; while these are precedent, I do wonder if there would have been different outcome if they had even a vague idea that they were going specifically to "put down resistance" rather than "maintain order" as they were in those incidents. (Yes, arguably putting down a resistance is part of maintaining order; except there's a difference between "nobody passes this line, use deadly force in necessary" & "the people are rebelling; kill them.")
With the current state controlled media, methinks that will be a difference without distinction.
So hussein can murder them too.
You are likely correct; the problem that the government faces here is that any killings are [more] likely to be viewed as the latter than the former -- hence they should want to shut down [or censor] communication because if word gets out people will tend to think it's the latter (with the precedent government has been setting for oppression, this is a natural conclusion). If it leaks though, the media will press to make it be "putting down rebels" which may or may not have the placating effect to the masses the government would desire.
As it is the government is playing with fire while sitting on a keg of gunpowder.