Article

2021-07-01 -Land of the Free

Billionaire Funds South Dakota National Guard Deployment To U.S-Mexico Border

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Elmineger Pholunter3820 2021-07-01 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top
File under: Human Trafficking

#1 this might be illegal

private funding of State contingent personnel

Posted by Lord Garth 2021-07-01 00:03|| 2021-07-01 00:03|| Front Page Top

#2 Seems to work for Soros.

Posted by Rex Mundi 2021-07-01 00:50|| 2021-07-01 00:50|| Front Page Top

#3 Couple of points. The confusedly named "National Guard" belongs to the states. Also, as opposed to the actual Reserves, the Guard components have the actual line units. If the feds need to call up a rifle battalion, it's a Guard unit, not a reserve unit.
See also Guard and "OMLT"
So the state governors control the Guard, with its line units. Just sayin'....
Interesting point about funding. Money's fungible, anyway.

Posted by Richard Aubrey 2021-07-01 00:51|| 2021-07-01 00:51|| Front Page Top

#4 Texas Governor Greg Abbott is using stimulus money to build a wall, which is infuriating liberals

However, they have not problem with Ms Lightfoot redirecting funds. It's all about who's ox is getting gored.

And as to the Guard, it is the Guard Bureau (Deep State Pentagon) that insists that governors need infantry, artillery, and armor units. I suspect the governors would prefer military police, engineers, transportation and medical for natural disasters.

Posted by Procopius2k 2021-07-01 04:36|| 2021-07-01 04:36|| Front Page Top

#5 /\ Army Force Development trivia:

In the 1990's I believe it was, the Army Reserve and Guard Bureau orchestrated a swap or trade as it were. The Army Reserve relinquished the majority of their combat arms units (Infantry, Armor, Artillery) along with Aviation and opted for Combat Service Support or CSS (Engineers, Transportation, Medical, Military Intelligence, Quartermaster, etc).

The arrangement was presided over by the Active Army who, at the time, was looking to downsize and find a place to put infrequently needed CSS elements and equipment. There were numerous political and financial aspects concerning the swap as well.

Posted by Besoeker 2021-07-01 05:56|| 2021-07-01 05:56|| Front Page Top

#6 /\ There were practical and political elements. The mass mobilization for WW2 showed that an "all arms" NG/Reserve Division required about 12 months to be deployable. A new "draftee" Division would take 16-18 months if provided a training cadre.

Next, combat can have catastrophic losses to small units. The Army was aware of the political fallout of having a "Bedford Boys" incident where a NG unit from one particular town was massacred. Moving Reserve/NG units to support roles made this less likely.

Posted by magpie 2021-07-01 10:32|| 2021-07-01 10:32|| Front Page Top

#7 /\ Yes, Mag. I remember reading that thoughtful justification.

Howsomuch ever, five 1/2 months training on the 60's, it was 'wheels up' for Vietnam. After losing 70,000 men soldiers, sailors, USAF, and Marines in Vietnam, I'm not certain the Army cared much about losses.

Some truth found in nearly everything I suppose.

Posted by Besoeker 2021-07-01 10:41|| 2021-07-01 10:41|| Front Page Top

#8 I'm not certain the Army cared much about losses.

Numbers weren't big enough for the length of the engagement.

There were 36,096 fatalities in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2019.

Posted by Skidmark 2021-07-01 11:23|| 2021-07-01 11:23|| Front Page Top

#9 Yes. Zuck spending millions to screw with election administration, the left has no problem. This gives them the howling fantods. It's hypocrisy and nothing else.

Posted by M. Murcek 2021-07-01 12:23|| 2021-07-01 12:23|| Front Page Top

#10 Federal service for Guardsmen comes through either Title 10 or Title 32 active duty status and is entirely funded by the federal government. Since all Guard personnel have essentially taken two Oaths of Enlistment/Commisioning, they are also at the call of the Governor in a state active duty (SAD) status, the details and scope of which are determined by each state. If SD sends troops in a SAD status, the US government has no say in the matter and depending on state laws, it might be funded by any number of means.

Posted by NoMoreBS 2021-07-01 13:34|| 2021-07-01 13:34|| Front Page Top

#11 Interesting to see the various states unite to deal with what should be a federal problem. I'm surprised the Feral Govt has not tried to stop it. Bad optics, maybe? Calls attention to Trump's Wall?

Posted by SteveS 2021-07-01 13:42|| 2021-07-01 13:42|| Front Page Top

23:56 Spusonter Elmusonter5916
23:44 Blossom Snoluck8293
23:36 CrazyFool
23:11 SteveS
22:55 Omath de Medici6305
22:47 Besoeker
22:44 SteveS
22:44 Glomoling Phomogum4161
22:42 SteveS
22:37 Besoeker
22:33 trailing wife
22:32 Besoeker
22:30 trailing wife
22:28 KBK
22:26 SteveS
22:23 Besoeker
22:05 Woodrow
22:03 Woodrow
21:31 Woodrow
20:50 Blossom Snoluck8293
20:31 Thing From Snowy Mountain
20:31 Skidmark
20:08 Croque Fliting8030
20:04 CrazyFool