quote:

Lesson learned from Katrina is that next time there is State-Federal quabbling over when to deploy the Guard (like in Katrina), the forces will be federalized under Title 10 to avoid any peeing contest between a Governor and federal authorities.

quote:

why the SDF should be funded while there is an alternative source of volunteers more than ready and capable to do the job in a much larger scale?

quote:

Originally posted by RiverAux:
Without logistics of their own SDFs will never be any sort of major player in much of anything as independent organizations.

quote:

Originally posted by gallagheria:
Someone may be saying that, but it will not happen. Why? Because under federal law, Title 10 soldiers cannot be used as a police power (with few exceptions). Natural disasters are not one of the exceptions. Only under Title 32 are National Guard soldiers authorized to be used as a police power. This is why all the NG soldiers at the border are Title 32.

quote:

Originally posted by gasdf:
today I learned something very interesting - in a casual "debate" with some colleagues at the Pentagon about the usefullness of an SDF...Well, I got schooled...

I was presented with an argument that quite frankly surprised me, and is very difficult to refute - that is, an argument why we don't need the SDF to help respond to natural or man-made disasters.

To put in context, there are about 12,000 SDF members nationwide. Of that how many are really "active" is hard to guess, but I doubt its more than 5,000. Of that 5,000 how many are physically fit and under the age of 50. Well, now we are probably down to 3,000 (or probably less).

Of those 3,000, how many have FEDERAL security background checks or Security Clearances - probably less than 2%.

Well... it seems the Feds, who usually (and now definitely will) lead major operations following following a natural or man-made disaster don't need the SDF - instead they have PLENTY of trained and skilled volunteers from their own ranks who can provide "surge" operational capability in a disaster zone.

I was told (and shown) some documents and one that is public that showed that 7,500 Federal Employees, most from DHS and DoD (civilians) were granted special status to leave their day-to-day duties and report for training and then shortly thereafter, deploy to the Katrina disaster zone to perform a wide variety of missions - just about every mission the SDF claims it wants to do. Deployments could last a mininum of 14 days up to 30 (or even more).

Most of the Federal Employees were shipped to Orlando for high-paced training and then deployed to the field, issued uniforms (looked like solid-color BDU pants and appropriate gear (depending on their mission).

Most of all...they were Federal Employees, cleared (vetted), organizationally inclined and familiar with civil chain of command, professional, and a good majority with prior military service.

So, I was asked, "Why would we want to fund or train the SDF when we have more than enough volunteers who can be drawn from our own ranks to help support a disaster effort?"

Other than the Federal Government, the only other ones allowed into the Disaster zone from "State" authority were police officers and professionally trained (certified) teams in urban SAR, medical teams, etc...

The federal employees were selected based on their backgrounds, skill sets on record, etc..

The argument was that it was just safer, more appropriate to use a tiny fraction of the federal workforce for volunteers - to don on uniforms temporarily - instead of relying on volunteer organizations who they don't know, haven't vetted with background/security clearances, etc...

If they were able to get 7,500 federal employee volunteers (and turning many away since they didn't have enough room for them) why on Earth would they ever need to reply on the SDF?

That's a very good argument on why the SDF isn't really needed; that the "soldiering" can be done by the National Guard, with the civilian support and operations by federal employees who volunteer to deploy...... and that with the actual number of SDF available, their tendency to be over-aged, etc... that they (the SDF) could probably NEVER be able to meet the operational readiness to deploy in the numbers and skill sets compared to the number of Fed Employees willing to jump into a uniform and deploy.

Does anyone here have ANY argument that can counter the above? And I mean a GOOD argument.

Arguments that won't fly are:
1. SDF are "militarily trained" and can integrated into military operations. I believe that is not really true in a domestic operation; the civilian volunteers received training, with most having background, etc..

2. SDF is there since there isn't enough National Guard: Bah-Humbug!! Emergency Compact between the States - no State stands alone... With airlift capability, enough forces can be mustered. Sidenote: Lesson learned from Katrina is that next time there is State-Federal quabbling over when to deploy the Guard (like in Katrina), the forces will be federalized under Title 10 to avoid any peeing contest between a Governor and federal authorities.

Any have a solid argument on why the SDF should be funded while there is an alternative source of volunteers more than ready and capable to do the job in a much larger scale?

quote:

Originally posted by Guardrail256:
Anyone remember the bill in Congress a while back that would have created auxiliaries for all 5 services? I think that would have been a good investment... volunteer citizens who serve a military service through being an auxiliarist, just like the folks of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. :I'm not saying SDF's aren't valuable, just that having auxiliaries for all the armed services would help the military in ways similar to how the SDF's are helping. The auxiliaries would be force-multipliers in addition to supplimental forces.

quote:

Originally posted by RiverAux:
The other services have figured out an alternative to having more official auxiliaries. The Marines and Navy have already associated themselves with cadet programs run by totally independent non-profits and the Army is close to doing the same (apparently they're going to have a similar relationship with the American Cadet Alliance). Neither of these three services really needs an operational auxiliary, and these cadet programs are probably sufficient.

quote:

Originally posted by RiverAux:
Just what operational missions would you see for auxiliaries of the Army, Navy, and Marines within the US? The Marines and Army could probably do ground SAR, but why would they want to spend money on that when the AF already has an Auxiliary set up for it (though I know this capability is weak).

Keep in mind that these would be considered "federal" assets and as you probably know, in emergency situations the locals are the primary responders and getting the feds involved (even in the form of your local CAP unit) is a PITA.

Augmenting would not even be remotely feasible for the Marines or Navy. They are almost all gathered together in a relatively small number of bases around the country. These bases are huge and having a few dozen auxiliary members is not going to make a huge difference to their operations. There are a few jobs that could be done, but I don't see them setting up nationwide organizations for that. Wouldn't be terribly cost-effective.

The Coast Guard is different. They are scattered around the country in many locations, each of which often has only 15-25 people. Having 20 auxiliary members can make a BIG difference to them.

This isn't much different than the relationship SDFs can have with the NG. Each state has dozens of National Guard units scattered about and a few SDF members at each of them have the potential to help take the load off of them.