Abercrombie opposes National Guard cuts

Congressman Neil Abercrombie joined 15 Congressional colleagues in challenging the Bush administration‘s proposal to make drastic cuts in National Guard units across the country.

In a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Abercrombie and 15 other Representatives questioned the Defense Department’s failure to consult with a selected committee of state Adjutant Generals- the National Guard chiefs for their states- before proposing the cuts.

The Army Reserve Force Policy Committee, which includes the Adjutant Generals of Hawaii, New Jersey, Ohio, North Carolina and Indiana, has a statutory role in the setting of Army Reserve and National Guard strength levels.

“The National Guard are our citizen soldiers in the truest sense of the term,” said Abercrombie.  “They have proven their worth time and time again.  Most recently, Hawaii National Guard troops demonstrated their valor and professionalism in Iraq, as have Guard units from other states.

“With the Armed Forces becoming more, not less dependent on the Guard and Reserves, it’s hard to fathom the Administration’s logic on the decision to cut the Guard.  There is a solid bloc of opposition in Congress and communities across the country to this move, and you can be sure these reductions will generate a powerful pushback.”

The letter, dated February 21, reads:

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld,

As you know, the Army Reserve Force Policy Committee (ARFPC) has statutory authority over National Guard and Reserve component matters. Today, we, Members of Congress from the five states represented on the ARFPC ask you to allow the five Adjutant General’s of our states to advise and to consider the case of any reduction or restructuring of National Guard forces or total Guard brigade realignments. These reductions would not only lead to dozens of headquarter closings in the states of New Jersey, Ohio, North Carolina, Hawaii, and Indiana, but everywhere throughout the country.

Any reductions that would reduce the readiness of the National Guard is unacceptable, especially in a time where our Guardsmen and women are asked to take on a mission of not only Homeland Security but also overseas combat in the War on Terror. Our National Guard serves as 48 percent of the troops on the ground in combat with the rest serving missions elsewhere overseas and on the home front securing our borders, protecting our infrastructure and responding to national emergencies.

Without informing the country’s Adjutant General’s (TAG’s) or the five ranking members of the ARFPC, the Department of Defense cannot make a logical and well mannered decisions on reductions and strategic placement of our crucial first responders on the home front.

Furthermore, such a decision violated the express intention of Congress, as passed into law, that the ARFPC be consulted and heeded.  

We urge you that you consider the input of our state’s TAG’s before attempting to make any future decisions on the future of our National Guard.

Sincerely,

Abercrombie authored an opinion column opposing the National Guard cuts in the March 2006 edition of the AUSA News, the official publication of the Association of the United States Army. The piece can be read at: www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptAUSANews.nsf/byid/PCRR-6M8SCQ

-30-