Return to Communications & News > National Guard Magazine

   printer version    email this page

FRONT & CENTER
War on terror, homeland security have dramatically raised the stature of military matters to the governors - the Guard's state commanders in chief

By Andrew Waldman & Ron Jensen
September 2009

On the evening of his inauguration, the young governor faced his first crisis requiring that he call the National Guard to duty.

Now Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond, R-Mo., remembers that day in 1973 and the water emergency in the town of Polo, Mo. He would quickly learn that the Guard was a governor’s handiest tool.

“The first six months I was governor,
we had it all,” he says, recalling tornadoes and floods and even a threatened prison riot, all prompting him to exercise his new duty as the state’s commander in chief and call up the Guard.

But Bond, who served two terms as governor before joining the Senate in 1987, never had a task like one some current governors perform with regularity. He never bid farewell to large groups of Guardsmen going to war and he was spared the solemn task of consoling the families of soldiers who had died in combat.

Both are among the most emotional tasks governors face today.

“The toughest thing I do is talk to parents [of dead soldiers],” says Gov. Edward G. Rendell, D-Pa., whose state had lost 40 Guardsmen in Afghanistan and Iraq as of July 20. “It’s especially tough in a war like this where there are mixed opinions about whether we’re doing the right thing.”

It’s a task, he notes, most previous governors have not had and one he describes as “brutal.”

“It’s a debilitating experience,” he says. “To be honest, I’m sick and tired of it.”

Governors have had to send Guardsmen off to war in the past. It is nothing new.

But the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, part of the larger war on terrorism, have lasted longer than any shooting war in the nation’s history in which the Guard has been a regular participant.

And the nation now is relying on the Guard like in no war since World War II.

“I did not anticipate the level of involvement that has been necessary because of the deployments that our Guard has experienced,” says Gov. Jim Douglas, R-Vt., who is chairman of the National Governors Association (NGA).

“I spend a lot of time with the Guard because we use them so heavily,” says Gov. John Hoeven, R-N.D. “The demands on the Guard have risen significantly.”

Gov. Chris Gregoire, D-Wash., has been her state’s top executive since 2005 and has spent more time on Guard issues than she anticipated.

“I am surprised,” she says, by the amount of time devoted to Guard issues.

Governors try to be there when troops leave for war and when they return. They did not start the wars their citizen-warriors fight, but they have added responsibilities because of them that sometimes go unseen in the nation’s capital.

“They impact in areas for which governors are responsible,” Maj. Gen. Timothy J. Lowenberg, adjutant general of Washington state since 1999, says of the wars, citing unemployment and domestic troubles as examples. “Governors are in a better position to address these than any national authority.”

Governors must concern themselves with the mental well-being of soldiers and airmen who return from the battlefield with post-traumatic stress disorder. They have to be aware of the marital problems and family difficulties that can follow a combat deployment.

And they try to maintain an economy in their states that will support Guardsmen coming home from war.

Gregoire recalls her visit to Iraq early this year to meet with soldiers from her state.

“The No. 1 thing I heard was, ‘Will I have a job when I come home?’” she says.

Governors boast about what they’ve done in their states, but every state—or territory—can brag when it comes to providing for Guardsmen.

A 2008 survey by the NGA found states and territories “going well beyond the federal requirements, offering expanded benefits such as health care, life insurance, unemployment benefits and emergency assistance.”

Twenty-seven states and territories provided their state employees the difference between their regular pay and their National Guard pay when called to active duty. Forty-eight offered some form of educational benefits to Guardsmen and their families.

The survey found 52 states and territories provided some kind of family support program, such as credit counseling, hiring preferences for state jobs, free Internet service at libraries and others.

Approximately 46 states and territories offered some form of tax relief or filing deadline extensions. And 43 states and territories in the survey waived or extended deadlines for drivers license and professional license renewals.

To accomplish all this, the governors had willing partners in their state legislatures despite the budget problems afflicting states.

“We’ve had more support for initiatives on a bipartisan basis,” says Douglas, who bolstered the state’s veterans advisory council. “Regardless of what party is in power in the legislature, it’s been relatively easy to get these initiatives through.”

Gov. Phil Bredesen, D-Tenn., says, “The legislature is willing to bend over backwards [for this type of legislation].”

Rendell says such lawmaking is one of the rare “truly bipartisan” acts in the Pennsylvania statehouse, where 25 bills related to the Guard were passed last session. But he says it is because of the wars that such success is possible.

“Had the Guard retained its traditional  role, which is domestic, I don’t think we could have had the political will to do this,” he says.

And governors say that willingness has transferred to the nation’s capital city, where their input has found fresh ears when it comes to issues related to the Guard.

“The folks at the national level are, in general, very responsive to our situations and they listen with an open mind … to help us with our demands,” says Gov. Steve Beshear, D-Ky.

“It’s clear they take communications from governors seriously,” says Bredesen.

It hasn’t always been so.

“I was always distressed that the Congress didn’t pay enough attention to governors,” says Bond, who, with retired Sen. Wendell Ford, D-Ky., and retired Sen. Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., established the National Guard Caucus. “They pay a little more attention to them now.”

Rendell says, too, that governors carry a bit more weight on Capitol Hill when it comes to Guard-related issues. But he thinks much of it is motivated by fear of something going awry and blame leading to the feds.

“There’s a little bit of CYA [cover your ass] in this,” he says, “but CYA because it’s the right thing.”

Lowenberg, who is liaison between adjutants general and the NGA, mentions the successful repeal of the Insurrection Act in 2007. The bill would have given the president greater control over use of the military within the U.S.

“That was only because of the governors” that the act was repealed, he says.

Governors still have disputes with Washington, D.C., outside the war on terrorism. Currently, for example, a plan to put 1,500 Guard troops on the Mexican border to help stem the violent drug wars there is held up over a dispute about who will pay for the operation, the Defense Department or Homeland Security. Meanwhile, border state governors wait for the help.

Ongoing, too, is a possible battle over proposed legislation favored by the Pentagon giving it greater authority to put troops into states affected by natural disasters and more control over troops once they get there. As chairman of NGA, Douglas has written a letter to defense officials opposing the idea and pointing out the confusion it would cause regarding command and control of troops.
 
One of the toughest battles in recent years between governors and the feds was over the Montgomery Amendment of 1986 that allowed Guard troops to be called to active duty outside the U.S. without the consent of the governors.

It was prompted when governors complained about Guard troops being sent to Central America for extended training events, which were viewed by some as saber rattling to get the attention of authoritarian regimes in the region.

A lawsuit was filled by Gov. Rudy Perpich, D-Minn., and six other governors claiming the amendment was unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court upheld the Montgomery Amendment in June 1989.

Governors, too, showed their mettle in battling some of the decisions made during the Base Realignment and Closure process in 2005. Rendell and Gregoire, for example, filed suit to prevent some of the rulings from taking effect.

“I testified in that case,” Rendell says with a laugh.

Such tension between the states and federal government over the Guard is almost unavoidable.

The Guard belongs to both and is needed by both, now probably more than ever. Normally one boss is supreme; however, that’s not the case with the Guard.

Add competing goals, some partisan politics and normal state vs. federal friction and you have issues seen nowhere else in the U.S. military. But you also have a dual-mission force able to do more than any other branch or component of the U.S. military.

Because the Guard is so much more active than in the past, governors rely even more on adjutants general. The relationship between a TAG and a governor has always been close by necessity, but it has increased importance because of the ongoing war on terrorism and new homeland security concerns.

Gregoire says she doesn’t have a regular meeting on her schedule for time with Lowenberg, but says, “I get a weekly report from him.”

Lowenberg praises his boss, Gregoire, as someone who “has an insatiable interest in military and security affairs.”

And she, too, calls Lowenberg, who has been the state’s adjutant general for 10 years, “the best adjutant general in the country.”

Such a relationship is common and necessary. Although regularly scheduled meetings are rare, governors say their adjutants general are welcome to call anytime and the frequency usually depends on circumstances.

“It could be five or six times a month or I could go three months without talking to her,” Rendell says of Maj. Gen. Jessica L. Wright.

Still, he says, when one needs to talk to the other, the lines are open.

“She’s not bashful and neither am I,” he says.

In Vermont, Maj. Gen. Michael Dubie and Douglas have no set time to talk, but the state is small enough that their paths cross with some regularity.

“If too much time goes by, I’ll give him a call,” says Douglas. “I see him at a lot of events, so I don’t worry too much.”

Although it is not uncommon for governors to appoint an adjutant general after taking office, some do not for the sake of continuity and to send a signal.

Bredesen says he and Maj. Gen. Gus L. Hargett Jr., who was named adjutant general in 2002, “hit it off” when they first met after the governor was elected. He kept Hargett on, partly, he says, to show that the Tennessee Guard was not going to be politicized.

He is in frequent contact with Hargett, but prefers to give the general “elbow room” to do his job rather than constantly be looking over his shoulder.

All of the legislative efforts both at home and in Washington, D.C., along with meetings with adjutants general, are time-consuming, but done mostly out of the public’s view. Perhaps the most visible commander in chief role is attending ceremonies to first bid farewell to the troops and then welcome then home.

Bredesen says it is “a humbling experience” to see Guardsmen leaving families, jobs and home to go to war.

“You go to these things and you’re aware of the fact that you’re going to go home and cook a hamburger on the grill and they’re going off to Iraq or Afghanistan,” he says. “I like the welcome home a lot better.”

Beshear says he has attended any number of ceremonies and adds, “To be around the families of these folks is something special.”

But governors will say attending funerals and memorial services is as important as any duty they perform. As of early August, 614 Guardsmen had died in the war on terror and many governors attend a service for every fallen Guardsman.

Gregoire says she vowed to try to attend memorial services or funerals for all Washington Guard members.

“It was one thing to say that. But what it’s meant has been startling,” she says. “It’s been a solemn, very emotional part of my position as commander in chief that I didn’t anticipate.”
 
Douglas says he has attended the funerals of all 10 Vermont Guardsmen who have died in the wars.

“It’s not an enjoyable part of my responsibilities, but it is an important one,” he says. “That relationship continues. I’ve gotten to know a lot of Gold Star families quite well.”

Bredesen says he tries to speak with the families of fallen Tennessee troops.

“Usually, I try to contact them. It depends on the circumstances,” he says. “I think it’s important to know that the service of their loved one is appreciated. I think a phone call from the governor helps.”

Governors, too, think a visit to troops in the war zone is important and many have made at least one visit to Iraq or Afghanistan while their citizens were serving. In July, governors of Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, Nevada and Illinois got a close look at operations in Afghanistan.

Gregoire says she promised troops at a farewell ceremony that she would visit and then did so, visiting troops in Baghdad, Balad and Ramadi in Iraq.

“It was, for me, a life-changing event,” she says.

She says looking at photographs and hearing soldiers describe the experience is not sufficient. One has to see it firsthand.

“Their day to day living conditions are not understood by my fellow Washingtonians,” she says.

When she returned from a visit to Iraq in January, she spent time talking at stops across the state about what she’d seen on her overseas trip.

Governors say there are issues remaining that have to be addressed for the sake of the Guard. It is a vigilance the state chief executive officers put at the top of their “to-do” lists.

“We have to be mindful of how heavily we use Guardsmen now,” says Hoeven. “It’s far beyond what it’s historically been. We have to make sure we don’t wear out the soldiers and their families.”

Rendell says, “Can the federal government make sole decisions over the Guard? That’s on the minds of a lot of governors.”

Equipping, too, remains a problem, Rendell says, noting that Guard units often leave a lot of gear in the war zone because it is either damaged or given to other units in need.

“All of a sudden, our units are stripped of a lot of equipment,” he says.

Others mentioned equipment, health care and family support as issues that must remain on the agenda.

The urge to call on the Guard for help dies hard, evidently, for governors. Bond talks about his effort as senator a few years ago to create teams of agriculture specialists that could go to Afghanistan and help farmers make a better living from the land and, in the process, perhaps give up the opium crop that fuels much of the world’s heroin trade.

“I tried for two years to get [U.S. Agency for International Development] to do it,” he says. “They couldn’t do it.”

Finally, Bond, like the former governor that he is, turned to an organization he knew was reliable and responsive. National Guard Agribusiness Development Teams have been helping Afghan farmers since early last year.