[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Checkman

I believe it was under President Teddy Roosevelt that the National Guard structure was reorganized and became more dependent on Federal dollars.

Hmmm, a Republican bringing a Constitutionally-mandated civilian body under central control, imagine that...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Originally Posted by Checkman

Well it's my understanding that he was unimpressed with what he saw in the Spanish-American War in 1898. Some of the state militia units called to active service were top notch, but many left much to be desired. They varied wildly in their training and quality of supply. There was no standard of training, organization etc.

Yes, and this was during a time when America was first starting to flirt with the idea of removing itself from isolation and going international in its ambitions (that's another example of TR contradicting himself, BTW...he claimed to be a "nationalist", yet he did more than any previous President in projecting American power abroad). The militias thus had to be reformed to serve that purpose. This is a sore point with many Libertarians and Constitutionalists I know.

Originally Posted by Checkman

Actually many have said that the federal goverment screwed up in Vietnam because only a handfull of guard and reserve units were called up to active duty.

Partially true, but actually, what ruined Vietnam was the decision by Johnson to limit the American war effort strictly to the South and not go after the North with ground troops, which would have surely brought about a Chinese response, and nobody wanted to take that risk. That, more than the number of troops deployed (regulars or reserves), was the reason why Vietnam was hopeless from the get-go.

Originally Posted by Checkman

So while I like your concept of the Guard being held as a home defense organization I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I don't, either. However, it isn't so much my opinion as a statement of what the Constitution basically intended. I leave it up to everyone else to decide whether or not they want this (and I can't imagine that many people besides hard-core Constitutionalists really want it anymore). Most Americans - conservatives included - have international ambitions for our country, and that requires a large, federally-controlled military with a monopoly on offensive and defensive capabilities. TR recognized this, and so has almost every administration since.

But local, organized militias are basically the only sort of system that I could maybe see functioning as a resistance to totalitarian regimes (left-wing or right-wing) and invading armies.

Originally Posted by Checkman

You are right about guerilla forces. I'm 41 now and I have a bad back. I work out and I'm in pretty good condition, but my days of busting through the woods with a eighty pound rucksack, a rifle and 300 rounds of 5.56 mm NATO are over. Twenty - two years ago I was up for the task. But even back then fifteen hours of patrolling with a full load in bad weather was exhausting both physically and mentally. And that was in peacetime with the knowledge that in six or seven days I would be back in civilization with hot showers and a soft bed. I wasn't looking at years and years of the same thing with the added stress of combat. It's a demanding thing and very few are up for it. And though some of the logistics might be different the same goes for the "Urban" guerilla.

Exactly. I feel the same way about myself. Even though I'm in my mid-20s and am in decent shape (I run, bike, and play basketball almost every day, plus I used to be a sculler), and even though I own guns and know how to use them (including a Chinese AK), I recognize that living as an insurgent would be almost impossible for me. I spend 10 hours a day behind a computer (and procrastinating by coming on here ) and going to classes. There's no way I could ever survive as a guerrilla. I've had it too easy for my entire life.