Boots on the Ground

By Ian Aikens | October 30, 2023

Do you ever get tired of the US government’s involvement in overseas wars? Can its addiction to a perpetual state of interventionism in other countries’ conflicts ever be cured?

I believe there is cause for optimism. Recently I was at the State House for a working session meeting of the Federal-State Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee considering HB299. This bill, known as the “Defend the Guard Act,” would insist on the US Congress officially declaring war before any New Hampshire Guardsmen could be deployed overseas. As the committee had already been through more than six hours of testimony at a public hearing on February 3, it only allowed further testimony at this meeting by a few selected individuals who could add something new to the discussion.

First some basic facts about National Guard deployment overseas. They made up 45% of the US armed forces that fought in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars—and 18.4% of the total American casualties. New Hampshire gave its “fair share” of lost lives. Over the years, since World War II, National Guardsmen have been sent all over the planet to such faraway lands as Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Bosnia, Honduras, and Afghanistan under the noble-sounding slogans of “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” “Operation Enduring Freedom,” “Operation Spartan Shield,” “Operation Inherent Resolve,” and “Operation New Dawn.” Those arguing against the bill reinforced this point that the US military is very dependent on the National Guard to do its job. Never mind that the specific goal in mind is never quite clear, especially since the “war on terror” began in 2001. They viewed this as a risk to our country’s “national security,” should the supply of foot soldiers ever run out.

Ah yes, that holy grail “national security” used to justify every military adventure overseas. They neglected to mention that the only two times that America was attacked within its own borders in modern times (Pearl Harbor and 9/11), people were signing up to join the military left and right. Lack of manpower to fight an attack on US soil has never been a problem; however, when the wars have been for other countries’ conflicts, that’s a completely different matter that explains why folks might not be so keen to soldier up.

Of course, there’s nothing in the bill actually forbidding the New Hampshire Guard from being deployed overseas, except for one pesky little detail—the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 delegates the exclusive power to declare war to Congress, not the President. Unfortunately, that duty of Congress has been ignored for the last 81 years as World War II was the last time Congress bothered to declare war, even as America’s participation in foreign conflicts goes on and on.

Real accountability is what’s been missing all these years. If Congressional representatives know that their constituents are going to see that they voted to risk American lives in overseas exploits, there’s going to be a robust discussion in Congress about whether to declare war or not. There’s bound to be pushback on foreign conflicts, but there’s virtually no chance of Congress having any trouble declaring war when an attack occurs on American soil; after Pearl Harbor, only one member of Congress voted against declaring war.

Accountability to the public slices two ways. As opponents of the bill pointed out, Congress already controls the purse strings of military funding by voting on appropriations, so it could reduce or end National Guardsmen deployment overseas right now by defunding such spending. So, they asked why this bill is even needed. Indeed, they were correct, but in the real world of Congressmen getting their political donations from military contractors, it is considered political suicide to cut military spending. Congress is perfectly OK with funding “national security” with easily printed dollars, and amazingly there has been no significant pushback from the public, even as many have tried over the years. But, if there were a debate forced by the requirement of a declaration of war, lawmakers would incur more political risk of backlash from the public. Easy money—no problem; boots on the ground—possible pushback from constituents.

Indeed, it’s about time for some pushback against the warmongers in both parties. Have you heard some of the crazed statements coming out of the mouths of some public officials and pundits in response to the latest trouble in the Middle East: “Finish them!” and “…we should go after Iran.” To the warmonger mentality, there is an enemy under every rock, and America must take the lead to save the world for “democracy.” That the United States government often goes into battle overseas under the guise of consensus of the United Nations isn’t fooling anyone; it pressures other nations to go along and the bulk of the fighting soldiers are always from the United States.

A sobering report from the US Army War College (appropriately named) recently predicted casualties of 3,600 per day if the US government were to get into a war with Russia or China. (Never mind that the warmongers are now calling for war with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon too.) The US military would need not only the life of every New Hampshire Guardsman it could get its hands on—the report recommended bringing back partial conscription. Even the return of (partial) slavery would be acceptable to the warmonger mindset.

One thing that came up during the hearing was that somehow the bill would undermine veterans and their benefits. Two veterans gave extensive testimony for many reasons to oppose the bill, and I think favorable public support for veterans pushed some committee members to vote against the bill later during executive session after the hearing. I see it differently. If Congress had to declare war before deploying New Hampshire Guardsmen overseas, that would keep a lot more of them here—and alive—or in other states, if needed, helping out during emergencies and natural disasters. Keeping them on US soil helping Americans rather than risking their lives and adding to death and destruction abroad—how would that demoralize them?

The threat of a cutoff of federal funding if this bill were to pass was another problem noted. Yes, the federal government does fund 96%-98% of New Hampshire Guardsmen costs—$395 million annually—but wouldn’t much of that cost be reduced if less (and hopefully not any) New Hampshire Guardsmen were deployed overseas? War and its aftermath are expensive—deaths, injuries, suicides, substance abuse, and psychological and family problems. Thus the $395 million threat is way too high, and surely a few useless state bureaucrats could be deployed to more useful work in the voluntary sector to help make up the budget shortfall.

Another objection raised was the recent situation in the US House of Representatives where there was no Speaker of the House. How could war be declared in an emergency if there’s no speaker? Wouldn’t this tie the hands of the military in a real emergency? To me, this sounded like grasping at straws because, if the country were really attacked again, I have no doubt that both parties would pull themselves together very quickly and elect a speaker so they could formally declare, just as they did after Pearl Harbor.

Another issue discussed in the hearing was about deploying National Guardsmen overseas when they are needed at home during a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina. One of the vets opposing the bill insisted that the federal response in Louisiana was not compromised by National Guardsmen serving overseas. That was countered by supporters of the bill who felt that less lives would have been lost in that disaster had more Guardsmen been available in New Orleans, because in a flood, every helping hand counts.

During the hearing there was some very informative and compelling testimony. Representative Granger gave moving testimony noting how one of the co-sponsors of the bill (former Representative Adjutant) read out loud all 23 names of the New Hampshire Guardsmen killed in action in the Iraq on the New Hampshire House of Representatives floor and led a moment of silence to remember them. He also noted that the list of 23 was probably not the final toll because it didn’t include suicides of veterans who returned from the war that are never included in the official figures. All this for a “conflict” which included about 4,500 American military casualties and at least 200,000 civilian deaths (several estimates are much higher). There was also persuasive testimony from Representatives Mannion, Potenza, Wheeler, and Gerhard.

Representative Pauer put forth an extremely detailed analysis of the bill supporting it but noting a few shortcomings. She felt that the words “instrumentality of war” in the bill went beyond the original intent of the bill by eliminating any services provided by New Hampshire Guardsmen with military equipment (mostly training, not actual combat duty), so she introduced an amendment deleting that clause but leaving everything else intact. That amendment was voted down 8-11.

For those who keep track of partisan politics, support of and opposition to the bill was mostly determined by party line—Republican committee members supported it, and Democrats opposed it. But there were notable crossovers to the other side on both sides. The second vote on the bill was to ITL (Inexpedient to legislate) it—essentially kill the bill for the rest of this legislative session, and thankfully the motion failed by a vote of 8-12. A final vote of OTP (Ought to pass) ended in a 10-10 deadlock. It will go to the full New Hampshire House of Representatives for a vote in early January with No Recommendation since there was no majority.

Interestingly three of the committee members who voted against the bill on the final vote took the time to explain their votes before they cast them. All expressed support for veterans, but for a variety of reasons could not support the bill. I have to say I respect these folks though I disagree with them. At least they made the effort to explain to a room full of citizens who came out to support the bill—many of them veterans themselves—their reasons.

As for the remaining opponents, I must say I feel disdain for them. Are war, foreign interventionism, military deployment, massive spending of tax dollars, and the accompanying collateral damage—not to mention following the Constitution—not important enough issues to at least offer a thought or two?

We will find out next year what happens with this bill. Will New Hampshire be the first state to finally help bring real accountability to Congress? Will our legislators take a stand to finally force a more thoughtful foreign policy? Will a first step finally be taken not to sacrifice more American lives in vain for the mad dreams of empire builders?

---

References:

Brown, Daniel and Haroun, Azmi. (2022, August 26). Business Insider. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed at least 500,000, according to a report that breaks down the toll. Retrieved from www.businessinsider.com/how-many-people-have-been-killed-in-iraq-and-afghanistan

Cerre, Mike. (2021, July 5). NH PBS. After wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, rethinking how National Guard are deployed. Retrieved from www.pbs.org/newshour/show/after-wars-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-rethinking-how-national-guard-members-are-deployed

Crombe, Katie and Nagl, John A. (2023, August 25). The US Army War College Quarterly. A Call to Action: Lessons from Ukraine for the Future Force. Retrieved from press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3240&context=parameters

Jean-Louis, Magda; Fetterhoff, Whitney; and Hadar, Mary. Washington Post. (2013, February). Faces of the Fallen. Retrieved from apps.washingtonpost.com/national/fallen/branches/army-national-guard/

LegiScan. (2023). HB229: Relative to requiring an official declaration of war for the activation of the New Hampshire national guard. Retrieved from legiscan.com/NH/text/HB229/id/2626383

NGAUS. (2021, December 14). U.S. Combat Mission in Iraq Ends. Retrieved from www.ngaus.org/about-ngaus/newsroom/us-combat-mission-iraq-ends

NH General Court. (2023, October 11). House State-Federal Relations and Veteran Affairs. YouTube. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZAGT0omCEE&list=PLfTxvjbRJcUKnAlv3Ujgy_EEwFW3Th4te&index=6

Wikipedia. (2023, September 28). Casualties of the Iraq War. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War