The bill, its sponsor admits, has little chance of passing, and could be on uncertain legal ground if adopted. But Maryland Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr.'s intent wasn't so much to create a law as to spark a debate on how the National Guard should be used in time of war.
Madaleno's bill would allow the governor to prohibit the federal deployment of the Maryland Guard unless Congress authorizes the use of military force or passes a declaration of war. It declares that the authorization of force that Congress passed in 2002 for the Iraq invasion is no longer valid because "Iraq does not pose a continuing threat to the national security of the United States."
Madaleno (D-Montgomery) said the Maryland Guard's repeated deployments in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have exhausted its resources and worn out equipment that is needed on the home front in case of an emergency, such as a hurricane or tornado.
The overseas tours have also "raised a bigger question about the use of our National Guard in foreign deployments," he said.
"The ongoing use of the National Guard puts a huge strain on emergency services in every state," he said. "And if we're going to have these long deployments in open-ended conflicts, we have to figure out what their role is."
The legislation is part of a broader movement called "Bring the Guard Home," in which a collection of peace organizations have promoted similar legislation, none successful, in other states. And it follows attempts by other states to limit the amount the Guard can be called to federal duty. In 2005, for example, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer asked the Pentagon to return his state's citizen-soldiers from Iraq so that they could help combat wildfires. The request was denied.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/22/AR2009022202088.html?wprss=rss_metro
