National Guard’s Disaster Role

Your Dec. 2 editorial, “National Guard Is Able, but It’s No Terrorism Expert,” suffers from an inaccurate reading of the National Defense Panel report and a lack of understanding of how the National Guard responds to disasters.

The editorial suggests that the NDP wants to usurp civil authorities and make the Guard the lead agency during a domestic terrorist incident. It seriously questions the Guard’s ability to respond effectively to such an event. The Times is incorrect in both assessments.

The report said the National Guard “should provide forces organized and equipped for training of civil agencies and the immediate reinforcement of first-response efforts in domestic emergencies.” It also recommended that “the Guard focus on the management of the consequences of a terrorist attack and natural disasters.”

This is nothing more than the Guard’s constitutional role applied to the growing threat of domestic terrorism. In an emergency, the Guard would not necessarily be the lead nor would it be the lone responding agency, but rather a military force with specialized skills and equipment available to work with federal, state and local civil authorities. Naturally, as the NDP noted, the Guard would need some added tools and training to counter the emerging possibility of biological or chemical attack.

Quite frankly, the Guard has already demonstrated its ability to respond quickly and effectively to a terrorist incident. After the Oklahoma City bombing, guardsman were among the first emergency personnel to reach the Murrah building, cordoning off the area so rescue personnel could work.

EDWARD J. PHILBIN

Major General, USAF (Ret.)

Exec. Dir., National Guard Assn.

Washington