Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 9, 2012

Click here to view bill details.

This is a bad policy.  They physically will be a danger to themselves and others in a combat situation.  No exemptions should be allowed.  If they allow age exeptions;  should allow physical exemptions.

magspc:

If they allow age exeptions;  should allow physical exemptions

 

 

If you read the bill, it states that only those that pass the physical.

Again there are a few sides to this:  Yes, it is easier for the youngsters to do what the guard does. But...

Why get rid of those with experience if they can pass the physical?  And...

This is in direct response to the dwindling number of young people who are unwilling to join the guard and protect their homeland (in other words; a direct result of the entitlement mentality that permeates society and the democrats today)...

So, you should be happy that people are not only willing to stay in the guard but thank the guard members for the service they render...  But

If you are worried about those over a certain age being a danger in a combat situation, remember, that alot of those that are older members have actual combat experience (not virtual combat experience that more and more young people have with video games), so if you listen to them they might save your live...

That being said, War truely is for the young and...

Dangerous to children, and other living things

As a retired member of the guard and a deployment under my belt,  I know how the system works.  A deployment isn't for the 'mature'.  Experience must be tempered with reality.  If they have reached retirement age of 60 plus.  It's kind of like pilots.  Experience doesn't overcome issues such as dehydration, sanitation, reaction times.  Even a Chief with 40 plus years should go out gracefully.  Plus the cost of keeping that experience. We could pay for 3 hard charging newer members of the military.

The previous commentors misunderstand that this bill does not, repeat not, apply to the WA national guard.  it applies to the Washington State Guard, a separate military organization within the WA Military Department.  WSG soldiers bring extensive knowledge and skill sets to the emergency management, movement control, and GIIE-P missions assigned by the TAG.  the physical demands of WSG personnel are significantly less than those of active duty and NG members.  The WSG represents a tremendous positive resource for the State of Washington, and has demonstrated it's value since it's establishment in 1853.  This bill should be passed.

 The bill wasn't very clear in in it intent.  My experience is that by the time a person  has reached a point of joining the state guard; they have diminished skill sets and not current with active doctrine. GIIE-P missions should be analzyed to whether National Guard, State Guard, Wa State Patrol should accomplish such actions.  Multiple experiences with state guard activities and participation; in most experience such personnel are unfortunately more of a hindance then a benefit to mission success.  Of course there are exceptions. Missions where I actively intereacted with State Guard members included flood and fire suppression support.  Most State Guard members are retired Guard officers that want to belong but don't meet the active requirements. 

What should be looked at is the overall scope and mission of all military units within the control or scope of Washington State.  Redefining missions and units to support state missions have become of little importance to state military and political leaders.  The outcome is abuse by federal missions to state units.   Plus significant savings could be found in the state budget in miltary expenditure.  Example the State emergency management operation center located at Cp Murray.

I think there should be more issues to consider in this equation, the age and skills should fit at their best for the requirements. When it comes to setting new grounds for the homeland we can't afford any mistakes.