The transformation of the National Guard and Reserve from a strategic reserve to an operational component is leaving the United States vulnerable to man-made and natural emergencies. We have traditionally thought of the active-duty military as guarding our skies and shores while the Guard and Reserve provide the strategic reserve. For most people, the National Guard represents the weekend warrior-neighbors and colleagues who devote a weekend a month and a couple of weeks a year to be ready to respond to national and local crises. Similarly, most people thought of the Reserve as those who had served time on active duty and who would generally be called back in the event of a major war.
Many of us came of age with the United States facing the possibility of a two-front global war against the Soviet Union and its allies, in effect a third world war. As that threat diminished, the issue became one of fighting smaller regional wars. Most Americans believed that these wars would be fought primarily by the active-duty military and that the Guard and Reserve would augment the active component only when absolutely needed. This was the understanding between society and many of the men and women who joined the armed forces.
The current transformation of the Guard and Reserve is effectively rewriting the social contract with the members of these organizations. The National Guard represents the last general vestige of the independent military authority of the individual states. Because a percentage of these service members joined first and foremost to serve their fellow state citizens, the option of state service should be maintained to ensure that state needs are adequately met. The reestablishment of the independent state defense force or state militia would provide the ideal alternative.
The various state constitutions provide for the creation of some form of state militia. The right of the states to do so has been recognized by federal law as well. In most instances, the National Guard acts as both a state and federal militia; it exists and operates under state jurisdiction until called to federal service. Some states also maintain an independent state militia, such as New York's Naval Militia. Working within the constraints of state constitutional law, each state should establish, reestablish, or expand its state militia to include an active state defense force.
The old model of the National Guard acting as bout a state and federal militia does not work when the Guard is rotating on and off active duty around the world. If a significant percentage of the state's Guard is on federal service at any given moment, then that state may not be able to respond to its own domestic emergencies-natural disasters, terrorist attacks, civil unrest, and similar unanticipated events. A state defense force, not subject to federal service, would always be available to respond to such incidents.
The solution then, is to move the National Guard and Reserve to fulltime federal jurisdiction and allow the states to develop their own defense forces. Current members of the National Guard could be given the option of remaining in the Guard or Reserve, subject to regular and more frequent call-up orders, or moving to the state militia. Such an option would reaffirm the original social contract made with the Guard members while allowing the Pentagon to continue to transform the Reserve component into an operational force.
So where does that leave us? If the current transformation continues, we will have an active military that represents the tip of the proverbial spear. The Guard and Reserve will be the shaft of that spear. From the outset, they will know that they are on call for regular and frequent active military deployments. At the same time, the resurgence of the state militias or defense forces will provide governors with a trained military force available at all times to serve the needs of the state. That is a defense in depth-from the federal level all the way down to the local level.
Mr. Hulme, a member of the U.S. Naval Institute since 1983, is an attorney in Albany, New York. He has previously contributed to Proceedings.