Vermont’s forum for direct democracy, the town meeting, made national news in March when 50 towns passed resolutions calling on the state legislature to investigate the effect National Guard deployments have on the state, asking Congress to balance authority over the Guard between state and federal governments and calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
More soldiers from Vermont have died in Iraq, on a per capita basis, than any other state. Currently, there are more than 1,300 Vermont National Guard troops in Iraq, with more deployments scheduled. Adults in their prime are carried away from their homes for a year at a time, perhaps forever and since no end to these deployments is in sight, it’s reasonable to ask about the effects these deployments have on the home front, who should control of these deployments and when the Iraq occupation will end.
All of the above is town meeting, direct democracy. Then the resolutions went to the state legislature, the sausage factory, representative democracy. First, all references to Iraq were stripped away as “too controversial.” The Bush administration launched an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation and has occupied it for two years, but to ask when we’re getting out is “too controversial.” In 1777, Vermont, then an independent nation, outlawed slavery in its Constitution. In January 1941, the Vermont legislature declared war on Nazi Germany, 11 months before the U.S. Congress. In 2005, asking when U.S. troops are leaving Iraq is “too controversial.”
Soon, all that remained was the study of the economic impact National Guard deployments have on Vermont communities and as the legislature expired, the resolution was tabled, victim of a scare campaign. Some legislators propounded the peculiar notion that assessing the value of Guard soldiers’ civilian contribution to Vermont society is “disrespectful.” “It’s a huge slap in the face” to members of the Guard, said Republican Rep. Patricia O’Donnell.
Air Guard Brigadier General William Etter called his legislator, Democratic Rep. Tim Jerman to say the economic study could be interpreted by the federal government as anti-war, causing the Pentagon to throw South Burlington’s Air Guard base into the Base Realignment and Closure process, even though no Vermont base was named in the first round of that process. Mr. Jerman subsequently said on the floor of the legislature, “Any threat, real or perceived, to the operation of the Vermont Air National Guard, is unacceptable.” That motion was seconded by Gen. Etter’s boss, Major General Martha Rainville, commander of the Vermont National Guard, who says studying the economic consequences of deployment leaves the state’s bases “vulnerable.” (Gen. Rainville has expressed interest in running as a Republican in 2006 for Vermont’s single seat in the House of Representatives.)
It’s an intriguing thought that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would be spitefully motivated to close an air base solely because he took offense at what he perceives to be an anti-war resolution. It’s a disturbing thought that this notion is taken seriously and that military officers would engage in politics in a time of war to intimidate civilian legislators, from whom they should be taking orders.
Republican Rep. Doran Metzger argued for tabling the economic study before joining his Guard unit to ship out to Iraq. Mr. Metzger said he thinks it’s wrong to question the Guard’s presence in Iraq while troops are deployed. If not now, when? Wait until the troops come home, when the topic becomes moot?
Democratic Rep. Francis Brooks, chair of the General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee, said, “I’m surprised that people reacted to their fears and apprehensions over a rational evaluation of the resolution.” No stranger to the military, Mr. Brooks’s nephew is Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, spokesman for the U.S. Army’s Central Command.
Watching all this from the citizens’ gallery was Nancy Robinson, a National Guard blue star mother, who said, “I don’t see anything harmful about simply gathering information.”
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Vermont’s forum for direct democracy, the town meeting, made national news in March when 50 towns passed resolutions calling on the state legislature to investigate the effect National Guard deployments have on the state, asking Congress to balance authority over the Guard between state and federal governments and calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
More soldiers from Vermont have died in Iraq, on a per capita basis, than any other state. Currently, there are more than 1,300 Vermont National Guard troops in Iraq, with more deployments scheduled. Adults in their prime are carried away from their homes for a year at a time, perhaps forever and since no end to these deployments is in sight, it’s reasonable to ask about the effects these deployments have on the home front, who should control of these deployments and when the Iraq occupation will end.
All of the above is town meeting, direct democracy. Then the resolutions went to the state legislature, the sausage factory, representative democracy. First, all references to Iraq were stripped away as “too controversial.” The Bush administration launched an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation and has occupied it for two years, but to ask when we’re getting out is “too controversial.” In 1777, Vermont, then an independent nation, outlawed slavery in its Constitution. In January 1941, the Vermont legislature declared war on Nazi Germany, 11 months before the U.S. Congress. In 2005, asking when U.S. troops are leaving Iraq is “too controversial.”
Soon, all that remained was the study of the economic impact National Guard deployments have on Vermont communities and as the legislature expired, the resolution was tabled, victim of a scare campaign. Some legislators propounded the peculiar notion that assessing the value of Guard soldiers’ civilian contribution to Vermont society is “disrespectful.” “It’s a huge slap in the face” to members of the Guard, said Republican Rep. Patricia O’Donnell.
Air Guard Brigadier General William Etter called his legislator, Democratic Rep. Tim Jerman to say the economic study could be interpreted by the federal government as anti-war, causing the Pentagon to throw South Burlington’s Air Guard base into the Base Realignment and Closure process, even though no Vermont base was named in the first round of that process. Mr. Jerman subsequently said on the floor of the legislature, “Any threat, real or perceived, to the operation of the Vermont Air National Guard, is unacceptable.” That motion was seconded by Gen. Etter’s boss, Major General Martha Rainville, commander of the Vermont National Guard, who says studying the economic consequences of deployment leaves the state’s bases “vulnerable.” (Gen. Rainville has expressed interest in running as a Republican in 2006 for Vermont’s single seat in the House of Representatives.)
It’s an intriguing thought that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld would be spitefully motivated to close an air base solely because he took offense at what he perceives to be an anti-war resolution. It’s a disturbing thought that this notion is taken seriously and that military officers would engage in politics in a time of war to intimidate civilian legislators, from whom they should be taking orders.
Republican Rep. Doran Metzger argued for tabling the economic study before joining his Guard unit to ship out to Iraq. Mr. Metzger said he thinks it’s wrong to question the Guard’s presence in Iraq while troops are deployed. If not now, when? Wait until the troops come home, when the topic becomes moot?
Democratic Rep. Francis Brooks, chair of the General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee, said, “I’m surprised that people reacted to their fears and apprehensions over a rational evaluation of the resolution.” No stranger to the military, Mr. Brooks’s nephew is Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, spokesman for the U.S. Army’s Central Command.
Watching all this from the citizens’ gallery was Nancy Robinson, a National Guard blue star mother, who said, “I don’t see anything harmful about simply gathering information.”
© Mark Floegel, 2005