Taking Texas as an example, Governor Rick Perry is the commander in chief of military forces comprising not only the Army and Air Force National Guard, but also Texas’s own State Guard entirely distinct from federal military authority.
I can’t help but wonder if the US is unique in allowing for this kind of arrangement, and if non-Americans would find it surprising or perplexing. Thoughts?
The States of Australia don’t have military or naval forces. This is in a federation where the States have a similar amount of sovereignty and autonomy to the States in the United States.
Canadian provinces also do not have military forces, and I’m not aware of any movement to change this state of fact. Some of them have police forces, though.
Certain of the United Arab Emirates maintain regional forces separate from the federal military.
In Iraq, there’s the Peshmerga, which is a Kurdish militia active in Kurdish areas, and in the former Yugoslavia, each Yugoslav Republic had its own territorial defense force, paid for and under the control of that republic.
In the United Kingdom, the Duke of Atholl has the right to maintain a private army, the only one in Europe.
The National Guard aren’t state forces, they’re just pieces of the federal military.
All of them do. In addition to municipal forces, the provinces other than Ontario and Quebec contract with the federal government for the services of the RCMP. When the RCMP carries out its duties under those contracts, it acts as a provincial police force.
Surprised if it was unique, yes.
Given “a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State”, why would you think non-Americans would be surprised that some US States have their own, independent, well regulated militia?
This I didn’t know. What’s the difference, legally speaking, between the RCMP acting as a federal police force, and the RCMP acting as a provincial police force?
I thought that referred to millions of anonymous gun owners and that “well-regulated” was just a serving suggestion.
I also thought that state Guard units were under the DoD.
from Wikipedia article on German Unification:
So apparently these several larger German states for awhile retained separate armed forces financed out of their own pocket and staffed by their own citizens.
This is in stark contrast to the practices of centralized states like America or Russia to tightly control the military in a centralized fashion and send draftees to serve far away from home mixed with people from other districts. Needless to say, as well, it’s easier to serve close to home in a smaller country like Germany.
Wouldn’t it depend on the source of the laws that they are enforcing?
In Australia, the police that most people deal with are those of the states and territories. There are no local police forces, and the Australian Federal Police only enforce federal laws. Since in Australia criminal law is predominantly a state matter, that gives the state police forces a relatively large role.
I understand that in Canada criminal law is mainly a federal matter, not a provincial matter.
Some states maintain (usually very small) militias which, unlike National Guard units, are totally independent of the federal government.
I believe that the largest one is the California State Military Reserve, which has about 850 personnel.
These forces are specifically authorized under federal law, and guaranteed independence from the federal government.
Do they have firearms?
Are you certain? The governor of Arkansas called them out during the 1957 embarrassment, and the President nationalized them.
Not really true. National Guard units are state military organizations which are under the command of the governor or territorial executive and overseen, trained and administered by the National Guard Bureau of the DoD. They only become federal troops when subject to a federalization order by the president.
National Guard units are entirely separate from state defense forces, like the above-mentioned Texas State Guard, or the New York Naval Militia, which are not subject to federalization. Not all states maintain military units separate from their National Guard units.
Isn’t the title of “Commander in Chief” a little misleading? Sure, under specific circumstances he can direct operations in his own state, but if the DoD says otherwise, its tough noogies, right?
For the National Guard units, yeah, but not for the Texas State Guard. They can not be federalized.