Defend the Guard: Challenging the Forever War Paradigm in the United States

As the United States continues to provide both overt and covert support to conflicts in Eurasia and the Middle East, a growing grassroots initiative known as the 'Defend the Guard' movement has emerged to challenge federal military policies at home. Originating in 2015 with the introduction of the 'Defend the Guard Act' by the West Virginia legislature, this movement seeks to protect the constitutional rights of states and National Guard personnel. At its core, the initiative aims to restrict the deployment of National Guard troops to overseas conflicts unless explicitly authorized by state legislatures. Advocates argue that this reassertion of state control over military deployments aligns with constitutional principles and prioritizes the National Guard's primary role in domestic protection over involvement in foreign wars with ambiguous objectives.

This movement underscores a broader call for accountability and state sovereignty in military oversight, emphasizing the well-being of National Guard soldiers. States like Michigan are leading the charge by advancing legislation that requires state legislative approval before deploying National Guard units abroad. As debates over the United States' involvement in "forever wars" continue, the 'Defend the Guard' movement represents a pivotal effort to recalibrate military policies and restore balance between federal authority and state rights.

The Constitutional Basis: Protecting State Sovereignty

The U.S. Constitution grants States the right to control their militias (now the National Guard), and the federal government is authorized to call upon them only under specific circumstances, such as during national emergencies or when Congress explicitly requests their mobilization. The framers of the American Constitution understood the importance of local control over military forces, believing states should retain the power to protect their citizens.

However, this principle has eroded in recent decades. Since the early 2000s, National Guard units have been increasingly deployed for overseas combat missions—particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—without the approval or consultation of state legislatures. Over 900,000 National Guard and Reserve troops have been mobilized for these conflicts, a reality that contradicts the constitutional intent of state control over their militias.

The Defend the Guard movement asserts that the deployment of National Guard units into foreign wars should require explicit approval from state legislatures. This ensures such actions reflect the people's will and the state's best interests. It is a matter of constitutional integrity and protecting the lives and safety of National Guard soldiers, who often face extended, perilous missions without sufficient preparation or support.

Michigan's Leadership in the Defend the Guard Movement

Michigan has become a focal point in the Defend the Guard movement. In 2021, Michigan introduced House Bill 4938, a legislative proposal requiring state approval before Michigan National Guard troops could be sent into combat zones overseas. This bill reflected a growing recognition of the strain on National Guard members and their families and a desire to restore state authority over military deployment decisions.

Although House Bill 4938 did not pass in 2021, it sparked vital conversations in Michigan about the state's role in military intervention decisions. Supporters of the bill, including veterans, family members of deployed soldiers, and concerned citizens, argued that the current system of federal control over National Guard deployments leaves Michigan and other states voiceless in matters of life and death.

Republican Steve Marino, a vital supporter of the bill, emphasized: "The state legislature represents the will of the people. It's only right that we should have a say in whether or not our National Guard troops are sent to fight wars overseas." This initiative has gained momentum in recent times. In 2024, Michigan lawmakers like Steve Carra and Jay DeBoyer are considering reintroducing similar legislation, such as HB 4336. Grassroots organizations, anti-war groups, and family members of National Guard soldiers are also actively advocating for the bill, reflecting a broader dissatisfaction with federal decisions regarding overseas deployments.

The Growing Strain on National Guard Members

The Defend the Guard movement addresses the human cost of frequent, often prolonged, overseas deployments on National Guard members and their families. Unlike active-duty soldiers, National Guard members are typically civilians with full-time jobs, making the demands of extended deployments particularly challenging.

National Guard members face more significant risks for physical and mental health issues compared to their active-duty counterparts. Their dual role as civilians and soldiers often means they receive less preparation and training, putting them at a disadvantage in combat zones. 

A 2020 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that National Guard and Reserve members who served in Iraq and Afghanistan reported significantly higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression compared to active-duty personnel.

Injuries such as musculoskeletal problems, chronic pain, and long-term health conditions are also more common among National Guard members. Limited access to medical care during deployments exacerbates these issues, leaving many soldiers without adequate rehabilitation upon their return.

National Guard soldiers are often away from their families for extended periods, sometimes multiple times over the years. These deployments strain relationships, with spouses and children feeling isolated and unsupported.

The Military Family Advisory Network reports that nearly 50 per cent of military families face significant relationship problems during deployments. For National Guard families, the unpredictability of service adds further stress.

Additionally, National Guard members often face employment difficulties. Balancing military obligations with civilian careers can lead to job instability and financial hardship. According to the National Guard Bureau, nearly 40 per cent of returning Guard members experience challenges finding or retaining employment.

Why Defending the National Guard Matters

The Defend the Guard movement protects soldiers and ensures that states and their citizens are not unnecessarily burdened by overseas wars that have little connection to national security. National Guard members are ordinary citizens—teachers, police officers, small business owners—who sacrifice greatly to serve their country. Their service should be recognized, and their rights must be protected.

Moreover, the financial costs of these deployments are significant. In 2020, Michigan spent over $12 million supporting National Guard operations related to overseas deployments. Advocates argue that these funds could be better spent addressing pressing state issues such as education, infrastructure, and public safety.

The Path Forward

The Defend the Guard movement is steadily gaining traction across the United States, with states like West Virginia, Montana, and South Carolina actively considering similar legislation. Notably, West Virginia's state House passed a Defend the Guard bill in 2021, though it awaits final approval in the Senate. By requiring state legislative consent for overseas deployments of the National Guard, the movement aims to restore constitutional accountability, uphold state sovereignty, and prioritize the well-being of National Guard soldiers. Michigan's leadership in advancing such legislation demonstrates how grassroots advocacy can catalyze meaningful policy shifts.

At its heart, the Defend the Guard initiative represents a broader struggle for democracy, accountability, and the responsible use of military power. It ensures that National Guard members—not just soldiers but also neighbours, friends, and family—are not sent into harm's way without clear justification and proper oversight. This effort resonates with an urgent need to recalibrate the balance of power between federal and state governments while addressing the human and financial costs of "forever wars."

More broadly, the movement signals a deeper reckoning with the legacy of prolonged military engagements and centralized decision-making in U.S. foreign policy. Its implications extend beyond American borders, offering lessons and inspiration to other nations grappling with similar challenges. The Defend the Guard model can serve as a cautionary tale and a framework for countries seeking to address constitutional, ethical, and operational questions related to military deployments.

As globalization and alliance networks continue to shape security policies, the principles of this movement—emphasizing local accountability, democratic oversight, and a restrained approach to foreign military interventions—may redefine not only the United States' approach to defense but also how nations worldwide navigate military commitments in an increasingly multipolar world. The Defend the Guard movement is not just about the U.S.; it is a global reminder of the need for governance rooted in accountability, transparency, and the careful stewardship of human lives.