Don't overtax National Guard

President Bush proposes to deploy National Guard troops to strengthen enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border. The assignments would, purportedly, be short-term in nature, with Guard units being rotated through the duty every few weeks.

A number of governors have heartburn over the idea because they believe the National Guard already is stretched thin and they fear an inadequate number of troops would be available to immediately respond to natural disasters or another terrorist attack on the homeland. Their concerns are well placed.

No question, the flow of illegal immigration between the United States and Mexico must be stopped. But for Bush to offer up the National Guard to help win congressional support for immigration reform is a risky proposition. What if increased funding for Border Patrol agents isn't a budget priority? Will the National Guard be assigned to the border indefinitely while Congress sorts out immigration reform and attempts to fund a significantly larger number of border agents?

More important, what is the appropriate role of the National Guard? Since 9/11, the National Guard has played a key role in homeland security activities. But another of the Guard's critical functions is to support state and local first responders in the event of natural disasters such as flooding, forest fires, tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes. Last year, when hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the Gulf Coast, some 1,000 Louisiana Guard members already had been deployed to the Middle East, which state officials say considerably slowed the response to the devastation.

While it is ideal for the Guard to stand ready to respond to whatever Mother Nature dishes out or to assist first responders, the fact remains that Guard members have contributed to every major military campaign in the nation's history. Nineteen Army Guard divisions were deployed in World War II while 138,000 Army Guardsmen were mobilized for the Korean War. More than 63,000 Army Guardsmen were called up for the 1991 Gulf War and about 29,000 Army National Guard troops are serving in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. That won't change.

And if one examines the data, there is a sufficient number of Guard troops at home and available for deployment to assist border enforcement. But it places governors in a vulnerable situation should their states be hit by a major weather or seismic event. Surely, the Guard members serving at the border could be recalled, but a delayed response, as Americans witnessed following Katrina, can be costly.

Last, how will the military be able to recruit new Guard members when their missions have become so far flung from what most people envisioned when they joined? This is not the stuff of weekend war games. It's become a life of lengthy overseas deployments, which take their toll on families emotionally and financially. Now the added duty of border enforcement?

The military already is missing recruiting goals, and the cost of the war in Iraq is mounting by the day. Can the nation afford to use the Guard in this manner?