By Berkay Aksoy
Cold War
The Cold War era, extending from the late 1940s through the early 1990s, was a time of change for State Defense Forces (SDFs) in the United States. During this era, SDFs adapted to significant geopolitical changes, evolving military doctrines, and shifts in how their role in national and state security was perceived. Most SDFs existed primarily in cadre form, poised to recruit and expand should the National Guard be deployed for federal missions.
Post-World War II, the structure and nature of state-based military forces underwent a significant transformation. As the National Guard returned from the war, the majority of State Guards, having filled the gap during the Guard’s absence, disbanded. The State Guard’s dissolution in 1946-1947 mirrored the broader uncertainty about the role of state-based forces in an age increasingly dominated by nuclear capabilities and superpower rivalry. Within this context, the National Guard faced scrutiny and proposals for its integration into federal structures, challenging its traditional dual role as both a state and federal force.
The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 catalyzed a resurgence of interest in State Guards. With the federal mobilization of National Guard units, states like Mississippi, Texas, California, and New York revived or maintained frameworks for their State Guards, focusing on internal security, traditional militia roles, and community-based services. For instance, the Mississippi State Guard augmented the National Guard in law-enforcement operations, showcasing their utility even during limited mobilization. Debates centered around whether these forces should primarily function as expanded state police or maintain their traditional militia-based community roles. The State Guards’ activities diversified, ranging from flood response to countering potential Communist threats and preparing for nuclear attack scenarios.
Legislative developments in the 1950s significantly defined and solidified the functions and responsibilities of State Defense Forces (SDFs) in the United States.These changes recognized the states’ right to form SDFs during times when the National Guard was called into federal service. Consequently, the State Guard was established as a standard operational response to substitute for the National Guard during its federal mobilization, a policy both necessitated by practical circumstances and strengthened through legislative support.1
During this period, the mission of the State Guards was expansive and critical, significantly contributing to the maintenance of state security and the well-being of the public.The range of their missions encompassed:
1-Law Maintenance and Public Order: They were tasked with maintaining laws, suppressing disorders, and protecting life and property. This role was crucial in ensuring public safety and maintaining civil order during times of National Guard federal mobilization.
2-Response to Domestic Emergencies: State Guards were prepared to respond to various domestic emergencies that could arise within the state.
3-Protection of Vital Resources: An essential function involved guarding and protecting vital industries, installations, and facilities, particularly when other means of protection, like local police or private security, were deemed inadequate.
4-Counter-Subversion Activities: The State Guards played a role in preventing or suppressing fifth column activities. This task often involved working in conjunction or support of other state or local law enforcement agencies, as well as federal agencies.
5-Cooperation with Federal Military Authorities: They were expected to cooperate and coordinate with federal military authorities engaged in active military operations or internal security missions within the state.
6-Information and Observation Duties: Collaboration with federal military authorities extended to information gathering and observation duties. In extreme emergencies, the State Guards could assist in civilian evacuation efforts.
7-Flexibility to Undertake Additional Duties: Finally, they were empowered to perform other duties as assigned by the state executive, under the constitution or laws of the state. This provision allowed for a degree of flexibility and responsiveness to the specific needs and challenges faced by individual states.
The Cold War era’s challenges vividly reflected in the state-specific evolution of SDFs. Texas and California, for instance, emphasized training and readiness, aligning their SDF activities closely with evolving national defense priorities. New York, despite ambitious plans for a comprehensive State Guard, grappled with equipment shortages and shifting federal policies. In contrast, states like Mississippi created a State Guard Reserve as a contingency force, while Florida chose not to re-establish a State Guard in the 1950s.
Post-Korean War to the 1980s marked a phase of introspection and survival for the State Guards. The focus in many states during this period pivoted to civil defense and local emergency responses. The National Guard’s role, primarily during domestic disturbances in the 1960s and the Vietnam War, reinforced its public order maintenance function, leaving State Guards in a liminal space of operational uncertainty.
And, The Vietnam War era witnessed a renewed interest in SDFs in some states, demonstrating a resurgence in militia forces. This period saw states like North Dakota and Nebraska planning or reactivating their State Guards, albeit often as a backup plan rather than an active force. The State Guards during this time, while crucial as a contingency force, often functioned more as veteran organizations than active military units.
9/11 Attacks
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, had a significant and immediate effect on the United States, necessitating a rapid and resolute response from different branches of the nation’s defense system. Among these responders were the State Defense Forces (SDFs), which, in the wake of the National Guard’s shifting focus towards overseas operations, found their roles and responsibilities significantly expanded.
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the SDFs, particularly those in New York, were significant in providing support to emergency responders. In close collaboration with the State Emergency Operations Center and the National Guard, the New York Guard provided essential services like emergency shelter, food, and medical assistance. These contributions played a key role in responding to the immediate crisis and also highlighted the adaptability and preparedness of the SDFs during national emergencies.
As the National Guard’s focus increasingly turned to international assignments in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, the SDFs began to play a more pronounced role in maintaining domestic security. This shift was significant as it led to a reevaluation and revitalization of the SDFs, turning them into key players in the homeland security domain.
Their expanded roles were diverse and multifaceted. For instance, Alaska’s SDF was tasked with guarding critical infrastructure sites for an extended period. In New York, the Military Police Brigade of the New York Guard undertook critical security duties at strategic locations. These roles were not limited to ground forces; Air Force SDFs in states like New York and Texas played a significant part in augmenting the security of Air National Guard installations.
The period following the 9/11 attacks also saw an increase in advocacy for the SDFs. A strong case was made for the creation of a national-level Homeland Defense Force under the Department of Homeland Security. This concept was built on the existing framework of the SDFs, where individual members could be trained to provide physical security, crowd control, and logistical support to both military and civilian authorities, effectively complementing the roles of federal forces and the National Guard.
Former SGAUS President Paul McHenry highlighted the cost-effectiveness of this approach, noting that a “Home Guard” company would support, but not lead, civil government functions, filling in behind police and emergency managers as required. This proposed Home Guard was envisioned not as a warrior class of the Armed Forces but as a support system for those with expertise in handling emergencies.
The period following the 9/11 attacks also saw an increased recognition of the potential of SDFs. The overall numbers of state guardsmen swelled by upwards of 25% following the 2001 terrorist attacks. Efforts were made within Congress to introduce legislation that would allow federal recognition and formal support to these state defense forces.
However, the journey was not without its challenges. One of the most significant obstacles was a lack of awareness among state and national security leaders about the existence and capabilities of the SDFs. This general ignorance posed a significant barrier to the efforts of SDF leaders in making their cause and merits known. Furthermore, those who were aware of the SDFs often confused them with private militia forces associated with radical organizations, necessitating a concerted effort to clarify their role as government-authorized and professionally organized militias.
Another challenge faced by the SDFs was the restriction on receiving in-kind support from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). While SDFs were expected to remain funded by the states, the inability to utilize federal resources, even surplus federal equipment and supplies, posed significant operational challenges. This was particularly acute given the close working relationship many SDFs had with their state National Guards.
Despite these challenges, the post-9/11 period has been a time of growth and increased recognition for the SDFs. Their ability to provide trained emergency response personnel intimately familiar with local and regional requirements has been invaluable.
With the legislation enacted in 2003, SDFs have begun to take on significant roles in such disasters. You can see the act below.2
•The Act acknowledged, “Domestic threats to national security and the increased use of National Guard forces for out-of-State deployments greatly increase the potential for service by members of State defense forces established under section 109(c) of title 32, United States Code.” (Sec. 2(1))
*This finding highlighted the growing need for SDF involvement due to the heightened demand for National Guard units in external operations.
• It was found that, “The efficacy of State defense forces is impeded by lack of clarity in the Federal regulations concerning those forces, particularly in defining levels of coordination and cooperation between those forces and the Department of Defense.” (Sec. 2(2))
*This part emphasized the need for clearer guidelines to enhance the operational effectiveness of SDFs in coordination with the Department of Defense.
• The Act also identified that, “The State defense forces suffer from lack of adequate military training, equipment, support, and coordination with the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies as a result of real and perceived Federal regulatory impediments.” (Sec. 2(3))
* This one underscored the challenges SDFs faced due to insufficient training, equipment, and support, highlighting the necessity for improved federal assistance and coordination.
Furthermore, the SDFs have demonstrated their potential to enhance the ability of states through planning, coordination, and rehearsals during times of normalcy, thereby bringing effective organizations and their capabilities to bear in times of crisis. This adaptability and readiness establish the SDFs as a crucial element in homeland security and emergency response, serving as a key player in the nation’s overarching security strategy, rather than merely acting as a reserve force.
Sources;
Cold War
*Stentiford, Barry M. The American home guard: the state militia in the twentieth century. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2002. Web.. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <lccn.loc.gov/2001006543>..
*State Defense Force, Monograph Series, Winter 2005, Homeland Security(pg. 30 The Korean War and the Cold War/ pg. 51 The Cold War and After)
(https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA494465.pdf)
1: National Archives And Records Administration. (1951) Code of Federal Regulations: State Guard Regulations, 32 C.F.R. [Periodical] Retrieved from the Library of Congress,
https://www.loc.gov/item/cfr1951005-T32CXIP1102/. 
9-11
https://web.archive.org/web/20150924001035/http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2014-065.pdf (pg.44)
(pg.9 -21st Century Issues)
https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2010/pdf/bg2474.pdf (pg.5- State Defense Forces post 9/11)
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA494468.pdf (pg.7)
Documents provided by Barry M. Stentiford;
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1HehtnDR0r89xOuoTaIMndMcCKXTQqIh1?usp=drive_link
2: https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/2797/text
