The WaPo this morning reports that U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that an Arkansas National Guardsman must return to his unit in Iraq, denying the soldier's claim that the Army 'tricked him' by involuntarily extending his term of enlistment.

David Qualls and seven other soldiers serving in the Central Region sued in federal court to challenge the U.S. military's stop—loss policy, which is designed to maintain manpower levels of units during crisis situations.  However, Qualls had an

objection that the military forced him to extend his tour after tricking him into believing he was enlisting for just one year.

Thankfully, Judge Lamberth noted that the enlistment contract was 'only a two—page contract' and it was very clear that tours of duty could be extended in emergency situations.  However, it might be helpful to examine what is arguably a real case of trickery concerning the National Guard during the immediate pre—WW II years.

Trying to convince the American people and the Congress that there was a need to boost the number of troops on active duty, President Roosevelt called the National Guard into federal service for a period of 'extended training' in August of 1940. The very next month, FDR pressed his case to get a stubborn Congress to pass the first peacetime conscription law.  Knowing it would go down to certain defeat without a clear—cut threat on the horizon, he used the National Guard in a rather underhanded fashion in order to gain passage of the Selective Service Act of 1940.

The President and his cohorts concocted one of the most amazing feats of legislative legerdemain ever seen.  The September 1940 version of the act essentially drafted men as individuals to be integrated with those same National Guard units that had been activated the previous month.  Despite using this convoluted logic to get the draft law passed, the act barely won passage.  Many in Congress and the drafted National Guard soldiers were counting on the sunset provision of the mobilization law, which was to take place just one year later in September of 1941. As events developed, Congress authorized an extension on active duty for the Guardsmen three months before the attack on Pearl Harbor.  The act passed by just one vote.

Since we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we can now justifiably view this extension as a vital requirement for national security.  But I wonder how many of those Guardsmen thought that FDR and the Congress had used 'trickery' to prevent them from retuning to civilian life?  And, did any challenge this extension in federal court?

This presents a good research opportunity for the WaPo to compare and contrast the two events — but don't count on an article to be published any time soon.

Douglas Hanson 12—09—04