Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Paramilitary Forces and Reserves Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Guard, Reserves To Be Reorganized
macawman    7/14/2003 9:57:09 AM
Washington Times July 14, 2003 Pg. 1 Rumsfeld orders new plans by end of the month By Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has ordered the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines to draft plans for a sweeping restructuring of the 900,000-strong National Guard and reserve forces. In a July 9 memo to the four service secretaries and the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Mr. Rumsfeld said he wants to reduce the need for calling up large numbers of reservists in a war and to do away with it altogether in the first 15 days of a crisis. He also does not want any unit called up for more than one year in any six years. "I consider this a matter of the utmost urgency," Mr. Rumsfeld said in the three-page memorandum, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times. He wants the military's plan by the end of this month as he continues to adjust the total force for a long global war on terrorism. The defense secretary suggests that civilians, corporations or technologies could perform some reserve roles. A military official said one option is to redirect the Guard and reserves to homeland defense and shift overseas-deploying reserve units to the 1.4 million active force. Larry DiRita, a Rumsfeld spokesman, said September 11 is spurring the Pentagon to look at all sorts of changes, including rebalancing the active and reserve forces. "His objective is making sure that every time you want to take action in the world we're in now, you don't have to call up a lot of reserves to do it," Mr. DiRita said. The reserves are home to a number of units that are crucial to winning wars and stabilizing global hot spots. There are now 204,000 Guardsmen and reservists on active duty. Many of the 10,000 military police in Iraq, for example, are reservists. Mr. Rumsfeld has complained that too many war-fighting skills lie exclusively, or nearly exclusively, in the reserves. This means the full deployment of troops overseas for a crisis is delayed while those units are mobilized. Most Army civil-affairs soldiers are reservists. They are playing critical roles in both Afghanistan and Iraq as peacekeepers. The soldiers provide humanitarian aid and improvements to homes, hospitals and schools. The Air Force relies heavily on reserves to man its aerial refueling fleet, while the Army must often call up military-police units in a crisis. Mr. Rumsfeld's memo sets out 10 "actions for force rebalance" - a phrase that means he wants to see plans for moving some reserve units to active duty and some active-duty units to the reserves. "Specifically address capabilities that reside exclusively or predominately in the [reserve component] and are in high demand because of on-going operations and the Global War on Terror, capabilities that are required for homeland defense missions and capabilities critical to post-hostilities operations," the July 9 Rumsfeld order states. The secretary also wants the services to develop ways, such as increased pay, to induce reservists to volunteer for active duty when needed. "Make the mobilization and demobilization process more efficient," the Rumsfeld memo states. "When reservists are used, ensure that they are given meaningful work and work for which alternative manpower is not readily available. Retain on active duty only as long as absolutely necessary." Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a TV military analyst, said the changes Mr. Rumsfeld is talking about would reverse changes made after the Cold War ended. Then, units were shifted to the reserves to help shrink the active force from 2 million to today's 1.4 million. "The type of people we're putting into the reserves are the types of people we now need on active duty to fight the war and who specialize in stabilization," Mr. Maginnis said. "What future thinkers said peacekeeping operations would be a primary mission for a large part of the force? They didn't. Future thinkers didn't envision we would have 9/11." This is not the first memo Mr. Rumsfeld has sent out on the issue. In November, he sent a memo to senior officials asking them to find reserve units that should be shifted to active duty. "I would like a list of what those things are, and then an indication of what the various services are doing to put those critical skills back on active duty, rather than in the Reserves," he wrote then. But officials say that planning was delayed. Weeks later, the military began a methodical buildup of more than 200,000 troops in the Persian Gulf for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Now that major combat operations have ended, Mr. Rumsfeld is renewing efforts to rebalance the force. "Rumsfeld's decision to rebalance the forces is prudent," Col. Maginnis said. "Otherwise, continued reliance on mobilizing reserves will damage retention and recruitment. Our reserves componen
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
BR1GAND    RE:Reserves vs Guard Roles?    7/2/2004 12:33:09 PM
Siddar, Macawman, and Horsesoldier... I hear ya L/C but this is more of a states rights issue and keeping a state level milita is in keeping with the constitution. However if states could see that in a local disaster (fire, roiting, earthquakes, flooding, and hurricanes) it would be in their intrest to have a guard force more suited for those contigencies, I think you may be able to convince those TAGs to support the change. On the Federal side it is in the Active components intrest to have thier combat arms reserves less tied to state politics, better trained, and more deployable. Also intergration with active divisions should be part of the solution for these "ready" reserve forces.
 
Quote    Reply

Siddar    States Rights and Fedral control    7/2/2004 1:12:32 PM
I think states rights and fedral control are a large reason why Guard has its current problems. States dont see current Guard as being unable to do the tasks that the states need of them. The Fedral goverment in past was willing to let the guard be inept as a fighting force only bringing them up to war fighting levels when it took over control of the units from states when they were mobilised into regular military. This meant no wacky southern govenors getting any crazy ideas like there great granddaddy had. But today when we seem to want to use Guard in every deployment of military. The need to have Guard units able to preform at same level are near it of regular units with out 6 months training and pumping units full of replacements. This seems to require change in how we do things.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Reserves vs Guard Roles?    7/2/2004 2:58:15 PM
>>Siddar, Macawman, and Horsesoldier... I hear ya L/C but this is more of a states rights issue and keeping a state level milita is in keeping with the constitution.<< Absolutely. But the Constitution does not require the federal government to pony up 95% of the funding for the state militias. For the amount of money the federal government puts into the National Guard, the only thing any state TAG should say, when told to jump, is "how high?" -- and his feet should really already be off the ground when he asks. Likewise, if the federal government wants to reorganize the National Guard, the NGAUS should not be picking up the phones to call their governors and senators. >>However if states could see that in a local disaster (fire, roiting, earthquakes, flooding, and hurricanes) it would be in their intrest to have a guard force more suited for those contigencies, I think you may be able to convince those TAGs to support the change.<< I don't think they would. Disaster relief missions are not nearly as sexy as your state having its own mechanized infantry division or armored brigade. Your typical TAG is the 20+ year end result of the current National Guard culture, with a solid helping of state politics thrown in as well to get the position. By the time you make it to TAG level, you're understanding of what your state needs (federal $$$ and prestige units) does not seem to include homeland security and domestic taskings. >>On the Federal side it is in the Active components intrest to have thier combat arms reserves less tied to state politics, better trained, and more deployable.<< True, but I question the belief that the existing USAR organization does this any better than the ARNG. The USAR combat service support units I've dealt with and/or helped train are not distinguishable from their ARNG CSS counterparts in any way, shape or form. The USAR training units I've dealt with post-9/11 during mobilization and demobilization . . . well, I'll be polite and say they were completely in over their heads and embarassing themselves, rather than advancing training. So, I'd have to go with the idea that more sweeping reforms are needed on both sides of that particular house, rather than just re-aligning combat arms units with the USAR. >> Also intergration with active divisions should be part of the solution for these "ready" reserve forces<< Again, I don't know. The idea sounds good, but the Cold War era round-out brigades and battalions do not seem to have been especially sharper than their counterparts, despite closer association with the RA and more training days and $$$. I'm not sure, but I think this applies as much to the USAR round out unit(s?) that formerly existed (at least 6th ID(L)'s round-out was USAR, while I think the other two combat brigades were both indies) as well as the ARNG. My solution would be to do away with both organizations -- roll it all into the USAR, or all into the ARNG, but eliminate the relationship to the states. Kill the state-level bureaucracies (even better, kill the state level bureaucrats . . .), and switch to a regional command structure of some sort. Consolidate units as much as possible, to reduce the "isolated armory fiefdom" phenomena where the same guy or clique of guys have been running the show (and falsifying the records as needed) for years -- the earlier idea someone I think mentioned about BRAC giving facilities to the reserves is good, I think. Decent soldiers will make the commute to be in decent units -- and if a guy can't be bothered to drive more than 10 miles to drill, he's probably not a keeper. Add in RA advisors organic at the battalion and company level, with the power to actually do something when things are broken -- not unlike the USMCR. Finally, adopt a British-style bounty system. Say cut drill pay in half, and keep the remainder as an untaxed, lump-sum bonus handed out on, say, 1 December of each year, to personnel provided they meet height/weight standards, PT standards, basic CTT testing, and any other deployability criteria. Fail to meet the standards, and lose your bonus. Given that some people will invariably fail to collect their bonus, you could actually pay those who did earn it more than just the other half of their yearly drill pay without changing the overall payroll budget, I suspect.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:States Rights and Fedral control -- Siddar   7/2/2004 3:13:00 PM
Exactly. The current National Guard remains largely driven by the logic of the Cold War, where large bolstering of the RA was necessary. How well this would have worked if the balloon went up is an open question -- the Warsaw Pact certainly was not inclined to give us the run-up time we had against the Axis powers. But, regardless, the current organization is not holding up well when put into service as part of our post-cold war requirements. But, the guys running the show at the state level (both political and military) are products of that Cold War mentality and thinking. To date they continue trying to maintain that there is not a problem, and keep doing business as usual.
 
Quote    Reply

Siddar    RE:Reserves vs Guard Roles?    7/2/2004 4:00:32 PM
One of things ive read on guard units that I found very disapointing is the large numbers of replacements units are getting when there called to active duty. The problem with this is that new people added to unit are not coming from same state so after units are done with there deployment they will loose all the replacements. This means even though those guard units that are at the end of there deployment are reaching the same quality as regular troops. They wont be able to retain that level once they revert back to state control. They will ether be very undermanned are will be flooded again with new replacements from within state who will bring the old Guard culture back into play. That means we are squandering are best current chance at reforming Guards.
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:Reserves vs Guard Roles?   7/2/2004 6:15:46 PM
Source info that expands on why the ARNG & Reserve are not ready for prime time. Point 1: Guard troops are being sent over without the means or the survival skills to do their mission and get home healthy. >>>If in the future you are associated with an attached Reserve or other units redesignated (ie. FA/ADA/EN units doing mobile infantry stuff), think it through for them in terms of home station training/equipping/manning. Trying to do it in theater will be A LOT HARDER than doing it in the States. Assigning a Washington State (81st NG Mech Bde) reserve unit to conduct perimeter security on your main base w/o giving them proper NODs/Thermals/Sniper Rifles/Optics/Commo may not be a wise thing to do. Think 2d/3d/4th order effects (ie. Past your rotation) and help establish a theater standard TDA for any unit to fall into once they arrive in Kuwait or Iraq.<<< Point 2: But it seems that the Iraqi insurgents know a soft target when they see one and have been targeting them on the MSRs and in their poorly defended base camps as indicated by the mortality listings in USA Today indicate. >>>MSRs/Logistics: Remember the long-long, 3-country MSR [main supply route] that we glazed over in the Caspian Sea scenario, forget it - Impossible unless you dedicate 6-10 Divisions to secure. A small band of insurgents have almost paralyzed the U.S. army in Iraq in terms of shutting down MSRs through IED [improvised explosive devices] attacks, RPGs, complex attacks. Hard to fight a sustained campaign when you have interrupted CL1/3/V plus other things.<<< These comments where posted by a SF LTC(?) serving in Iraq on the SFTT web site. http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=552&rnd=330.83086950229784
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Guard, Reserves capabilities   7/2/2004 6:39:47 PM
I disagree on the cutting of weekend drill pays: reducing the pay by half would effectively kill the numbers to a point below the desires the military will need to support their "war on 2 fronts" scenarios. Many Guard and Reservists have very decent civilian jobs, and often give up weekend overtime pay to serve their duty. Cutting drill pay will effectively give them sufficient reason to NOT serve their country in this role. The purpose of the Guard and Reserve needs to be remembered: they are elements to be drawn from in event of large-scale and prolonged conflicts, individuals who retain at least a bit more military skill than civilians. Without the current Guard and Reserve untis, these extra force requirements could only be achieved by re-instating the Draft. And just how qualified would those people be? (many of whom may very well have questionable ideas on the conflict, as was seen during the days of the Viet Nam war.) The last thing needed in a combat environment is a sudden increase in low-morale troops. As for the capabilities of "ill-prepared" reservists, very few of the non-active components deploy without additional training. Case in point: the several thousand troops from the Tennessee Guard heading for Iraq are undergoing an additional 4-6 month "readiness" training in Mississippi and the NTC. They are not going to be arriving in Iraq with legacy equipment (20-25 year old trucks), because they have been issued all new field gear, weapons, and have requested up-to-date vehicles from many better equipped units. Pennsylvania and New York have sacrificed our newest Bradleys to them (I performed TOW/turret system verifications). Also, as for being not sufficiently trained for the theater, how many of the current active duty personnel in-theater were just recently graduates of AIT, and how many have had the most effective training at their "home stations" before they deployed? Unless there is no choice, the Pentagon will not deploy ill-qualified troops. Prior to my Enduring Freedom deployment with this Guard maintenance unit I'm in now, we received considerable training in anti-terrorist scenarios (everything from car bomb searches to urban patrol tactics) prior to our overseas deployment. When we arrived in theater, a good majority of the federal ative component welcomed the additional maintenance and bulk numbers of personnel suddenly at their disposal (90-odd personnel in my company). A few of us got the more glamorous roles while many of us did the more limited base security and maintenance (which DID free up the more capable and proficient federal components for the "hot stuff". But without our maintenance element, that's 90 or so people they would not have had available for patrols and heavier actions and whatnot. But I'll conced that all we did was maintenance and base security for some artillery groups (even if they did not perform many fire missions, desert wear and tear takes considerable toll on vehicles). And truthfully, it seemed that when they neeeded the repair work done, with us Guardians there, it gave them more rest-up time than they would've had otherwise. I know for a fact they enjoyed all of the amenities we took with us: TVs, DVDs, Playstations, XBoxes, and GameCubes were a welcome distraction they would not have had otherwise when they got a chance out of the hot zone. The fact several of us managed to purchase world-band capable cell phones prior to deployment was an added boost also. So call us reservists lazy all you want. Even though we do have our share of questionable people (in terms of moral and physical fitness), we still were and are more than willing to sacrifice civilian careers and educations to back you full-timers up when the need arises. (And I personally know for a FACT that a good many of those active duty troops enjoyed the "morale" our reservist females provided (justification for my argument why females shouldn't be in certain environments. The military only mandatorily tests for AIDS and Hep, but those other nasties are still around.) Kind of like that old Cher song "Gypsies, Tramps, and Thieves" : some of the active duty elements run their mouths about us until they see the women in our unit, then their words change dramatically).
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Guard, Reserves capabilities   7/2/2004 7:31:28 PM
>>Many Guard and Reservists have very decent civilian jobs, and often give up weekend overtime pay to serve their duty. Cutting drill pay will effectively give them sufficient reason to NOT serve their country in this role.<< Yeah, but in the plan I laid out, they then get a nice big bonus just in time for Christmas, unless they don't meet the basic standards, to help make the wife and kids happy for all those weekends they spend at the armory or in the field. >>The purpose of the Guard and Reserve needs to be remembered: they are elements to be drawn from in event of large-scale and prolonged conflicts, individuals who retain at least a bit more military skill than civilians. << The same Cold War thinking I mentioned earlier. The purpose of the ARNG and USAR is to augment the Regulars whenever the situation calls for it. A Bosnia rotation is neither a large-scale, nor a prolonged, conflict -- but it's needed to keep the first line guys available to go into emergent contingencies, etc. Pretending we're only there for "the big one(s)" is precisely why we're coming up short for all the "little ones" we're presently taking part in.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    RE:Guard, Reserves capabilities   7/2/2004 9:48:56 PM
I agree, HorseSoldier. But the problem is, civilan employers don't. Yes, it IS a federal law that civil employers legally have to permit their employees to serve in the Reserve and National Guard. But I personally have seen instances where troops returning to "civilian life" from a deployment get "screwed over". The long deployments create employer conflicts in having to find comparablre replacements while their service members are deployed. But not all employers in general require intensively skilled individuals to fill those roles, which they might hire lower-wage temps to fill. Upon the soldiers' return from deployment, some employers have developed a more favorable rapport with these temps/new hires, and the federally mandated "hire them back at their proper level, taking into account cost of living raises and promotions", is not always adhered to. It's all about political clout: any employer can make effective enough excuses not to hire someone back, especially when they are a major employer within a certain political or economic area. But, there are many employers who ARE true patriots and endure the hardship of losing those skilled employees for a time, especially ones who know that state-funded business grants for their company may be on the line if they suddenly shun reservist/employees. I agree that there are many lax units who could certainly use more training, both in tactical roles and more opportunities other than a 2 week annual training period to work on their true skills (many units are capable of MOS-related training and support activities throughout the year, but some of them only get sufficient training during those 2 weeks. Ever been stuck with an IV by a med tech who only ever worked on mannequins?) But again, extra training periods may mean losing valuable employer favor and benefits. So until more employers realize the true level of sacrifice their reservist/employees must endure, the civilian attitude towards losing employees in time of conflict won't improve much. As far as the "Christmas bonus" idea, it sounds nice. But currently there are enlistment/re-enlistment bonuses for the qualified individuals who serve. The federal components also employ this tactic. Bonus money ensures that the serious-minded and qualified people stay in (although I have unfortunately been in company of soldiers who are in it only for such money. Generally, I just try and avoid those soldiers, as I don't need my morale scuffed). Perhaps additional government favor (tax breaks? loan forgiveness?) for businesses to further support their Guard and Reserve employees would enable more opportunities for them to take time away from their civilian jobs to get the sufficient training they'll need. Of course, it is difficult to provide the adequate training if you don't know your next hostile zone: troops that just came from the desert NTC are not the most favored ones for a near-arctic region deployment... Colleges and universities are another problem: especially when there are so many anti-war, anti-government groups and professors/instructors encouraging the student body. It can prove detrimental to "civilian soldiers" who want to pursue a college education. Most universities do receive favor in support of programs like ROTC, but they cannot guarantee that every student receives an unhindered and uncompromised experience at their campus. Had the War on Terror taken a greater toll closer to our shorelines and within our land, then perhaps more people would have seen the true sacrifices that reservists make in addition to our full-time federal troops, and even be more appreciative of them and the military in general. Despite the fact that "unglamorous" reserve component troops didn't all deploy overseas in these last years, I truly wonder if we'll ever know just how many people of questionable intent thought twice about committing any terrorist acts here in the US when they started seeing more and more armed troops in airports and guarding critical facilities. Even though for a time it wasn't realized many of them didn't even "officially" have ammo, just the fact they were there in numbers in person is what may have proved more deterrent than anyone really realizes. The Guard and Reserve do have their place, and I agree that now, with the Cold War over and police action/pecekeeping becoming so prevalent, perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the best methods to make the most effective use of these men and women..
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    Mobilization Training   7/22/2004 2:02:08 PM
One of the sticking points a lot of folks here seem to have about RC units is the long train up needed to prepare these units for deployment...but do you relaize this is exactly the amount of training the AC units do? Look at 3 ID and its training plan for its deployment to the next OIF cycle. It is the same as for a NG separate brigade. And call me silly, but when I go to the CSS ops cell for work each day, I haven't heard about massive shortages because of MSR interdiction. Yeah, there is occasionally shortages of ice cream and Snickers in the Shoppettes, but there is no severe problem with CL I/III/V or anything else. That is not to say that there are not localized shortages but that has more to do with the industrial base not keeping up with demand because the production facilities no longer exist. Its not a function of supposed ineptitude of RC units. The "bad guys" picked on soft skin vehicles because armor units were kicking the a$$ all over the place. But the CSS guys are getting good at fighting back. And a lot of them are RC units.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics