previous post next post  

What do you guys think?

By The Armorer on October 6, 2006 | | Comments (14)

I've got some thoughts - but not enough battery left to express them. I'll add mine later. Who knows, they might even have some thought behind them!

Miami Herald
October 6, 2006
Military Debates Raising National Guard's Status
Two generals oppose promoting National Guard chiefs to the level of other military branch heads, but backers said it ensures the Guard gets its fair share.

By Drew Brown
WASHINGTON - Two senior U.S. generals said Thursday they disagree with a proposal that would elevate the chief of the National Guard to the same rank and status as the heads of the other military branches and provide the Guard with its own budget. NATO commander Gen. James L. Jones and Gen. Lance Smith, commander of Joint Forces, said the measures would complicate the military chain of command and cause disagreement between the active-duty forces and the National Guard.

''My gut feeling is that it would be divisive, and I think creating a separate service, if you will, would be counter to the good order and discipline of the armed forces in general,'' Jones told the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. With the passage of the 2007 defense bill last week, Congress asked the commission to examine the issue as it reviews the role of the National Guard and Reserves. Congress created the 13-member body last year to consider whether changes are needed in the way part-time soldiers and airmen are organized, trained, equipped and paid.

Advocates of putting the National Guard on equal footing with the active-duty military say it would ensure that the Guard gets its fair share of funding and equipment. Currently, the Army National Guard and the Air Force National Guard report to the Department of the Army and to the Department of the Air Force, respectively. The chief of the National Guard Bureau, who oversees both Guard divisions, is a three-star general who acts as an advisor to the four-star generals who head the Army and the Air Force.

Under the proposal, however, the National Guard chief also would hold four-star status and be given a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a six-member panel that coordinates military policy. Army and Air National Guard, with more than 455,000 troops, have provided nearly half of the combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, virtually all of the peacekeepers in the Balkans and thousands for border security, disaster relief and other domestic missions.

The Iraq war has taken a toll on National Guard equipment stocks. Stateside units have only about one-third of the trucks, Humvees and other equipment they normally would have because most of their gear has been left in Iraq. The price tag for rebuilding those stocks has been estimated at $21 billion. ''It is one of the largest military forces, and it has the most missions,'' said John Goheen, of the National Guard Association of the United States. ``Yet it has no voice at the top of the Pentagon.''

Legislation proposed this year by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Sen. Christopher ''Kit'' Bond, R-Mo., also would require that the deputy commander of U.S. Northern Command, which oversees all military operations in the United States, come from Guard's ranks. The final version of the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill stripped out those provisions and required only that the National Guard commission look into the issue and come up with a set of recommendations.

In a Senate floor speech last week, Leahy said that gutting the proposal signaled to the National Guard that Congress is ``not interested in truly supporting them.'' Jones recommended that pay and mobilization procedures be streamlined for part-time troops to ease the call-up process and to ensure that once they are called up, Guardsmen and Reservists receive the same pay and benefits as active-duty troops.

Albuquerque Tribune
October 5, 2006
Top Officer: Guard Not Needed On Joint Chiefs
By Michael Gisick
America's highest-ranking military officer says he opposes a push backed by Gov. Bill Richardson to name a National Guard officer to the country's top council of generals. Richardson said last month that the Guard deserves a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recognition of its increased role in the nation's defense. But during a stop in Albuquerque on Wednesday, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace said the Guard is already adequately represented on the council.

Adding a National Guard general would be "counter-productive," Pace said. The Joint Chiefs, made up of six U.S. generals, advises the president on military policy. It includes representatives of the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, as well as a chairman and vice-chairman. Pace said the Army and Air Force National Guard are represented by the generals from those branches. Giving the guard components a distinct voice in the council would impede efforts to develop a "joint voice," he said.

Pace praised the Guard's performance and said the military "could not do what we've been asked to do without the Guard and Reserves." Richardson and other governors have expressed concern that the Guard - traditionally used by states to respond to natural disasters - has been stretched thin by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Richardson has said that placing a Guard general on the Joint Chiefs would give the Guard more say in its future and recognize that it is no longer a "secondary" military force.

As many as 40,000 National Guard troops were deployed to Iraq in 2004, about 40 percent of total U.S. troop strength there, though that number has declined since then. Members of the New Mexico Air and Army National Guards have made about 5,000 individual deployments since 2001, said Lt. Col. Kimberly Lalley, a New Mexico National Guard spokeswoman. That includes deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, the U.S.-Mexico border, Latin America and elsewhere, she said.

The New Mexico National Guard has about 4,000 members, Lalley said. Pace's comments on the Guard came after a luncheon speech Wednesday at the Rio Grande Inn in Old Town. Pace, the first Marine Corps general to serve as Joint Chiefs chairman, acknowledged a recent surge in violence in Iraq, which he attributed to increased operations against insurgents by U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Pace said the U.S. has enough troops in Iraq but that a greater number of competent Iraqi troops need to be trained, a process he acknowledged hasn't always gone well. "Clearly," Pace said, "many of the Iraqi forces we've trained haven't (had) the loyalty we'd want to the central government." That comment came after one audience member, who identified himself as a Marine Corps veteran, asked Pace how long the United States would put up with "this nonsense from the Iraqis."

Many Iraq analysts, including some within the U.S. military and intelligence communities, have issued increasingly dire warnings in recent months that sectarian violence and death-squad killings have left Iraq spiralling toward all-out civil war. But Pace praised the "courageous" leadership of Iraq's civilian leadership and said many Iraqi troops were performing well. He said the United States was determined to succeed in Iraq.

A handful of quiet protesters stood outside the hotel before Pace's speech. Terry Riley, a member of the group Veterans for Peace, said he was concerned the U.S. veteran's health care system still wasn't prepared to deal with returning service members. Several other protesters held signs declaring U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson, an Albuquerque Republican, and President George W. Bush were "terrible on national security" and "disgracing our intelligence." Wilson and her opponent, Attorney General Patricia Madrid, attended Pace's speech. The speech was sponsored by the Kirtland Partnership Committee.

Share This Article:

Categories:

14 Comments

By ry on October 6, 2006 11:50 AM
Absolutely the various Guard and Reserve components need a seat at the table. So does the Coast Guard. And a Congress that doesn't jerk them all around by first approving something and then shaving money off midstream or other nonsense. If for no other reason than What's His Names Total Force Doctrine is the game we live with after Vietnam. It just means tough decisions that nobody will want to make because it is more important to be elected and re-elected than do the right thing by anyone. Ergo, it'll never happen in any really helpful or meaningful way.
 
By V29 on October 6, 2006 12:22 PM
When you ask these guys to lift a heavy portion of the load, it might be wise to listen to them It sounds like a good plan to me.
 
By jim b on October 6, 2006 12:53 PM
For the record my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it. Hell it even bores me .. wait for it ..... BUT … I agree that it would be counterproductive. The Army National Guard is under the Army, just like the regular armies, corps and divisions are. The Army decides where to put the bucks. The Army decides where to put the priorities. Making the Guard co-equal would be like trying to run two Armies. Already we have finite assets, can you imagine what kinda dog fight this would cause? Taken to an absurd level why not give the 82nd Airborne a seat at the table too? Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, National Guard, and Coast Guard (not technically a member of DOD on the normal day) now competing as co-equals. It’s bad enough with just the Army, Air Force Navy, and Marines scrapping for stuff. Are Guardsmen second class citizens? Unfortunately yes they are. This is due in no small part to the nature of the beast. They have sizable commitments to the state in which they are a militia. On a normal day they are not Federal Troops .. when have we had a normal day lately? cord my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it. Hell it even bores me .. wait for it ..... BUT
 
By jim b on October 6, 2006 12:56 PM
See I told you my opinion was screwed up ... I got interrupted and hit post. Disregard "Hell it even bores me .. wait for it ..... BUT" at the bottom unless you are interested in loops.
 
By MajMike on October 6, 2006 2:02 PM
Federal is federal, and Guard is state... except when the Guard is sometimes federal, in which case they already have a seat close enough to the table. Chief of NGB sits one row back of the service chiefs, just like the CAR. don't dick with it, it finally works (somewhat)...
 
By han solo on October 6, 2006 3:40 PM
I humbly disagree with the good Maj Mike. It doesn't work and needs to be dicked with, a lot. I get the why though Mike. Funding is already piss poor and adding mouths doesn't make things better. It's a fixed pie and one more mouth to feed screws up the alotment everyone gets. But, everyone is short equipment. Everyone is short on everything. The Guard gets the shaft even more than the Marines. Same for the Coasties. Could the Guard as it exists now perform a REFORGER type mission(either to Iraq or to the DPRK) which it is supposed to be able to? Doubt it. A total mobilization would find the Guard with large portions of its gear in Afghan and Iraq. That is not a working system. That's a busted system. If the system was working I'd say no the Guard doesn't deserve a seat at the table because all of their needs had been met. Because the Guard isn't getting what it needs they deserve a slot until they consistently get their needs met over a long period of time. We expect the Coasties to handle all the Home Game jobs. But with what? Cutters that are old and knackered? Pieced together Cutters that leak and have serious restrictions on use because of the raggedy ann nature of them? The Navy is almost entirely focused on the Away Game, gets the lions share of money going to naval jobs, and we now have to pay attention to the Home Game a lot more(or do you think illegal immigrants will just stop coming of their own accord, or terrorists for that matter?). That ain't working either. No the system doesn't work. Not even close or we wouldn't even be having to have the discussion of whether the Guard needs a seat at the table to make sure its needs get filled. The System needs to be reformed, and severly. The problem is money. Doing so without being honest about how much it will cost, and spending what it will cost, will make things much worse(how many more Airmen will the AF then have to cut to get the F-22? Kind of situation). That's a problem of us Normals not getting how much it costs to do anything(whether it be corporate action or how expensive it is to field an Army). Then, there's also the question of since Army doctrine is that you have to activate the Guard when you go to war shouldn't they have a say in whether or not they're ready? As it stand now, being one row back, they don't. They get treated like red-headed step children in peace time when it comes to money and equipment; and then they don't even really have a chance to demand time to make up shortages before getting deployed. That's a busted ass system right there. That wouldn't fly anywhere else other than in the public sector. It shouldn't be accepted here either. The problem is money. We Normals never seem to be willing to accept that it costs money to outfit, train, maintain, and even replace equipment in peacetime. We don't seem to get that when you need it you need it yesterday, and not sometime in the next two years. We've got this stupid idea that a mass, impressed, unprofessional army can do the job. So that's what we strive to spend for, just like in 1938 when the Army was a tiny corps of professionals, except once in a while someone smart comes along and finds a way to keep a large force together. There aren't anymore accounting tricks left. The system is busted. give the Guard a seat at the table(or at least the Coasties!) and then take that to COngress to demand the money that doing the job actually costs. Don't subsidize dysfunction---which is what we've done since Reagan left office. No more. Subsidizing dysfunction is f'ng retarded. (pours Jim B and Maj Mike some scotch. No I'm not a Guardsman. I have no turf to defend. Just an interested joker who has looked at the money fights on The Hill spanning twenty years.) Yes, putting the GUard at the table would seriously screw up how the money is divided. It'd also make right 15 years of 'Yes COngress we can do this for less.'"(pssst, you, aide, cut X more from the Guard to make this work.)' It'll hurt, but it's worth doing.
 
By Marine6 on October 6, 2006 3:57 PM
I have long suspected that most of the Guard's problems are associated with the politics that come from being a bifurcated organization, part Federal, and part state. Let's face it, when Federalized Guard units can no longer afford to be "merely militia" that drop the plow and grab the musket and rush to defend against marauding Indians. Today the expectation is that a Guard unit, when Federalized, will be the equal of a regular unit. Unfortunately, there are times when local politics makes this difficult. I have seen, and worked with, Guard units that were not up to standards, and often the problem could be directly traced to to a weak group of officers. Often that weakness appeared to be a direct reflection of local/state politics. It probably isn't going to be a popular suggestion, but why not abolish the Guard and make those units Army and Air Force Reserve units? Then there would be absolutely no question as to what standards they would have to adhere to, and also no question as to who they answered to. If there were state emergencies (floods-hurricanes-etc) the governors could petition the SecDef to call up selected reserve units to provide assistance. My own observations after a number of years in Washington are that the National Guard Bureau is a snakepit. Within the five walls of the Puzzle Palace there is no greater gathering of professional politicians. They routinely undercut the Administration (regardless of party) and the JCS by running to their friends on Capitol Hill. They seem to be always willing to place parochial Guard interests ahead of the greater Army or Air Force interest. The answer is not to put the Guard at the JCS table as equals, the answer is to put them in thier place as a subordinate part of the Army and Air Force and get rid of all the b.s. that goes along with being a state organization. And before all you Guard types jump on my case and tell me a Marine doesn't know squat about the Guard, let me ask you how many of your Guard "round-out" brigades made it to Gulf I? And let me remind you that it was a Marine Reserve tank company that led the way in Kuwait City. My point really is that Navy and Marine Reserve units, and Army and Air Force Reserve units don't seem to have all the problems that Guard units have that are associated with their dual character. Marine6 Sends
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 6, 2006 7:33 PM
Ry - you are mistaking a seat at the table as budget authority. The Guard budget is *still* going to go through the SecDef to get out of the building, and under this SecDef, little would change. There's a reason, however, that the Guard is in better shape than the Reserves - as Marine6 points out - the Guard has an out... exactly due to their state missions and organizations. The politicians understand that Guardsmen are voting constituents in ways that Reservists and Regulars are not, and the Guard leverages that influence.
 
By Marine6 on October 7, 2006 4:50 PM
First, I'm sorry for the double post, you know we grunts aren't comfortable with anything that doesn't have a bayonet. And, secondly, although the Coast Guard used to be a part of the Treasury Department (temporarly assigned to the Navy in time of war) they are now part of the Department of Homeland Security. In either case they wouldn't get a seat at the JCS table. [If you're confused by Marine6's first sentence - I removed the double post. Carry on]
 
By ry on October 7, 2006 7:30 PM
Castle Echo is in full effect. Basically I'm sayin' that having a seat at that particular table puts them in that fight. The current set up is the three major depts each get a third. Some Congressional oversight over how that is spent on weapons systems and such. And the Depts then have *some* autonomy on how the rest is spent. BUt, if you have to bring in the Guard guys to Congress you could, in theory, have more money to go around. If not, then you have someone at the table that can say "We're not ready. Here's a list of our deficiencies and we won't be ready until that's made up." and have it stick since he's now got the pull to derail chit. Fine it has to go thru the SecDef. Rummy may not change anything, but this is bigger than Rummy(and you know it). If the Guard has more of a chance to get a word in edgewise, to talk directly, it'll get more of a chance to get its needs met. At least at that point they can't whine about their Regular brothers shafting them. Less friction between the two as they both have a common enemy(everyone go after the Secretary of Defense and run him up the flag pole). Similar thing happens in academia. If I can't get to the purchasing dept when they keep ordering the wrong reagent or substitute something cheaper than what I ask for my project isn't getting done. Because it's the private sector I can go down there and tear someone a new one without ruining my career overly much. Is that true for you guys? Marine6: what I'm saying is that the CG shouldn't be part of DHS or the system should be reformated to allow a seat. It's a big war and a multigenerational one. Being purple has to mean way more than just the AF, Navy, and Army getting along when they pound someone else into snot in a foreign country. The fight is beyond just those boundries. The Coasties aren't going to get more money by just being part of the DHS even though they need it(see them being given responsibility for air intercepts.). I'm not a Guardsman. Nor do I listen to what a lot of Guardsman complain about. I'm a cheese eating college boy with chitty vision, who reads a ton, and a mouth that's too big for his body. The Guard's been hosed. Find a way to get them un-hosed without giving them a JCS seat and I'll go along with it. But until then I'm standing firm. It may not be 'can do'. It may not be tough. It may not be accepting your orders after raising some objections, but it is the right thing to do. If we're pressed into something larger than Iraq and bigger than small regional conflicts we're in for a serious hurting. That's a situation that is just stupid to maintain. I don't want to lose one man more than is necessary(niether do the rest of you), but the current set up ensures we will lose quite a few from equipment and funding shortages. When you need it you need it yesterday and not some time next week. We're now playing with a 'sometime next decade' system. Maybe you, having served, can have your private reservations and carry on otherwise; maybe even be compelled to do so. I'm a civilian and don't have to. I can bad mouth it for all its suckiness without losing friends or access. The current system sucks. "The politicians understand that Guardsmen are voting constituents in ways that Reservists and Regulars are not, and the Guard leverages that influence." I don't see that as a dodge John. Maybe because I'm not sure what you mean(they get to vote for people opposed to sending them to war? Is that what you're sayin'?) When the decision gets made it's made. Just because the Regular component doesn't vote as much doesn't wipe away anything from where I sit. Yes, political will is a serious point. But, like the Athenian soldier, if the Regulars don't go to the city center to have your vote counted then they're being silly, particularly if they see that somehow as the military controling gov't(you didn't stop being citizens with a say in how or what should be done.). Laziness is never an excuse to lay the blame on someone else. When they get the call they have no real choice but to go or go to jail. That's what a lot of the bellyaching has been about. Haven't you essentially jumped on the backs of people who tried to circumvent their commitment along those lines? I know I have(you took the money, you took the health care, you took the college money, and guess what, now it's time for you to fulifill part of that contract too.). But, as M6 said, the Guard is expected to be the equivalent of its Regular brothers when called up. Someone has to pay for that. I cannot see making Conneticut Guardsman suffer because they come from a smaller state than CA. That means it has to be federal money. Gah. I'm rambling and the Wife is calling me for the begining of weekly Anime Watching. Have fun shootin'.
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 8, 2006 9:44 AM
Marine6 - I'm guessing you are getting a timeout error when you post comments. Comments *almost* always post, even if you get the timeout error. You get the timeout because my software doesn't send you the new page until the rebuild of the site is complete, and if there is a lot of traffic on the server (I'm on a server with several other bloggers) you may time out - but your comment posted. In short - it's probably not your fault.
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 8, 2006 10:12 AM
Ry - having a seat at the that table does not increase your budget reach. The pie is what the pie is - giving them a seat will not result in more money. Voting. You completely missed my point, I think, because I didn't write a book. I didn't say the Regulars don't vote. Our vote is dispersed. Most of the soldiers assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas, don't vote in Riley and Geary counties. They vote at the "home of record," usually the place they enlisted from. For all my years on active duty, I voted in Columbia, Missouri. I didn't live there, however. Some of that is inertia - but a lot of that is taxes. Vote somewhere, and you are assumed to be establishing citizenship - which then makes you subject to the taxes in the area your are in. For example, Missouri did not tax my military income because I wasn't residing in the state for at least 30 days a year. They did take their chunk of any other income. Kansas didn't tax my income because I wasn't a resident, technically speaking. If the regulars get any power in the voting booth, it tends to be because military retirees tend to cluster, and they are a group that votes, so they can have an impact in that regard. The Guard is different. They vote where they live, and their senior NCO's and Officers many times are people of influence in their communities, and often have money, to boot. And have the right and ability (unlike Regulars) to be involved in politics. Then there is the trump card - the Governors. The active component only has influence there (and that has to be carefully managed to stay legal) in those states that have the large installations in them. The Guard has all 50 governors available - a military leadership that is primed, and able, to use that resource. So the Guard also tends to have 100 or so Senators it has access to, in ways the active component does not. Teddy Kennedy can give the active forces the boot, but fight mightily for the Massachusetts Guard, as an example. And the NGB knows that well. The OCAR (Office of the Chief of the Army Reserve) has the greater problem, but he's also the smaller portion of the force, too - though critical with the CSS assets being crammed into there. But creating new 4-Star positions isn't going to fix any of that - but will also create a cascade of new 3 and 2 star positions. Just what we need, more Generals... And then there's the whole Air Guard/Army Guard bifurcation - and who is going to decide the Force Structure of the Guard and Reserve? Are they going to get to do that themselves?
 
By ry on October 8, 2006 10:33 PM
Maybe you need to write the book on why it won't increase spending on the Guard then. If they have a serious say in what gets done and why within the DoD, and can screw people over big time, then doesn't it behoove the potential screwee to make the screwer happy? When they're sitting at the JCS seat don't they then get a voice to tell the SecDef that they're not ready and why? I'm not saying that just giving them a seat will cure COngressional parsimony. I am saying that it will force the Army to give a greater portion of the existing pile to the Guard(and Reserve possibly) component. Game theory: if it really serves your purposes to have me happy then it makes sense for you to make me happy. If I have the ability, by sitting on the JCS, to kill something it makes a ton of sense for you to make me happy. Maybe that means we rethink the AF/Army/Navy gets a third each formula? Yeah, that leaves a lot of *other* problems, like how to fund any kind of Transformation. So what?(Not the Big Boot! Not in the face!) I'm looking at a 25-50 year time frame in which Transformation is not always the financial Lodestone it is now. Long term health of both the Guard and Regular components is my goal. Don't mean I'm not wrong though. We padawan have much left to learn. "Then there is the trump card - the Governors. The active component only has influence there (and that has to be carefully managed to stay legal) in those states that have the large installations in them." And whose fault is that? If we're going to throw SecDefs and generals under the bus let's do it for a really good reason: not trying to make a convincing case to the American public to give them more money and not doing didly to educate the public about what the real costs are(and I'm not talking Iraq here). That's a finger that should be pointed with righteous anger in my lowly opinion. Going to the Hill isn't enough. Being seen on C-SPan while before Congress is not enough. And, no, doing so is not trying to steal control of the gov't away from the civilian leadership. It's Pericles going before all the citizens of Athens to tell them what he needs to defend his Long Walls(or whatever his strategy for the Pel. War was), and not Pericles telling the Athenians he needs a ton of money so he can secretly funnel money to his slush fund and build the Acropolis. That's democratic. That's transparency. That's not a threat to the Republic. And yet, the Guard is experiencing shortages. If they've so much pull with Senators why are they still short? Two reasons are possible. THe states/Congress is dodging their responsibility. The Regulars are being real dang greedy. I vote for a little of both. I'm not buying that Senators really matter that much. Given the upsurge in populism that's held sway for 10-15 years I'm not seeing them lavishing attention on the Guard(last 10-15 months yes, but years? No way.). That's soccer mom territory. That's the education establishment. Face it John, less than or equal to 1% of the population is under arms(of any kind). If that is(or can) be applied to the states then that is no political power base at all. Not one that can match the teachers unions. Not buying this one hoss. "And then there's the whole Air Guard/Army Guard bifurcation - and who is going to decide the Force Structure of the Guard and Reserve? Are they going to get to do that themselves?" Heh. There's a simple but difficult sol'n to this. Would mean a no longer independent AF with the Guard and Regular heads being co-equal(kinda like two kings in Sparta). Like *that's* ever going to happen though. Restating major points: Yes, because the Guard needs a voice in go/no go decisions(Total Force Doctrine should be a two way sword) and they need to be able to have a means of cutting someone off at the needs(or keeping their cajones in a pickle jar) to ensure they get their needs met. (Oh Lord, for what we're about to recieve(right between the eyes) we will forever be spiteful and resentful. ;) )
 
By LongTabSigO on October 9, 2006 3:14 AM
Following the logic of those who think a Guard 4-star is a good idea, the Cdrs of USSOCOM, TRANSCOM, and STRATCOM (all joint commands who are not Service Specific) should also be on the joint chiefs. Bottom line, it's a bad idea because the Guard is not a federal entity. Now if the Dept of Homeland Security were putting together a homeland defense version of JCS, I would entertain (probably champion) an argument for Guard membership there. Generals Smith and Jones are right on this one.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.