We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2007 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:03:45 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2008 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification As many readers know, the Castle Moat has not required any topping off of late, nature having been doing that for us. The Moat Monster is quite disturbed, as he prefers brackish, stagnant water with sickly, easy to catch fish and stale cheetohs that Ry tosses out the dungeon grate (we do let him have light for 30 minutes a day). The Missouri River right now is just a touch under 6 feet above flood stage, and should crest today. This is well below the 15 foot flood stage in the Great Flood of '93. This being a slow-moving disaster,... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html Wed, 09 May 2007 06:47:47 -0600 I must admit that I know next to nothing about the funding mechanisms for the guard. If the state really does fund the entire budget, then the state clearly should have first claim on their services. But I somehow doubt that is the case. Seems to me I've heard the Congress critters arguing endlessly about all kinds of funding for guard equipment. But I'm sure that we must have a few experts in the crowd who can set me straight. The only reason I ignited this little brush fire is that we have seen a significant sea change in recent years on how we utilize our guard and reserve forces. For many years they were the ultimate backup for when the Evil Empire came West. But now they are expected to carry a full (some might say disproportionate) share of the load. Mobilizing a unit, training for deployment, and forward deployment invariably take every moment available. How can we reasonably expect guard units to maintain an edge for their combat role, and still devote siginificant time to all these non-combat related duties? In the days before Bill Clinton took an axe to the Army and cut it nearly in half we didn't have this problem. We had sufficient combat power in the active forces to meet most contingencies. Of course, even then we would have needed guard and reserve components to meet our logistics and non-combat arms commitments. There was a time, not too long ago, when the guard could reasonably be expected to have at least some period of time before being called up as a part of a general mobilization. But now units get called as part of a combat rotation. And, as we have learned the hard way, even the logistics and sustaining units MUST be combat ready in all respects. I know that this flies in the face of all that "citizen soldier" and "Minuetnan" mistique, but aren't we treating reservists and guardsmen (and guardswomen) the same as regular soldiers? We just let them spend some of their time in civilian clothes. So why do we let anything else interfere with valuable training time? And before anyone pings on me I KNOW that the best solution would be to right size the Army and the Marine Corps. We should have a significantly larger active force to meet our requirements. But I don't think anyone really sees that in the cards anytime soon. Marine6 Sends http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59900 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59900 Thu, 10 May 2007 14:59:59 -0600 is the season for Tornado Outbreaks. But using the National Guard for home crisis is a long time precedence. A few examples that I know or have been involved with from a LEO point or a military point, way back in the day: Flooding in South Georgia Late 1990's Idaho Wild Forest Fire's 2000 Katrina rescue Hurricane Gloria Hurricane Hugo (Active Military in this one) California Quake of ...1998? (I forget the year) World Trade Centers- 9/11 National Guard unit get suckered.....errr....volunteered for other civic state duties as well on a fairly regular basis. I imagine it can be fairly irksome to know yer paying for something, thats somewhere else, when you need it. That being said, it still does *not* excuse the mud match. Just in case I wasn't clear on that :P ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59882 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59882 Wed, 09 May 2007 19:11:00 -0600 Is it possible that the duality of duties currently given to the guard, military and civil, lead to an organiztion that sometimes has difficulty doing either particularly well? Having had some experience with training both Marine and Navy Seabee resrvists over the years it has been my experience that it is difficult in twelve weekends and two weeks of active duty for training to teach and maintain necessary military skills. In fact, I suspect that most would agree that maintaining unit skills in the reserves is basically a full time undertaking that is made even more difficult with all the administrative crap that is piled upon all commanding officers. I am reminded of the experience in Gulf I, in which I recall the Army found for the first time that the decision to place nearly all of the logistics and sustaining capability in the guard and reserve carried a significant price. And, if memory serves, I seem to recall that not a single round-out brigade made it to the fight. There was significant discussion at that time that much of the cause for those shortfalls was based on specific guard related problems, many of which appeared to be related to the screwy politics of the National Guard Bureau's sometimes prickly relationship with the regular Army. And before you write me off as just another elietist Marine, let me say that I happen to think that the Air Force has done a spectacular job of integrating their reserve and air guard forces into the regular force in a way that, at least most of the time, appears seamless to us ground pounders. They seem to get the "one force" concept, and to integrate it across the Air Force. And if you ask any (well almost any) Marine who was supported by "the boys from Syracuse" in the first round in the sandbox you would find that we would go to war with them in a heartbeat. I guess that my basic argument would be that the role of the military is the same in both the active and the reserve components. And training for that role, and maintaining readiness, is a full time occupation. Any civil role; disaster relief, law enforcement, support for special events such as the Olympics, are all secondary and should only be undertaken when there is no detriment to the primary role of readiness. And, John, I agree that some states (I am familiar with the militias in New York and South Carolina - which, by the way, do undertake some of those secondary roles) have both Guard units and militias. Perhaps that is a model we should examine more closely. Since those secondary roles are mainly state responsibilities, the capability to respond to them should be clearly under the control of state authorities. And the states should bear the funding responsibility as well. I don't think my idea is going to take flight anytime soon, but perhaps it should. After all, don't we all take the same oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies. And don't you think that it would make a major difference in the regular Army's perception of the weekend warriors if everyone was trained to the same standards, and held to the same standards? And, gee, wouldn't it be nice if resources could actually be allocated to the people who really need them, instead of being allocated on who has clout with the bureau -- or the right Congress critter? Marine6 Sends http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59881 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59881 Wed, 09 May 2007 18:11:24 -0600 (please note that my characterization of the Guard's duties are during times of natural disaster. I am fully aware of their wartime duties as well, and am glad for it.) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59876 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59876 Wed, 09 May 2007 14:57:18 -0600 Is disaster relief a military function? Sure it is. If you think about every military operation around the world, it's a response to a crisis. Some are political, some are meteorological, some are social- but they are all crisises. The National Guard's job is to protect and promote the safety of each state's citizenship, no matter what reason is given. They provide necessary functions such as debris clearing, security details, and general law enforcement. Red Cross is not a disaster relief clean-up service- our core function is to provide food, clothing and shelter. We are federally mandated to provide these services during times of national crisis, in addition to aid to military families. Any other services are secondary to those two missions. *steps down off of soapbox, putting Red Cross hat away for now* http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59869 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59869 Wed, 09 May 2007 13:15:56 -0600 But, is disaster relief REALLY an appropriate core function of a military organization? I was thinking this very thought as I listened to the b.s. on the radio while driving home. The Guard is a military force, not the Red Cross. Of course there are occasions when we want to use our resources as best we can to help in emergencies - but disaster relief is NOT why we have or need the Guard. (/rant off) Playing politics with the survivors of this kind of disaster is simply distasteful.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59867 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59867 Wed, 09 May 2007 12:15:36 -0600 Marine6 - I do approve of prompt, *accurate* counter-battery. That's what the radars are for. As for the rest - certainly open to discussion, but you'd have to let the currently serving Guard members out of their contracts if they wished. Some states, Georgia and New York come to mind, do maintain state militias that are not a component of the National Guard, IIRC. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59861 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59861 Wed, 09 May 2007 10:30:45 -0600 I would have thought that an old Redleg would have approved of prompt counterbattery fire. For years we have taught that the appropriate response to an ambush is overwhelming return fire and to assault right through it. Governors should understand that their duty is to their people, and not to their party. I know that this will also draw a lot of fire, but why not get the Guard out of politics? It seems to me that in this era, when we are actually utilizing the reserves and the guard to regularly supplement the active force, there is an inherant conflict between the bifurcated roles of the guard. If they are mobilized they obviously can't be available for disaster relief. But, is disaster relief REALLY an appropriate core function of a military organization? History has many examples of military forces being utilized in a disaster relief capacity, but that has always been as a secondary role. There are some (particularly governors from both parties) who seem to think that the primary duty of the guard is non-military functions within the state. But we fund the guard through the Department of Defense. We equip and train them to military standards. And we justify them by their capacity of reinforcing the active forces. I totally agree that we need a larger active force, particularly in the Army and the Marine Corps, to reduce the operational tempo on those who are bearing the brunt of the current war. And I would agree with those who say that the current tempo is raising havoc with family lives, training objectives and, in many cases, unit cohesion. But wouldn't it make a lot of sense to remove the question of politics from the equation (as much as possible) by making all guard components reserves? By making them only answerable to the Department of Defense, and not the governors, we would certainly streamline a number of things. And for those who have ever had to deal with the National Guard Bureau within the five sided puzzle palace, we would (hopefully) get rid of one of the most insidious snake's den of politics in Washington. Marine6 Sends http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59860 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59860 Wed, 09 May 2007 10:22:45 -0600 Frank, you answer your own question. That said, years after Congress authorized it, the Army is saying "Why yes, we *do* need those extra soldiers, thank you." http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59857 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59857 Wed, 09 May 2007 09:23:48 -0600 Not a rant, John, but rather a well-deserved bilateral scolding. Wouldn't it be nice if politicians (north or south of the 49th) would show some statemanship instead of making the playground antics at your local primary school look composed and mature in comparison? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59856 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59856 Wed, 09 May 2007 09:17:57 -0600 Not to belabor the obvious, but if we had a larger ACTIVE component, we wouldn't have to rely on state Guard components to confront the external threats. I know you more senior professionals will tell me why this won't work, but perhaps to avoid this kind of sniping we ought to do this: 1) Increase the Federal active and reserve components to be able to adequately face the external threats we have, without having to rely at all on state Guard units. 2) Allow the states to fully control, and fund, their own state militias. De-"militarize" Guard units, remove all their Federal obligations, and restructure them so they are more of a "paramilitary" force to be used in their state roles - disaster relief, civil control, and as a check on the powers of the Federal government. Even I can see issues going to this system, namely: money, personnel, jurisdictional, command & control, equipment, etc. Which is probably why we have the system we now have! LOL http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59854 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59854 Wed, 09 May 2007 09:05:41 -0600 Well, fully half of Missouri will have to be underwater before it hits us at the Castle. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59850 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59850 Wed, 09 May 2007 08:14:25 -0600 "How highs the water, momma?" "Said it's 5 feet high and risin'" Makes me glad I live on my lil mountain heh.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59849 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/ready_fire_aim.html#comment-59849 Wed, 09 May 2007 08:10:37 -0600