Guard, reserves to be reorganized
the washington times ^ | 14 July 2003 | Rowan Scarboro
Posted on 07/14/2003 8:26:51 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: army; guard; marines; military; navy; reorganized; reserves; rowanscarborough; rumsfeld; usaf
did several searches, couldn't find this. Expect someone to tell me it's already posted.
In the book "On Stategy, A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War" by Harry Summers, He brings out how Creighton Abrams went out of his way to redesign the Army (inculding Reserves and NG) such that the military could not go to war without mobilizing the reserves, thereby inciting the national will.
Now Rummy wants to undo that. Hard to be firm, however, I think I'm semi in Rummy's corner, the Army (and other services) should be able to deploy as a package with having to activate the reserves.
However, as a reservist, I was part of the 101st Airborne Division. In Rummy's new military, I would never have had that priviledge.
1 posted on 07/14/2003 8:26:51 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
What would you do without YOUR favorite thread ? Please Contribute
2 posted on 07/14/2003 8:27:43 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: where's_the_Outrage?
...such that the military could not go to war without mobilizing the reserves, thereby inciting the national will.
I highly doubt any "national will" would be spurred by any ARNG/Reserve call-up. Either the cause itself is enough, or it isn't. Then there are the commies who just aren't happy regardless of what our troops are doing, but who cares what they think?
3 posted on 07/14/2003 8:32:05 PM PDT by Future Snake Eater (Where's the money, Lebowski?)
It seems what Rummy is really saying is that the active duty forces have got to be more diversified and able to do all the things that Reservists are doing now....
seems to me he is admitting that gosh, gee, our Guard and Reservist have been really carrying a huge load for this country and doing a mighty good job of it.....
4 posted on 07/14/2003 8:36:05 PM PDT by cherry
To: mystery-ak; ohioWfan; MozartLover; JRandomFreeper; Miss Marple; Molly Pitcher; Neets; tillacum; ...
5 posted on 07/14/2003 8:36:31 PM PDT by kayak (Support FR with a donation ... or become a monthly donor ... or at least go bump the thread, please.)
To: Future Snake Eater
I highly doubt any "national will" would be spurred by any ARNG/Reserve call-up
Remember in the 1st Gulf War how most causalties came from one unit, a PA NG unit.
Part of the problem from Vietnam stemmed from no single community really made a sacrifice, but during the Gulf War (and this one) whole comminities were affected by call up of the Reserves. The current Military design is to cause upheavel. communities thoughout the U.S. were/are affected.
What it all boils down to is that the Active Forces need to get back to realistic levels. There was an old joke going around and I don't remember how it goes but the jest of it was that the cuts we made in the active military forces during the late 80's and early 90's equalled what at that time would have been the second largest standing military force in the world. Number 1 was what was left of what wasn't cut.
7 posted on 07/14/2003 8:57:24 PM PDT by Terp (Retired US Navy now living in Philippines were the Moutains meet the Sea in the Land of Smiles)
funny, I thought it was because of the infamous Clinton peace dividend that shifted a massive amount of active duty forces away into reserve components to save money and so that democrat progressive peace warriors could say, "we have enough forces for a 2 front war."
8 posted on 07/14/2003 9:01:57 PM PDT by PokeyJoe (Pig skin tastes like chicken)
Oh geez, a guy who actually wants the military to be structured more like it was intended. Simply amazing.
9 posted on 07/14/2003 9:05:11 PM PDT by Bogey78O (Clinton lied....people died)
To: Terp
That is actually how it goes. During Clinton's term our forces dropped some 900,000 men.
10 posted on 07/14/2003 9:06:35 PM PDT by Bogey78O (Clinton lied....people died)
What it all boils down to is that the Active Forces need to get back to realistic levels
Only part of the issue. The problem is that the military has to mobilize the reserves to deploy. For example, all the water purification units in the Army are in the Reserves, the Active Duty can't do it.
Or from the Air Force perspective, I believe, almost all the Air Tanker Refueling capability is in the reserves.
Therefore, the Active Component has gapping capability holes that are only available in the Reserves.
Rummy want to be able to deploy the Active Military withour having to call up the reserves. In the current military design, that's impossible.
11 posted on 07/14/2003 9:06:37 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
To: where's_the_Outrage?; SLB; Recon by Fire; Wally Cleaver
RumDum bump!
Who elected him to anything?
12 posted on 07/14/2003 9:08:52 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
I hear ya but to implement this bringing-on-of-national-will theory is like trying to force yourself to lose weight buy wearing pants one size too small. Our military has a mission to meet the threats of the day and that requires a lot of agility these days - especially if the overall size of the force is to be kept small enough for us to afford.
13 posted on 07/14/2003 9:09:10 PM PDT by cdrw (Freedom and responsibility are inseparable)
To: PokeyJoe
funny, I thought it was because of the infamous Clinton peace
As much as the military suffered under Clintoon, this one he's partially clean on, he cut the military, but even if had not cut it, the Reserves would still have had to been called up in near equal numbers to make up for intential defenciencies in the Active Military from the Nixon days.
Exactly the point I was trying to make. Why should they be reserve units? Make them Active Units and then no problemo!!! But we no this will take an increase in active forces and I believe Congress has to approve the number increase.
15 posted on 07/14/2003 9:13:08 PM PDT by Terp (Retired US Navy now living in Philippines were the Moutains meet the Sea in the Land of Smiles)
What it all boils down to is that the Active Forces need to get back to realistic levels.
Bingo, the reserve and guard are not for putting out brushfires or taking out the likes of Saddam. They are for cases when the country's very survival is at stake. That's not to say that they can't get some really good training every once and awhile by supporting contingencies, or even normal day to day activities of the regular forces. But the key is "occasionally" and for short periods at that. Most of these folks got off active duty, those that were ever on it, because the military life is hard on family, or they just didn't care for the "mickey mouse" of the peacetime military, or some of both. If you put 'em back in active status for too long, when national survivial is not at stake, you risk losing them and the $$ it took to train them and keep them trained.
It's a national disgrace that we couldn't even do the Balkans thing, let alone Iraq, with out involuntary recall of reserve forces. Even the so called "homeland security" mission can result in overuse of the reserve force. Sure, let them do it during annual training, maybe an extra week every 3 or 4 years even, but you just can't take them away from their families and civilian careers, many of which are also directly contributing to the military forces anyway, without losing them at the next chance they have to get out. Many reservists are DoD civilian employees, and others are employees of defense contractors. Taking them away from their civilian jobs is not "free", especially these days when much of what were once jobs done by uniformed military or at least DoD civilians, are now done by contractors.
16 posted on 07/14/2003 9:14:29 PM PDT by El Gato
What I was thinking and what bothers me about this new plan.
17 posted on 07/14/2003 9:14:53 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
Clinton, and to some extent, Bush-I before him, cut both active and reserve forces. It's just that active forces were cut so much more than the reduction in the mission, which was small to none existant outside of the strategic forces (SAC and Navy boomers), that the reserves had to pick up the slack, or the missions wouldn't have gotten accomplished. There was no shifting of regular forces funding to the reserves, there were cuts in both sides. The shifting was to vote buying pork and social programs.
To: cdrw
Read the two books by Harry Summers, COL US Army.
On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War
On Strategy II: A Critical Analysis of the Gulf War
These books tell the story of the Active Reserve breakdown better than I can. I read these book over 10 years ago, my memory can be feeble.
That's a bit strong. A lot of the tanker fleet is in the reserve, but not "almost all". Many of the Air Guard units in particular, and some reserve units too, have converted from other missions, such as fighter, interceptor, recon, etc, to tankers in the past decade or so.