via USAToday.
This is heartbreaking. My naive view of the Army and Guard was that they were siblings. Close, and with an unbreakable bond.
The Guard is seeking to destroy the Army while inflating itself.
That is skullduggery of the worst kind.
WASHINGTON -- The National Guard hopes to gain from pending cuts to the regular Army's ranks, arguing that part-time soldiers are more cost-effective than their active-duty peers and could save $13 billion annually.Read it all here.
The Guard's gambit, revealed in interviews and documents obtained by USA TODAY, exposes a widening rift among and between the services as the fight over funding intensifies in the era of Pentagon austerity. Guard leaders maintain that the Army could be cut to as few as 420,000 soldiers if the Guard is allowed to expand. Army leaders say a force that small cannot defend the nation. The Army has about 540,000 soldiers now and is scheduled to reduce its ranks to 490,000 by 2017. Dipping below 450,000 soldiers could prevent the Army from winning a war, according to documents.
This is heartbreaking. My naive view of the Army and Guard was that they were siblings. Close, and with an unbreakable bond.
The Guard is seeking to destroy the Army while inflating itself.
That is skullduggery of the worst kind.
"The nation cannot afford to have a large standing army right now." said John Goheen, spokesman for the National Guard Association. Whoa, unthinkable ten years ago for the NG to go there, but these days. I guess they got sick of being the underfed little brother. Still, based on how bloated the Army is, I can't blame them. The Army needs people breathing down their neck so it pulls its head out of its ass and reforms itself. Too many generals, too many officers, too much tail and not enough teeth. The GCV is just another symptom of this because they think they could actually develop a platform from the ground up just for itself rather than look at Off-the-Shelf options.
ReplyDeleteThis service rivalry is so sickening and the whole Active/Reserve/Guard structure needs an enema.
we haven't really had a major re-alignment of services since the National Security Act of 1947. We did that one at the beginning of our superpower status. We need a new realignment to see ourselves into the rest of the 21st century because the current structure is ill-equipped and spawns expensive rivalries we can't afford.
that's true but i don't trust the current crowd to do it properly. i hate change agents. they push change just for the sake of change, not seek efficiencies or anything. all they worship is change.
Deletewe need reform now, not disruption, and thats the other name for change...disruption. what kills me is that some whiz kids are adopting the "disruptive thinker" moniker like its a good thing. its not but the idiots don't realize it.
Just like George C Marshall took a hatchet to the pre-WWII army to prepare it for real war, we need someone to prepare us for smaller budgets and diverse threats.
DeleteWe need a Truman/Eisenhower as exec and a George C. Marshall as Sec Def and I don't see anyone in this country who has those qualities. Everybody has an agenda these days, either their career or their party or their company, but nobody who people can trust to put the nation and the services above their own parochial agenda.
Which is why the US Military as a whole needs to cut and Cap the officer Corp. Cut the Generals and admirals to what is congressionally needed. At the same time beef up and expand the warrant officer corp and NCO Corp. Enforce an up or out policy throughout the entire officer corp. I would make it harder for anyone to go ROTC, OCS or Federal academies. At the same time, expand warrant officers to all career Fields.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Army/ Army reserve and Army National guard. I would refocus the Active Army into a Fighting force. The Army reserve would focus solely into a Combat support & service service support, while the army National guard would be a Mix units
If I were King, I would refocus the regular army into heavy armor, cavalry, arty and attack aviation. The reserve should be folded into the National Guard, and focused on infantry, logistics and support, light armor, and support aviation. Airborne divisions should be eliminated, and fold rarely used para ops into SOCOM. All should be garrisoned in the US. Let the Marines be the primary forward based / expeditionary force, and keep their manpower numbers at current, or slightly above current levels. The US doesn't need a large standing army at this point, but it continues to need a rapid reaction force to support allies and contingency operations. There really is not a large army that the US will face: RoK will handle the Norks on the ground, the Russians are not threatening Europe (with an army,) the US is not going to land on Chinese soil, and any action against Iran will be with air- and seapower for the most part.
ReplyDeleteyou can't have good infantry if they're part time. it just won't work. additionally as things currently stand the Marine Corps is a bit over stretched.
Deletebut those aren't the things that really concern me about a smaller US Army from a Marine Corps perspective.
how do you make up for all the boring but essential stuff that comes from the Army? once you leave the ships and get inland its an all Army game with most of the resupply, infrastructure etc. i don't know if our way of war (or even anyone's) can be truly expeditionary anymore.
the logistics are where its at. its the Armor and aviation and Infantry that the army brings to include a bunch of other things that require protecting the Army's size. besides. just to maintain our current deployment schedule, the National Guard would be disrupting businesses (and alot of Police Depts) nationwide if they picked up more of the burden.
i just don't see how it would work.
I suppose the overlying question is where large infantry formations will be used. The era of large land wars and subsequent occupations is essentially over, at least for the time being and as far as American interests are concerned. We will support our Allies in most conflicts with China, the Norks, and Iran - but that support will be mostly with air- and seapower and logistics. Counter terror will be handled by SOCOM, and augmented by Marines when necessary. I forgot to add that Army Ranger groups should be disbanded, and their functions/personnel folded into SOCOM and the Marines as circumstances and budgets permit. The concept of a large standing Army as a deterrent force is obsolete, and the public is tired of endless deployments. But that's just my opinion.
DeleteRangers should stay where they are. They have a specialty that SOCOM doesn't have such as Airfeild Sezuire, providing security for SOCOM operations. On the plus side, they are a feeder for Green Berets and Delta. Rangers and 82 Airborne can be used as a Rapid reaction force to respond to crisis around the world.
DeleteAs an Active Army guy, I appreciate the bind we are in budget wise. Every personnel manning plan I've seen is scaled to go below 490k troops if the cutting doesn't stop. Let me say that again, the people in charge of figuring out how small the Army is going to get have a plan in place to continue cutting indefinitely until they are told to stop. Where did I get that information? My Brigade Commander counseled every CPT and MAJ affected by the OSB (officer separation board) and eSERB (enhance Seperation/Early Retirement Board) via VTC. That three of our BN Commanders just came from Human Resource Command gives me high confidence that what I was told is the honest truth.
ReplyDeleteIn the light of that bit of information, the NG proposal to bump up the authorized NG numbers makes a lot more sense and isn't just interservice rivalry. It is strategically faster to activate a Guard unit and push them through pre-deployment training than it is to grow the Active Army via recruitment.
I sure am glad Nicky isn't in charge though, it sounds like he was an enlisted man at some point. I've worn chevrons and bars now, being an officer is much more difficult than being an NCO.
I'm just a US Coast Guard Auxiliary member. I have a brother who is with the 1109th AVCRAD of the CTARNG and he's a SGT. If Crap really hit the fan, they would even call up CG AUX members who have medical and Language skills.
DeleteNot that I think it is right, but the Regular Army has sold the NG and Reserve down the river enough times to deserve this. I tend to agree that the headquarters staff of all services at every level need to be trimmed significantly-with the extent of the trimming increasing the higher one goes.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather go into trouble with a company of full time professionals than a battalion of weekend warriors.
ReplyDeleteSurely it is the return to the natural order for the US? USMC does everything outside the US; limited operations from the sea (and occasionally the sky). The Army returns to being small and is basically there for regeneration (unless there is a need to invade Mexico). And the Guard, a militia, becomes the guardian of the nation (just incase Canada invades.) Forget the Pivot to the Pacific, the US is going to pivot back to isolationism.
ReplyDeleteThe Guard is the Armies of the States, The US Army works for the central government.
ReplyDeleteAlways at odds and not natural allies the Guard is not recognized as a true military force by the Army and the Army is considered overbearing federal level braggadocio's by the guard.
I'd rather have an enlarged state National Guard than a federal Washington DC controlled standing Army that just might feel the need to obey orders against the individual states when those states disagree with the central control. War between the states anyone?
I'd rather my Governor decide who goes where and shoots whom than someone who never had a job, drew a salary or had to meet a payroll, organizing the community into voting him into the senate where he voted present until he organized the community into voting him as POTUS. He does not care about my state or my region, my city or town, nor my neighbors and can be expected to punish my state for disagreeing with his mickey mouse rules and regs.
Steve is right, prior to WW2 The US was a third world power, with a small fifth rate military and a vast pool of conscripts, An aged Navy. The people with solid isolationist feelings and desires.
It's not the US job to police the world, let them kill each other while we sell them the means to.
Had FDR stayed the floggin' hell out of Japanese and Chinese wars and the Euro's social difficulties kept his sanctions to himself the world might be a better place now.
Of course we all might be speaking German now.
DeleteWhat it is Zebra I am tired of explaining to thick Brits that the USMC and the RM though both "marine branches" are very different organisations. RM specialist infantry. The USMC do that too, but in the days prior to WW1, as late as prior WW1, they did all the stuff the British Army and our colonial police forces and armies did (all be it on a much scaler.) Normally I have to do that when disbanding the RAF comes up as a discussion topic. All good fun.
DeleteRemember the 2A,
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Militia and army aren't interchangeable terms within the context of the 2A . The 2A doesn't mention a navy, which operates outside the state, nor does it mention a marine corps which also operates outside the state. A militia is an armed force where the vast the majority, the rank and file quite literally, are part-time servicemen; the fall time is very small. I liken it to a traditional volunteer fire brigade where the fire chief and the mechanic may be full time and salaried, but all the firefighters have day jobs. You can't run an effective militia without a small time professional rump; see today's National Guard. An army is a full time organisation.
Agreed most Riki Tick!
DeleteThe rise to prominence of the "army" in our nations' defence thinking is quite understandable.
DeleteIn the UK prior-WW1 it was the RN controlling the seas that maintained our world standing. Just as Roman roads held their empire together. Come WW1 we have a massive shift in that the UK has to, well perhaps chooses to, raise a grand Continental style army to defeat Germany. You can't maintain a large navy and a large army without going bankrupt. We repeat the cycle in WW2 and then get stuck in Germany waiting for Ivan. Germany's inner border becomes our border; look at the geography parts of German are closer to London than Scotland. In man power terms large armies are much larger than large navies consequently the army displaces the navy in the natural consciousness; more families have members in the army than the navy. Further fiield warfare is simpler to grasp than naval warfare; the former is just shooting men and the latter though it can be distilled perhaps to just sinking ships actually in practice is a much subtler instrument. Soon the public associate the army with primacy in national defence. Even though the Channel is our main defence and keeping our arsenal stocked and working is dependent on sea lines of communications. And even though in the nuclear age the concentrated industrial army is an anachronism.
On top of that we have the tension between airpower and seapower. In WW2 the only way the besieged UK could strike out was airpower. But what stopped Nazi Germany crossing the Channel was the Royal Navy, and what kept the RAF flying were supply routes protected by the RN. Feeding in that is the UK's capital, the centre of our communications system, was within easy reach of the Continent; the air war was played out above those reporting the news and directly impacted on their life. If our capital had been Manchester dogfights over Kent wouldn't have had the same impact on national thinking; but if our capital had been Manchester we would still have been dependent on the RN. Post WW2 the RAF patrol the inner German border, air power again is easily accessible and understood, and it takes its place alongside the Army at the centre of UK's public thinking. But airpower has short legs. In the immediate post war decades Britain still had lots of overseas bases that mitigated the latter. And even though we have lost bases British airpower piggybacks on US airpower access to bases; but that means it has lost utility because we lack independence of action. Cheaper air travel means the public associate travelling great distances with air not sea. Even though aircraft carry only a small amount compared to ships. And even though most of that air travel is quite short in distance (within Europe or within CONUS.) You can't easily move armies by air. Lastly the manned bomber became an anachronism the day the first V2 hit London. You can buy 1,500 odd TLAM for the cost on one B2. The myth of airpower.
In WW2 the US contributed large armies to Europe and Asia. That was where the war was fought in the national mind on the ground. And post WW2 (if you see Korea as the last campaign of WW2) that is where the US armies stayed. Sitting on the inner German and Korean borders. Throw in the televisual impact of Vietnam and the Army and the USAF are seen as the guarantors of US national security. That the USN actions in the Mekong probably did more to stop VC movements and freedom of action than US Army patrols is looked over. That it was USMC as much as the US Army in the jungles. And that it was USN aircraft flying from Yankee had as much impact, if not more, than the USAF is overlooked. What was the USAF answer to interdicting the VC and NVA? B52. And it worked as well as bombing did to stop Nazi Germany industry whose production output went up year on year up to 1944.