"Guard, reserves to be reorganized"
Mike
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.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030714-121504-8161r.htm
Helomech
"Mike" <yared...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2f6bb44a.03071...@posting.google.com...
Yep, and I am sure he grand old plans too.......which will mostly die as
soon as they hit Congress, and they tell him, "Screw your plans, we ain't
funding it".
He will be darn lucky if he can change 10 percent of the Reserve force.
Helomech
ssn...@earthlink.net
"Helomech" <Helomec...@neb.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RRFQa.37$6a3....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Let us hope you're right. They've screwed up the Army
enough already.
Snark
(did I just say that?) Smoke out!
--
Una Salas Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
The only hope of the doomed is not to hope for salvation.
Aeneid - Virgil 19 BC
David Casey
us.military.army:
> Let us hope you're right. They've screwed up the Army
> enough already.
Some is already happening.
Dave
--
You can talk about us, but you can't talk without us!
US Army Signal Corps!!
www.geocities.com/davidcasey98
Helomech
"ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:M9HQa.1991$Mc.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Helomech" <Helomec...@neb.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:RRFQa.37$6a3....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >
> > "Mike" <yared...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2f6bb44a.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > > Guard, reserves to be reorganized
> > > 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.
> > >
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030714-121504-8161r.htm
> >
> > Yep, and I am sure he grand old plans too.......which will
> mostly die as
> > soon as they hit Congress, and they tell him, "Screw your
> plans, we ain't
> > funding it".
> >
> > He will be darn lucky if he can change 10 percent of the
> Reserve force.
> >
> > Helomech
> >
>
> Let us hope you're right. They've screwed up the Army
> enough already.
>
> Snark
> (did I just say that?) Smoke out!
>
>
Yeah, they are operating like there are 12 or 15 active divisions, oops you
mean we really only have 10? Darn........
Optempo sucks hard on AD right now, and ain't much better for the Guard
either........
Anyone else see the photo of the Guard FMTV with the sign in the front
window (In Iraq) it says " One weekend a month my ass".............. LOL.
Another pipedream they just dreamed up in DC, the new Reserve Chief says he
wants to re-org the Reserve force so soldiers in the Reserve / Guard are
only called up for active duty every five years........ Well I suppose you
could do that, as long as you pull the troops out of half a dozen countries,
and make the AD pick up more missions.
(All of which - ain't gonna happen).
Helomech
Of every One-Hundred men, Ten shouldn't even be there,
Eighty are nothing but targets,
Nine are real fighters...
We are lucky to have them...They make the battle.
Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior...
and He will bring the others back.
- Hericletus (circa 500 B.C.)
ssn...@earthlink.net
of the Reserve and Guard as well. After all, "High tech
gadgets will do all the 'real work'. Where have we heard
that one before?
> Optempo sucks hard on AD right now, and ain't much better
for the Guard
> either........
>
No screaming eagle poop there.
> Anyone else see the photo of the Guard FMTV with the sign
in the front
> window (In Iraq) it says " One weekend a month my
ass".............. LOL.
>
LOL!
> Another pipedream they just dreamed up in DC, the new
Reserve Chief says he
> wants to re-org the Reserve force so soldiers in the
Reserve / Guard are
> only called up for active duty every five years........
Well I suppose you
> could do that, as long as you pull the troops out of half
a dozen countries,
> and make the AD pick up more missions.
> (All of which - ain't gonna happen).
>
Wait a minute, right now there are reserve units that are
being deployed in support of AD units on the same heel and
toe schedule and sometimes back to back schedule as the AD
and the only limitation has been on National Guard units
doing more than 12 months at a time. Of course some of
those have done 12 months on, 6 months off and 12 months on
again.
Are they smoking straight crack up there in DoD?
Snark
Helomech
I would say......yes they are. At least the civilians up there are.
GWB, and most of the crowd of yes men that Rumsfeld has around him too.
Remember when in GWB's campaign speeches he complined that the Clinton
administration had the Military hopelessly over extended?
Aren't we so much better off now?
Most of the Generals and Admirals keep telling them, the optempo is too
high, and you have us spread too thin in too many places, and they don't
listen.
A lot of Guard and Reserve troops that were called up were either kept at
their Mobe site in Conus, or only got as far as Kuwait, many have been
released from AD already, and some have recieved end of mission orders.
Which may leave the active forces in Iraq to stay even longer.
Why don't they use more Reserve forces in Aghanistan?
Why are they sending already activated Guard and Reserve forces home from
Kuwait? Why not back fill into Iraq and bring home the 3rd ID?
Bosnia is all Guard right now, and so is Kosovo as of this rotation. (All
common knowledge - released by DOD news).
Helomech
Colin Campbell
<Helomec...@neb.rr.com> wrote:
>A lot of Guard and Reserve troops that were called up were either kept at
>their Mobe site in Conus, or only got as far as Kuwait, many have been
>released from AD already, and some have recieved end of mission orders.
>Which may leave the active forces in Iraq to stay even longer.
>
>Why don't they use more Reserve forces in Aghanistan?
>Why are they sending already activated Guard and Reserve forces home from
>Kuwait? Why not back fill into Iraq and bring home the 3rd ID?
>Bosnia is all Guard right now, and so is Kosovo as of this rotation. (All
>common knowledge - released by DOD news).
The units being released are those that were called up to support
general fighting. (Combat bridging units for example.) If you want
to release 3ID then you need to mobilize a Guard division.
--
In every generation the world has produced enemies
of human freedom. They have attacked America because
we are freedom's home and defender. The commitment
of our fathers is not the challenge of our time.
President George W Bush - Sept 14, 2001
Helomech
"R. David Steele" <steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote in message
news:erubhvovdo3jm7h6k...@4ax.com...
>
> |
> |>A lot of Guard and Reserve troops that were called up were either kept
at
> |>their Mobe site in Conus, or only got as far as Kuwait, many have been
> |>released from AD already, and some have recieved end of mission orders.
> |>Which may leave the active forces in Iraq to stay even longer.
> |>
> |>Why don't they use more Reserve forces in Aghanistan?
> |>Why are they sending already activated Guard and Reserve forces home
from
> |>Kuwait? Why not back fill into Iraq and bring home the 3rd ID?
> |>Bosnia is all Guard right now, and so is Kosovo as of this rotation.
(All
> |>common knowledge - released by DOD news).
> |
> |The units being released are those that were called up to support
> |general fighting. (Combat bridging units for example.) If you want
> |to release 3ID then you need to mobilize a Guard division.
>
> was. Guard divisions are far worst. Unit strength is low, there are
> too many that are not MOSQ and few divisions have been through a
> recent rotation of either NTC or JRTC (let alone War Fighter).
>
>
Thats a mighty big generalization....
Actually most active divisions are trained very well, most notably -the
82nd, the 101st, the 10th mountain, the 1st Cav.
The 3rd got tagged for Iraq because they already had a full brigade over in
Kuwait - they had already been training up for the desert before the war as
well. If you check, you will see there are multiple division flags over in
Iraq, including the 101st, 82nd, 1 Armor Div, as well as elements of the
2nd and 3rd ACR's.
It all just boiled down to logistics and train up time.
many other divisions were given warning orders to deploy as well, but ended
up not being needed. (As was the case for many Reserve and Guard units as
well).
As for sending a Guard Division into Iraq, well that would be fine, The
guard does very well when tasked in large operations.
As for Guard divisions being poorly trained, I don't think so, they just
have ten percent of the budget of an active division, and 5 percent of the
training time. Just like on active duty, in the Guard - some units are
outstanding, and others suck.
Most Combat arms units in the Guard would LOVE to go to NTC or JRTC, but
usually get few chances to do so, mainly due to scheduling and or funding.
Helomech
David Casey
us.military.army:
> Once they get a unit, it stays. There are Guard units, even whole
> states that have done very little (good political protection, I guess)
> while other states have 80% of their units deployed.
A lot depends on what type of units that state has. New Mexico had just
about all the transportation units deployed yet only a few folks were taken
from the air defense units.
David Casey
us.military.army:
> Few active duty divisions are trained to the point that the 3rd ID
> was. Guard divisions are far worst. Unit strength is low, there are
> too many that are not MOSQ and few divisions have been through a
> recent rotation of either NTC or JRTC (let alone War Fighter).
Yet the Guard units don't have the extra burden of having to retain loser
soldiers. Guard units are made up of folks who have often times held
several different MOS's, have been around the military longer than some
CSM's on active duty, and have been to more combat zones than those same
CSM's. Of course, just like on active duty, there are crappy units in the
Guard as well.
ssn...@earthlink.net
>
> "ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
>
news:KV3Ra.3984$Mc.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net..
they're
reorganizing the Army and we've got 7 of 10 divisions
deployed instead of 3 of 10. That's a more than 50 percent
increase in utilization. We're not better off just busier.
Not just that but the USAF has an aging fleet of heavy lift
aircraft (C-5As and C-141s with airframes that are rapidly a
pproaching end of cycle). The C-17 fleet has not been
increased and does not have the capability of carrying
enough cargo to establish an air bridge for one division
much less the forces in Iraq. We have very little
capability to project and support our forces and yet are
deploying them at a rate never seen since the height of the
Vietnam conflict.
> Most of the Generals and Admirals keep telling them, the
optempo is too
> high, and you have us spread too thin in too many places,
and they don't
> listen.
>
Yes inviting a strategic asymetric defeat in detail. Isn't
that the same thing the USMC General was forced to resign
over during the Millenium Challenge '02 exercises last year?
> A lot of Guard and Reserve troops that were called up were
either kept at
> their Mobe site in Conus, or only got as far as Kuwait,
many have been
> released from AD already, and some have recieved end of
mission orders.
> Which may leave the active forces in Iraq to stay even
longer.
>
Oh goody!
> Why don't they use more Reserve forces in Aghanistan?
Wrong types of forces Reserves are mostly CS and CSS. The
NG has Combat Arms these days and they are being sent to
most of the OOTW committments like Kosovo, UNMNF etc.
> Why are they sending already activated Guard and Reserve
forces home from
> Kuwait? Why not back fill into Iraq and bring home the
3rd ID?
> Bosnia is all Guard right now, and so is Kosovo as of this
rotation. (All
> common knowledge - released by DOD news).
>
Elefino? (A cross between an Elephant (mouse built to Gov't.
Specs) and a Rhino.)
Snark
Bryan S. Slick
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 12:37:40 GMT, "Helomech"
> <Helomec...@neb.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> >A lot of Guard and Reserve troops that were called up were either kept at
> >their Mobe site in Conus, or only got as far as Kuwait, many have been
> >released from AD already, and some have recieved end of mission orders.
> >Which may leave the active forces in Iraq to stay even longer.
> >
> >Why don't they use more Reserve forces in Aghanistan?
> >Why are they sending already activated Guard and Reserve forces home from
> >Kuwait? Why not back fill into Iraq and bring home the 3rd ID?
> >Bosnia is all Guard right now, and so is Kosovo as of this rotation. (All
> >common knowledge - released by DOD news).
>
> The units being released are those that were called up to support
> general fighting. (Combat bridging units for example.) If you want
> to release 3ID then you need to mobilize a Guard division.
There are plenty of parts of 3ID that are sitting here in Kuwait while
we wait for orders to go home.. mine, for example. 3-69 AR is just
sitting here, with no mission (our mission was completed in MAY).. and
no explanation as to why we are still here, why we have been outright
LIED to several times, etc.
We've done what we were sent here to do. It's time to go.
(If 1st AD could handle Baghdad, we would have left already,
apparently.)
RTO Trainer
<steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>
>|> Once they get a unit, it stays. There are Guard units, even whole
>|> states that have done very little (good political protection, I guess)
>|> while other states have 80% of their units deployed.
>|
>|A lot depends on what type of units that state has. New Mexico had just
>|about all the transportation units deployed yet only a few folks were taken
>|from the air defense units.
>|
>|Dave
>
>We need gate guards. ADA can do that. There is no reason that every
>member of the Guard is not on active duty.
>
You keep pulling troops for gate guard duty like that you won't have
ADA troops either. Zero retention will result.
We can't keep 31Fs in my company. The reason; thy signed up to be
31F, but my unit doesn't have the equipment that that MOS uses. So
they get to be ad hoc 31Us or, worse, gate guards and KPs.
--
"In this era of American triumph, only two institutions continue to resist the future: blue collar unions and our armed forces. The unions have a better case."
--Ralph Peters
SPC Robert White
31U, OKARNG
Commo Plt. HHC 45th eSB
Always Forward!
*****Begin Lemming Code Block*****
LIT\LSS d+(BDU) s+>s: a C+$ N++ aNG///LCC PS+ PE tv+ b++ e++>e++++
******End Lemming COde Block******
RTO Trainer
<steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>I know of several Guard units that have been to JRTC, especially the
>SIBs. The problem is that too many of them are not even close to
>active duty standards. And the Guard divisions are so under strength
>that most are worthless.
>
Show me.
>Frankly, there is a growing attitude that the Guard needs to go away,
>to be merged into the Reserves. AF Times had an article on that last
>week.
>
Are the Reserves going to take on the State mission? Is there
statutory authority for that?
Tank Fixer
steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE says...
>
> |> Once they get a unit, it stays. There are Guard units, even whole
> |> states that have done very little (good political protection, I guess)
> |> while other states have 80% of their units deployed.
> |
> |A lot depends on what type of units that state has. New Mexico had just
> |about all the transportation units deployed yet only a few folks were taken
> |from the air defense units.
> |
> |Dave
>
> member of the Guard is not on active duty.
>
That is a gross waste of soldier and unit training.
Check with some units that were called up and are now being kept on
active duty just to provide gat guards.
--
--
Remember, Friendly fire, Isn't :
Tank Fixer
steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE says...
>
>
>
> |
> |> Few active duty divisions are trained to the point that the 3rd ID
> |> was. Guard divisions are far worst. Unit strength is low, there are
> |> too many that are not MOSQ and few divisions have been through a
> |> recent rotation of either NTC or JRTC (let alone War Fighter).
> |
> |Yet the Guard units don't have the extra burden of having to retain loser
> |soldiers. Guard units are made up of folks who have often times held
> |several different MOS's, have been around the military longer than some
> |CSM's on active duty, and have been to more combat zones than those same
> |CSM's. Of course, just like on active duty, there are crappy units in the
> |Guard as well.
> |
>
> PT test problem. USA Today (the parent company of Army Times) has ran
> more than a few articles on this matter.
>
Some units and soldiers do. In all services.
> We need to get rid of the Guard, merging it into the USAR and AF
> reserves. Hell AF Times has even had an article last week on the
> possibility of the Air Guard being merged into the Reserves.
>
I see this happening only when COngress is disbanded...
In other words, never.
Tank Fixer
bill....@us.army.mil says...
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 21:58:58 GMT, R. David Steele
> <steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>
>
> >I know of several Guard units that have been to JRTC, especially the
> >SIBs. The problem is that too many of them are not even close to
> >active duty standards. And the Guard divisions are so under strength
> >that most are worthless.
> >
>
> Show me.
>
> >Frankly, there is a growing attitude that the Guard needs to go away,
> >to be merged into the Reserves. AF Times had an article on that last
> >week.
> >
>
> Are the Reserves going to take on the State mission? Is there
> statutory authority for that?
>
No, but Greg Dean and his disciples like to ignore that fact.
And that Guard units regualy will beat Active ones in competitions.
Remember the one held in South FLorida for Air Guard air defence
units...
RTO Trainer
<steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>
>|>
>|>|> Once they get a unit, it stays. There are Guard units, even whole
>|>|> states that have done very little (good political protection, I guess)
>|>|> while other states have 80% of their units deployed.
>|>|
>|>|A lot depends on what type of units that state has. New Mexico had just
>|>|about all the transportation units deployed yet only a few folks were taken
>|>|from the air defense units.
>|>|
>|>|Dave
>|>
>|>We need gate guards. ADA can do that. There is no reason that every
>|>member of the Guard is not on active duty.
>|>
>|
>|
>|You keep pulling troops for gate guard duty like that you won't have
>|ADA troops either. Zero retention will result.
>|
>|We can't keep 31Fs in my company. The reason; thy signed up to be
>|31F, but my unit doesn't have the equipment that that MOS uses. So
>|they get to be ad hoc 31Us or, worse, gate guards and KPs.
>
>Agreed. But the need is for gate guards, not ADA. Even on active
>duty it is common for any combat arms unit to pull Force Protection
>duties. Field Artillery gets that duty a lot here in the DC area.
>
>
When it is a necessity its one thing. When its done on a regular
basis without amelioration its quite another.
RTO Trainer
<steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>
>|
>|>I know of several Guard units that have been to JRTC, especially the
>|>SIBs. The problem is that too many of them are not even close to
>|>active duty standards. And the Guard divisions are so under strength
>|>that most are worthless.
>|>
>|
>|Show me.
>|
>|>Frankly, there is a growing attitude that the Guard needs to go away,
>|>to be merged into the Reserves. AF Times had an article on that last
>|>week.
>|>
>|
>|Are the Reserves going to take on the State mission? Is there
>|statutory authority for that?
>
I can't speak for any but Oklahoma. We got selective call-ups by the
state 3 times that I know of. I found reference to 300 state callups
in FY 1998. (6 per state given even distribution.) Can't think of a
reason that 1998 should have been atypical.
>How often is the Guard in any state ever called out? Once a year, at
>most? And could not this mission not be dealt with by other state
>forces?
>
If it could, why are they calling us? If they did away with us, would
the states not create new agencies to do the same job? (perhaps
activation of the State Self-Defense Forces) If so what is the
practical difference except that the SDFs are generally not as well
trained as we are?
>It might be better to create a state police reserve, sort of a State
>Guard, than keeping two separate national military reserve forces. As
>I pointed out, the AF Times this past week raised the question as to
>whether the Air Guard should be disbanded. One of the big reasons is
>that the AF is cutting back the number of planes which means that the
>Guard is taking huge cuts in airframes.
>
I think a better plan would be, if one RC component *had* to go, would
be to do away with the Reserve and rely on the Guard. With the
resulting larger Guard, this mitigates problems caused by
non-availabilty of Guard forces due to federal call-ups.
>As to whether the Guard holds its own against the active components,
>such as the experience of Air Guard pilots, is not the question.
You brought it up.
>The
>same level of experience is within the AF reserve, maybe even more
>experience. Among those I work with here in Washington, there is
>serious questions as to the need to fund a separate reserve force in
>the National Guard. The leadership here is more willing to fund more
>police, including light armor and helicopters, than fund a separate
>military force. Besides the Air Guard does litter or no state
>missions. When was the last time the Air Guard was called out for a
>state mission? Do we use F16s to attack criminals?
>
Why are we discussing the Air Guard in an Army forum? I'm not
prepared to discuss them at all. Couldn't answer your question one
way or the other.
RTO Trainer
<steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>Congress creates, congress takes away. All it would take to beak the
>Guard is mandatory activation of all Guardsmen for at least a year to
>two years. The weaknesses would show up fast.
>
Speak for yourself.
Pick
>According to the USA Today, which owns Army Times, most state Guard
>organizations are seriously undermanned with the average around 70%.
>Too much of the equipment is redlined. And over half of the soldiers
>(Army Guard) are not trained (MOSQ). Moreover, the Guard does not
And since the Army Times is such an official publication, by virtue of the
fact USA Today owns them, anything they say is gospel...
>It is more serious than that. There are plans to rid the USAR of
>"troop units" (TPU) in favor of Individual Mobilization Augmentees
The only person planning that is some major in a back closet of the Pentagon
during his free time between fetching coffee and flipping slides...
>(IMA) that fill slots in an active duty unit. Army recruiters will be
>allowed to fill those slots starting this fall.
Because that part is a sound idea. More visibility of those slots ensure
they get filled.
Pick
Colin Campbell
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:29:28 GMT, R. David Steele
><steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>
>
>>Congress creates, congress takes away. All it would take to beak the
>>Guard is mandatory activation of all Guardsmen for at least a year to
>>two years. The weaknesses would show up fast.
Ahem, my unit has just entered our demobilization phase after a
one-year activation and deployment.
Funny thing - we started out better trained than we are now. And even
funnier - we were rated higher that the active duty guys for
competence and professionalism on the job.
Oh and BTW, we have won two out of three BDE sports competitions.
(Yes this is an active duty BDE we were assigned to.)
Colin Campbell
<bill....@us.army.mil> wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:31:37 GMT, R. David Steele
><steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>>Agreed. But the need is for gate guards, not ADA. Even on active
>>duty it is common for any combat arms unit to pull Force Protection
>>duties. Field Artillery gets that duty a lot here in the DC area.
>>
>>
>When it is a necessity its one thing. When its done on a regular
>basis without amelioration its quite another.
Another thing to pay attention to is the fact that just because we do
not need ADA at this moment does not mean that we may not need it in
the future.
Colin Campbell
wrote:
At Fort Lewis the gates are being manned by an engineer unit that was
called up for Iraq. The worst thing you can do in terms of retention
for a reserve unit is have the troops do things other than what they
signed up to do.
>
>
>
>
>--
Tank Fixer
>
> |> |
> |> |> Few active duty divisions are trained to the point that the 3rd ID
> |> |> was. Guard divisions are far worst. Unit strength is low, there are
> |> |> too many that are not MOSQ and few divisions have been through a
> |> |> recent rotation of either NTC or JRTC (let alone War Fighter).
> |> |
> |> |Yet the Guard units don't have the extra burden of having to retain loser
> |> |soldiers. Guard units are made up of folks who have often times held
> |> |several different MOS's, have been around the military longer than some
> |> |CSM's on active duty, and have been to more combat zones than those same
> |> |CSM's. Of course, just like on active duty, there are crappy units in the
> |> |Guard as well.
> |> |
> |>
> |> The Guard, due to their age, also has a weight control problem and a
> |> PT test problem. USA Today (the parent company of Army Times) has ran
> |> more than a few articles on this matter.
> |>
> |
> |Some units and soldiers do. In all services.
> |
>
> organizations are seriously undermanned with the average around 70%.
> Too much of the equipment is redlined. And over half of the soldiers
> (Army Guard) are not trained (MOSQ). Moreover, the Guard does not
> PERSCOM. It benefits the active Army and AF if the Guard would be
> merged into their reserves.
>
Generalizations.
I kow what my unit's numbers are, and those for the rest of the
state.
Two can be listed as under 70%. And they do not recieve federal
recognition until this fall when they officially stand up as units.
Half are not MOSQ ? nice fiction that.
I would hardly cite USA Today as a definitive source.
> It is more serious than that. There are plans to rid the USAR of
> "troop units" (TPU) in favor of Individual Mobilization Augmentees
> (IMA) that fill slots in an active duty unit. Army recruiters will be
> allowed to fill those slots starting this fall.
>
So where will the units go ? The need for the type of units in the
USAR is real.
> |
> |> We need to get rid of the Guard, merging it into the USAR and AF
> |> reserves. Hell AF Times has even had an article last week on the
> |> possibility of the Air Guard being merged into the Reserves.
> |>
> |
> |I see this happening only when COngress is disbanded...
> |
> |In other words, never.
>
> Congress creates, congress takes away. All it would take to beak the
> Guard is mandatory activation of all Guardsmen for at least a year to
> two years. The weaknesses would show up fast.
Im sure, like they did in WW2.....
Tank Fixer
> of the folks here in DC see the Guard as not able to do much more than
> that.
>
>
>
Then perhaps they should take thier blinders off...
If the DC Guard is that inept fine, but do not paint the entire
National Guard with the same accuzations..
David Casey
us.military.army:
>|A lot depends on what type of units that state has. New Mexico had just
>|about all the transportation units deployed yet only a few folks were
>|taken from the air defense units.
>
> We need gate guards. ADA can do that. There is no reason that every
> member of the Guard is not on active duty.
That's good because the volunteers from the ADA unit are on gate guard at
Kirtland AFB, Holloman AFB, and Cannon AFB. :-)
Besides, there is a reason every member of the Guard isn't on active duty.
David Casey
us.military.army:
> The Guard, due to their age, also has a weight control problem and a
> PT test problem. USA Today (the parent company of Army Times) has ran
> more than a few articles on this matter.
>
> We need to get rid of the Guard, merging it into the USAR and AF
> reserves. Hell AF Times has even had an article last week on the
> possibility of the Air Guard being merged into the Reserves.
Huh? The USAR and Air Guard are some of the same folks who are in the Army
Guard! It all depends on the MOS or whatever the Air Force calls it wanted
by the troop as to which branch they go into.
David Casey
us.military.army:
> According to the USA Today, which owns Army Times, most state Guard
> organizations are seriously undermanned with the average around 70%.
> Too much of the equipment is redlined. And over half of the soldiers
> (Army Guard) are not trained (MOSQ). Moreover, the Guard does not
> want to get on board with the other mergers such as working with
> PERSCOM. It benefits the active Army and AF if the Guard would be
> merged into their reserves.
Where was USA Today when my Patriot Guard unit was conducting a live fire
with understrength units and lack of equipment yet doing a better job than
the active duty folks? Heck, the folks running the range at McGregor said
they hadn't seen an active unit come in and fire that quickly with so few
problems (none actually).
> It is more serious than that. There are plans to rid the USAR of
> "troop units" (TPU) in favor of Individual Mobilization Augmentees
> (IMA) that fill slots in an active duty unit. Army recruiters will be
> allowed to fill those slots starting this fall.
You mean like the IRR does already?
> Congress creates, congress takes away. All it would take to beak the
> Guard is mandatory activation of all Guardsmen for at least a year to
> two years. The weaknesses would show up fast.
Sure retention would fall since most folks would have signed up for active
duty if they'd wanted to be deployed all the time. The Guard and Reserves
are the backup, not the main force. If that's what the military is relying
on as the first-in troops then something is wrong with the system and
should be fixed. In my opinion.
ssn...@earthlink.net
"R. David Steele" <steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote in
message news:6bclhv4op1727rsup...@4ax.com...
>
> |
> |>I know of several Guard units that have been to JRTC,
especially the
> |>SIBs. The problem is that too many of them are not even
close to
> |>active duty standards. And the Guard divisions are so
under strength
> |>that most are worthless.
> |>
> |
> |Show me.
> |
> |>Frankly, there is a growing attitude that the Guard
needs to go away,
> |>to be merged into the Reserves. AF Times had an article
on that last
> |>week.
> |>
> |
> |Are the Reserves going to take on the State mission? Is
there
> |statutory authority for that?
>
a year, at
> most? And could not this mission not be dealt with by
other state
> forces?
>
states they perform real life missions for disaster relief
and SAR.
> It might be better to create a state police reserve, sort
of a State
> Guard, than keeping two separate national military reserve
forces. As
> I pointed out, the AF Times this past week raised the
question as to
> whether the Air Guard should be disbanded. One of the big
reasons is
> that the AF is cutting back the number of planes which
means that the
> Guard is taking huge cuts in airframes.
>
Why? The National Guard performs both its State and its
Federal roles in a manner that is economical to both. The
Air National Guard units are primarily transports (a
resource that is vitally and desperately needed now more
than ever) and the USAF has proposed cutbacks in both
tactical and strategic airlift capacity at a time when
demand on those resources is ever increasing. In part due
to the "transformation" of the USAF into the kind of force
that Rumsfeld and the "jeune ecole" of the Force XXI concept
have envisioned. None of which considers the problems of
logistics and support (which they want to "outsource")
probably because it is those very details that make
"armchair Admirals and Generals", in the words of Norman
Schwarzkopf, "Great Military Men" but very poor Soldiers and
Strategic thinkers. I fully expect that with the
appointment of the same person who has helped "transform"
the USAF (James G. Roche formerly of the USN) we will see
the US Army "transformed" into a faster, lighter and less
effective force than ever before as the "details" such as
logistics, training and leadership are "outsourced" or
replaced by technology that cannot perform the tasks but
provide excellent sources of revenues to those in need of
further patronage from the DoD.
> As to whether the Guard holds its own against the active
components,
> such as the experience of Air Guard pilots, is not the
question. The
> same level of experience is within the AF reserve, maybe
even more
> experience. Among those I work with here in Washington,
there is
> serious questions as to the need to fund a separate
reserve force in
> the National Guard.
Perhaps if you get out of Washington (I will assume DC
rather than Washington State as in Washington State the Air
National Guard has several state missions that they
routinely perform) you may find that your "ivory tower"
point of view is full of holes as you look at the number of
"real world" state missions performed by the Air Guard as
part of disaster relief, logistical support in state
emergencies such as wild fires, and SAR missions. Also, the
National Guard is cost effective for the DoD in that most of
the cost of maintaining the personnel is borne by the
States.
There are flaws to the system, among these has been the
failure of the National Guard Bureaus of the Army and Air
Force to closely oversee, audit and provide adequate control
of Federal funds going into the State's National Guard units
and of requiring the States to meet or exceed the standards
for units in the Active Duty components. But, these
problems can be easily and more economically addressed by
reforming the National Guard Bureau's and the manner in
which the coordination between the Department of the Army
(or Air Force) and the States is maintained.
BTW, this argument to eliminate the National Guard has gone
on for nearly a century now and it is usually during times
when budgets are slim that the Active Duty and Service
Secretaries talk about doing away with the National Guard.
Time and again, it has been shown to be a politically
motivated move to try to retain additional General Officer
positions in the services in the face of a downsizing of the
military.
The leadership here is more willing to fund more
> police, including light armor and helicopters, than fund a
separate
> military force. Besides the Air Guard does litter or no
state
> missions. When was the last time the Air Guard was called
out for a
> state mission? Do we use F16s to attack criminals?
>
It is feasible and may be possible that the National Air
Defense mission which the Air National Guard currently has
sole responsibility for, may return to the Active Duty Air
Force However, the Air National Guard is a lot more than
just it's Air Defense role. (you might look up what the
USAF says that its current role is, by looking at
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=160 to make
sure you have your facts straight before you render your
pronouncements.)
ssn...@earthlink.net
"R. David Steele" <steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote in
message news:mctlhv8als0vrbao2...@4ax.com...
>
> |
> |>>Agreed. But the need is for gate guards, not ADA.
Even on active
> |>>duty it is common for any combat arms unit to pull
Force Protection
> |>>duties. Field Artillery gets that duty a lot here in
the DC area.
> |>>
> |>>
> |>When it is a necessity its one thing. When its done on
a regular
> |>basis without amelioration its quite another.
> |
> |Another thing to pay attention to is the fact that just
because we do
> |not need ADA at this moment does not mean that we may not
need it in
> |the future.
>
DC. I
> remember seeing ADA Hummers around the Pentagon and at Ft
Myer. The
> problem is that their is no "native" ADA units for the DC
military
> zone. These folks came from Texas (Bliss).
Perhaps that is why the BRAC commission did more harm to the
US Military than just realignment and closure of bases, they
did not look carefully at the potential need to defend the
US from an attack. Rather a short sighted approach don't
you think? Kind of like the ones you propose in this
thread.
ssn...@earthlink.net
"R. David Steele" <steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote in
>
> |> |> Once they get a unit, it stays. There are Guard
units, even whole
> |> |> states that have done very little (good political
protection, I guess)
> |> |> while other states have 80% of their units deployed.
> |> |
> |> |A lot depends on what type of units that state has.
New Mexico had just
> |> |about all the transportation units deployed yet only a
few folks were taken
> |> |from the air defense units.
> |> |
> |> |Dave
> |>
> |> We need gate guards. ADA can do that. There is no
reason that every
> |> member of the Guard is not on active duty.
> |>
> |
> |That is a gross waste of soldier and unit training.
> |
> |Check with some units that were called up and are now
being kept on
> |active duty just to provide gat guards.
>
there. Too many
> of the folks here in DC see the Guard as not able to do
much more than
> that.
Perhaps they need to get out of DC and into the real world
again?
ssn...@earthlink.net
"R. David Steele" <steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote in
message news:gqrlhv4j7j9pacdmd...@4ax.com...
>
> |>|
> |>|>I know of several Guard units that have been to JRTC,
especially the
> |>|>SIBs. The problem is that too many of them are not
even close to
> |>|>active duty standards. And the Guard divisions are so
under strength
> |>|>that most are worthless.
> |>|>
> |>|
> |>|Show me.
> |>|
> |>|>Frankly, there is a growing attitude that the Guard
needs to go away,
> |>|>to be merged into the Reserves. AF Times had an
article on that last
> |>|>week.
> |>|>
> |>|
> |>|Are the Reserves going to take on the State mission?
Is there
> |>|statutory authority for that?
> |>
> |
> |I can't speak for any but Oklahoma. We got selective
call-ups by the
> |state 3 times that I know of. I found reference to 300
state callups
> |in FY 1998. (6 per state given even distribution.)
Can't think of a
> |reason that 1998 should have been atypical.
>
company size?
> Brigade size? Every Guard unit in the state? Some
states, like KY,
> have seen 80% call up. While other states are not seeing
much call up
> at all.
A lot depends upon the types of units in the state and the
needs of the US Army which are dependent upon mission and
task assignments as set forth by the National Command
Authority. Some states, have seen a greater degree of
Federalization than others. Some Guard units are tasked
with a particular mission which has not as yet been needed
at a level that would require them to be called up to Active
Duty. Still others are preparing for or returning from
deployment and are scheduled accordingly.
For example nearly every Reserve and National Guard MP unit
has been called up and deployed on either CONUS force
protection and MP duties or force protection duties in
Central Command. Both ARNG Special Forces Groups have been
called to Active Duty and those units have served in many of
the current operations including Afghanistan and Iraq.
And most Guard units are not being called up for much more
> than Force Protection, so MOS skills are not important.
>
Please show me. I don't believe your information here is
correct. Something about the fact that some of the EOD,
NBC, and Special Forces units have been and continue to
perform those MOS related duties. Entire NG divisions and
or Bdes are slated to perform various missions including
UNMNF, Kosovo and Bosnia peacekeeping missions. There are
National Guard elements that are taking the place of other
units in drug interdiction operations and Military
Assistance and Advisory missions throughout the world. So,
you'll pardon my incredulity and desire to see some kind of
evidence of your assertion.
> |>How often is the Guard in any state ever called out?
Once a year, at
> |>most? And could not this mission not be dealt with by
other state
> |>forces?
> |>
> |
> |If it could, why are they calling us? If they did away
with us, would
> |the states not create new agencies to do the same job?
(perhaps
> |activation of the State Self-Defense Forces) If so what
is the
> |practical difference except that the SDFs are generally
not as well
> |trained as we are?
>
> What is needed is a military police force. One that would
have state
> police powers yet equipment to do light infantry work. As
the active
> army will down grade armor, some fear that armor may be
done away
> with, there is less and less need for heavy mech infantry.
Divisions
> are mostly an active duty structure, watch for Guard
Divisions to be
> down away with. Four Guard divisions are going away this
fall.
>
> If the Guard stays, it will be more of MPs and less of
combat arms.
> As it, infantry units are being replaced by "mess kit
repair" type
> (logistical) units within the Guard (happening already
down south).
> The biggest need in the Army is for more MPs, MI, CA and
Psy Ops
> along with Special Forces. If the Army Guard survives, it
will be as
> MP brigade or regimental size elements. And some
Intelligence units
> that can used in support of the state and local police.
Look for more
> of a Homeland Defense mission as well which would include
more
> chemical units.
>
LOL! Your opinions reflect those of a school of thought
that is in direct opposition to the position of the majority
in the US Army at this time. It may be that certain
politicians may force this point of view upon the US Army
but, it will leave the "pencil necked computer gamers"
attempting to fight real battles with concepts rather than
hard and true facts.
If you're currying political favor you've picked the right
position. But if you want to see a US Army that can win
wars, then you'd best look to the men who are being forced
out of the Army right now in favor of the "Rube Goldberg"
armchair strategists who can't tell you how many sheets of
toilet tissue an infantry division needs much less how to
fight an actual battle against a real enemy.
> |>It might be better to create a state police reserve,
sort of a State
> |>Guard, than keeping two separate national military
reserve forces. As
> |>I pointed out, the AF Times this past week raised the
question as to
> |>whether the Air Guard should be disbanded. One of the
big reasons is
> |>that the AF is cutting back the number of planes which
means that the
> |>Guard is taking huge cuts in airframes.
> |>
> |
> |I think a better plan would be, if one RC component *had*
to go, would
> |be to do away with the Reserve and rely on the Guard.
With the
> |resulting larger Guard, this mitigates problems caused by
> |non-availabilty of Guard forces due to federal call-ups.
>
> The Guard has one big problem, politics, namely the
governors. The
> reserves do not have the issue. Nor can the states be
trusted with
> certain military responsibilities, like having nuclear or
chemical
> weapons. It is a big leap to even suggest more
intelligence units
> given the abuse by governors of the Counter Intelligence
Agents who
> were used for political purposes back in the '60s.
>
That is why the majority of CS assets are kept in the
reserves and the Guard has CA units primarily. The unit
standards can be maintained by more judicious oversight of
the States and the reorganization of the National Guard
Bureau to put more emphasis on standards, accountability and
enforcement of these.
> |>As to whether the Guard holds its own against the active
components,
> |>such as the experience of Air Guard pilots, is not the
question.
> |
> |You brought it up.
>
> The point is that AF reserve pilots are equal, if not
better than
> Guard pilots. And both are better than the younger pilots
on active
> duty.
>
What does this have to do with the US Army National Guard
compared to the Active Duty component?
> |>The
> |>same level of experience is within the AF reserve, maybe
even more
> |>experience. Among those I work with here in Washington,
there is
> |>serious questions as to the need to fund a separate
reserve force in
> |>the National Guard. The leadership here is more willing
to fund more
> |>police, including light armor and helicopters, than fund
a separate
> |>military force. Besides the Air Guard does litter or no
state
> |>missions. When was the last time the Air Guard was
called out for a
> |>state mission? Do we use F16s to attack criminals?
> |>
> |Why are we discussing the Air Guard in an Army forum?
I'm not
> |prepared to discuss them at all. Couldn't answer your
question one
> |way or the other.
>
> Because they will experiment with the Air Guard before
dealing with
> the Army Guard.
>
Really? Who is they?
ssn...@earthlink.net
"R. David Steele" <steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote in
force.
Really? Show me where that is stated by TRADOC or FORSCOM
or the paragraph in the FM 1-0, FM 3-0 or any other FM for
that matter. Show me the section or sub-section in the
Force XXI or Army Transformation White Papers where this is
stated? Otherwise, all you have are empty assertions.
The
> Active Components are nothing more than a speed bump.
A 10 division "speed bump" who would'a guessed? So are you
the spokesman for the new and as yet unconfirmed CSA? Or
just a mouthpiece for a misinformed fringe group?
If anything
> grows it will be the size of the reserves. If we have a
draft, it
> will be a draft into reserve duty (most common proposal
these days,
> outside of using more contractors for military missions).
While the role of contractors is set to increase. The
military as a whole is committed to an all volunteer force
and other than some noisemakers on the lunatic fringe, the
volunteer military has been quite successful to date, thank
you very much.
The idea,
> especially with the IMA slots, is that one spends time on
active duty
> learning the ropes then moves into a reserve slot to get
education and
> maybe a better income stream. But that the reserves will
provide
> surge protection (strength) in times of high op tempo.
>
Do you understand the concept of a strategic reserve?
Otherwise, please expound upon this variant that no one I
know who's been to C&GSS seems to be familiar with.
> One other idea is to replace much of the military with
contractors,
> especially foreign born folks like the Gurkha, so that the
weak and
> soft Americans do not have get their hands dirty.
LOL! Weak and Soft? Which US Army are you serving with?
There are a lot of problems with the US Military, lack of
sufficient training budgets, lack of transportation and
logistical support resources, lack of adequate manpower to
meet a burgeoning military committment overseas in the past
two years. Dwindling numbers of live fire training areas.
but weak and soft is not one of them.
Even magazines like
> Mother Jones and American Prospective are now becoming
concerned that
> we are relying too much on Professional Military Companies
(PMC) such
> as DynCorp to fight wars.
It gives them something to talk about. But, if you don't
like that you can see if your Congress critter will
re-authorize about half the units that were "re-aligned",
reorganized or retired in the past fifteen years.
And nearly half of our intelligence
> community is staffed by contractors (I work for such a
company as a
> retired military person, great money!).
>
My tax dollars wasted on another "beltway bandit
boondoggle", it figures. Another Alphabits clone.
RTO Trainer
That's why what's needed, rather than screwing around with the
components, is a true regimental system aligned regionally.
Each regiment would have an appropriate mix of branch specialties and
no region would be without.
RTO Trainer
<steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote:
>
>|>|
>|>|>I know of several Guard units that have been to JRTC, especially the
>|>|>SIBs. The problem is that too many of them are not even close to
>|>|>active duty standards. And the Guard divisions are so under strength
>|>|>that most are worthless.
>|>|>
>|>|
>|>|Show me.
>|>|
>|>|>Frankly, there is a growing attitude that the Guard needs to go away,
>|>|>to be merged into the Reserves. AF Times had an article on that last
>|>|>week.
>|>|>
>|>|
>|>|Are the Reserves going to take on the State mission? Is there
>|>|statutory authority for that?
>|>
>|
>|I can't speak for any but Oklahoma. We got selective call-ups by the
>|state 3 times that I know of. I found reference to 300 state callups
>|in FY 1998. (6 per state given even distribution.) Can't think of a
>|reason that 1998 should have been atypical.
>
>How widespread is the call up? One or two units of company size?
>Brigade size? Every Guard unit in the state? Some states, like KY,
>have seen 80% call up. While other states are not seeing much call up
>at all. And most Guard units are not being called up for much more
>than Force Protection, so MOS skills are not important.
>
In 1998 there was a big demand for Force Protection callups?
>|>How often is the Guard in any state ever called out? Once a year, at
>|>most? And could not this mission not be dealt with by other state
>|>forces?
>|>
>|
>|If it could, why are they calling us? If they did away with us, would
>|the states not create new agencies to do the same job? (perhaps
>|activation of the State Self-Defense Forces) If so what is the
>|practical difference except that the SDFs are generally not as well
>|trained as we are?
>
>What is needed is a military police force. One that would have state
>police powers yet equipment to do light infantry work. As the active
>army will down grade armor, some fear that armor may be done away
>with, there is less and less need for heavy mech infantry. Divisions
>are mostly an active duty structure, watch for Guard Divisions to be
>down away with. Four Guard divisions are going away this fall.
>
Interesting fantasy life you have. Armor is not being downgraded and
it most certainly will not be done away with. There isn't "less need"
for heavy units, the question that is being asked is if heavy units
are really appropriate for everything we ask of them now. Divisions
could probably be done away with across the force with no detriment
and some real benefits. BTW, how will you write the legislation
allowing for your state police/guard?
>If the Guard stays, it will be more of MPs and less of combat arms.
>As it, infantry units are being replaced by "mess kit repair" type
>(logistical) units within the Guard (happening already down south).
>The biggest need in the Army is for more MPs, MI, CA and Psy Ops
>along with Special Forces. If the Army Guard survives, it will be as
>MP brigade or regimental size elements. And some Intelligence units
>that can used in support of the state and local police. Look for more
>of a Homeland Defense mission as well which would include more
>chemical units.
>
But they aren't alking about puttinghte more MP, CA, PsyOps and MI
into the Guard, they're talking about putting it into AD.
The mix in the guard will change, but Combat Arms won't go away.
>|>It might be better to create a state police reserve, sort of a State
>|>Guard, than keeping two separate national military reserve forces. As
>|>I pointed out, the AF Times this past week raised the question as to
>|>whether the Air Guard should be disbanded. One of the big reasons is
>|>that the AF is cutting back the number of planes which means that the
>|>Guard is taking huge cuts in airframes.
>|>
>|
>|I think a better plan would be, if one RC component *had* to go, would
>|be to do away with the Reserve and rely on the Guard. With the
>|resulting larger Guard, this mitigates problems caused by
>|non-availabilty of Guard forces due to federal call-ups.
>
>The Guard has one big problem, politics, namely the governors. The
>reserves do not have the issue. Nor can the states be trusted with
>certain military responsibilities, like having nuclear or chemical
>weapons. It is a big leap to even suggest more intelligence units
>given the abuse by governors of the Counter Intelligence Agents who
>were used for political purposes back in the '60s.
>
How many AR units have chemical or nuclear weapons now? For that many
how many units anywhere in the Army have chemical or nuclear weapons?
>|>As to whether the Guard holds its own against the active components,
>|>such as the experience of Air Guard pilots, is not the question.
>|
>|You brought it up.
>
>The point is that AF reserve pilots are equal, if not better than
>Guard pilots. And both are better than the younger pilots on active
>duty.
>
So?
>|>The
>|>same level of experience is within the AF reserve, maybe even more
>|>experience. Among those I work with here in Washington, there is
>|>serious questions as to the need to fund a separate reserve force in
>|>the National Guard. The leadership here is more willing to fund more
>|>police, including light armor and helicopters, than fund a separate
>|>military force. Besides the Air Guard does litter or no state
>|>missions. When was the last time the Air Guard was called out for a
>|>state mission? Do we use F16s to attack criminals?
>|>
>|Why are we discussing the Air Guard in an Army forum? I'm not
>|prepared to discuss them at all. Couldn't answer your question one
>|way or the other.
>
>Because they will experiment with the Air Guard before dealing with
>the Army Guard.
Is that right?
ssn...@earthlink.net
"RTO Trainer" <bill....@us.army.mil> wrote in message
news:i18mhvk60kg4j6p6u...@4ax.com...
What is the matter with the Corps structure that worked for
over fifty years until BRAC came along and took units out of
strategically sound basing and locations and relocated them
to places that make little or no strategic sense. So the
Department of the Potomac is now bereft of any significant
defensive capability as is much of the California coastline.
There is little in the way of strategic value to current
unit dispositions within CONUS.
Tank Fixer
steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE says...
>
> |
> |>>Agreed. But the need is for gate guards, not ADA. Even on active
> |>>duty it is common for any combat arms unit to pull Force Protection
> |>>duties. Field Artillery gets that duty a lot here in the DC area.
> |>>
> |>>
> |>When it is a necessity its one thing. When its done on a regular
> |>basis without amelioration its quite another.
> |
> |Another thing to pay attention to is the fact that just because we do
> |not need ADA at this moment does not mean that we may not need it in
> |the future.
>
> remember seeing ADA Hummers around the Pentagon and at Ft Myer. The
> problem is that their is no "native" ADA units for the DC military
> zone. These folks came from Texas (Bliss).
You are falling for the myth that ADA can destroy an aircraft to the
point nothing large falls from the sky.
All those ADA HMVEE's could do would be is to wound an airliner to
the point it WOULD crash.
Tank Fixer
9...@earthlink.net says...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 03:55:45 GMT, Tank Fixer <carr...@yuchoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <l5fjhv8jkiouqonn5...@4ax.com>,
> >steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE says...
> >>
> >> |> Once they get a unit, it stays. There are Guard units, even whole
> >> |> states that have done very little (good political protection, I guess)
> >> |> while other states have 80% of their units deployed.
> >> |
> >> |A lot depends on what type of units that state has. New Mexico had just
> >> |about all the transportation units deployed yet only a few folks were taken
> >> |from the air defense units.
> >> |
> >> |Dave
> >>
> >> We need gate guards. ADA can do that. There is no reason that every
> >> member of the Guard is not on active duty.
> >>
> >
> >That is a gross waste of soldier and unit training.
> >
> >Check with some units that were called up and are now being kept on
> >active duty just to provide gat guards.
>
> At Fort Lewis the gates are being manned by an engineer unit that was
> called up for Iraq. The worst thing you can do in terms of retention
> for a reserve unit is have the troops do things other than what they
> signed up to do.
>
>
How are they doing BTW ?
Our PAO doesn't do a very good job of keeping us informed back here
at home..
Tank Fixer
steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE says...
>
> |
> |>|A lot depends on what type of units that state has. New Mexico had just
> |>|about all the transportation units deployed yet only a few folks were
> |>|taken from the air defense units.
> |>
> |> We need gate guards. ADA can do that. There is no reason that every
> |> member of the Guard is not on active duty.
> |
> |That's good because the volunteers from the ADA unit are on gate guard at
> |Kirtland AFB, Holloman AFB, and Cannon AFB. :-)
> |
> |Besides, there is a reason every member of the Guard isn't on active duty.
> |
>
>
>
No, and if you can't figure it out you must not be in the service.
Call them all up on Sept 11 2001 and do you know what would be
happening right now ?
Tank Fixer
steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE says...
> The Guard has one big problem, politics, namely the governors. The
> reserves do not have the issue. Nor can the states be trusted with
> certain military responsibilities, like having nuclear or chemical
> weapons.
>
A straw man argument as there are no deployable nuclear or chemical
weapons anymore....
David Casey
us.military.army:
> Corrupt governors such as we have in Illinois and California?
Ah, the agenda shines through. Finally!
Colin Campbell
wrote:
>> At Fort Lewis the gates are being manned by an engineer unit that was
>> called up for Iraq. The worst thing you can do in terms of retention
>> for a reserve unit is have the troops do things other than what they
>> signed up to do.
>>
>>
>
>How are they doing BTW ?
>
>Our PAO doesn't do a very good job of keeping us informed back here
>at home..
They are doing a very good job so far. There may be a fight in the
future over their training (1st MP BDE does not want to release them
from gate duty to perform MOS and METL training).
Personally I feel that they are getting screwed. The active duty
units here have been pulling gate duty on a rotating basis for years
(with indifferent success). I see no reason why a guard unit needs to
be mobilized to relieve them of a chore.
RTO Trainer
GMT, "ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> exclaimed:
Well. Its before my time. I know little of it.
Sounds like I want to do something similar, just named different.
--
Pain heals.
Chicks dig scars.
Glory lasts forever.
SPC Robert White 31U, OKARNG HHC 45th eSB Thunderbirds!
ssn...@earthlink.net
> After reviewing Paragraph 5 pf the OPORD of Mon, 21 Jul
2003 02:15:02
> GMT, "ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net>
exclaimed:
been FUBARed by BRAC. But it was in place up until about
1993-94 pretty much.
>
> Sounds like I want to do something similar, just named
different.
>
around, why not simply reorganize them along mission and
task oriented structures? That way we don't have to mess
with current TO&E below the Corps level.
Snark
--
Una Salas Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
The only hope of the doomed is not to hope for salvation.
Aeneid - Virgil 19 BC
> --
RTO Trainer
GMT, "ssn...@bangserver.na" <ssn...@earthlink.net> exclaimed:
Well. I also wnat to reform the Personnel system but I suppose Corps
HQs could do it instead of Regimental HQs. (What's in a name?)
ssn...@earthlink.net
A Corps is composed of divisions and each division should be
a fully integrated unit capable of full autonomy with the
Corps providing direction and a logistical/Planning/Support
interface with Army and other services.
The Regimental system as it exists currently is primarily a
branch specific organizational repository and not really a
tactical or strategic unit.
We currently have Division and Corp structures in place that
were originally organized and equipped so as to allow a set
of four CONES Corps Areas with responsibility for the
defense of the United States, Another Corps had
responsibility for Hawaii and Alaska (with additional tasks
in the Pacific Rim). The final Corps area covered our NATO
commitment for troops in Europe.
We could probably go to a four Corps Structure for CONES
with two divisions per Corps area and then assign a National
Guard Division as a "Round out" for each Corps (2 NG
Divisions) leaving the others NG Divisions as a true
"Strategic Reserve".
The infrastructure is still there for the most part. I
think it could be accomplished with very little disruption
to the Army.
Snark
ssn...@earthlink.net
"R. David Steele" <steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote in
> <SNIP>
> |
> ||> We have moved into an era where the reserves are the
main
> ||force.
> ||
> ||Really? Show me where that is stated by TRADOC or
FORSCOM
> ||or the paragraph in the FM 1-0, FM 3-0 or any other FM
for
> ||that matter. Show me the section or sub-section in the
> ||Force XXI or Army Transformation White Papers where this
is
> ||stated? Otherwise, all you have are empty assertions.
>
all
> doctrine. While there are many working on BORCE XX( and
other future
> doctrines, in reality we are not using anything but flying
by the seat
> of our pants.
Not true, we are using the Reserve units in accordance with
FM 1-0.
Please re-read the manual and note what it says regarding
"the Total Force" concept.
Which tends to indicate that you lack a working knowledge of
exactly what is happening and how it comes to happen.
The employment of the Guard and Reserve forces is not so
much a problem or an indicator of a problem. But rather the
fact that 7 of 10 divisions plus two regiments are now
deployed in missions overseas. Two of the remaining three
have Brigade sized committments to deploy shortly and there
are now several National Guard Combat Arms Brigades deployed
in overseas committments. Which boils down simply to the
fact that the US Army is currently overextended and could
not field a large QRF in the event of an unforeseen
situation anywhere in the world that would require a US
military presence in force (e.g., a collapse of the
government of Uzbekistan to an islamic uprising and
subsequent attack by islamic "freedom fighters" on the US
support bases supplying the war effort.in Afghanistan.)
>
> | The
> |> Active Components are nothing more than a speed bump.
> |
> |A 10 division "speed bump" who would'a guessed? So are
you
> |the spokesman for the new and as yet unconfirmed CSA? Or
> |just a mouthpiece for a misinformed fringe group?
> |
> | If anything
> |> grows it will be the size of the reserves. If we have
a
> |draft, it will be a draft into reserve duty (most common
proposal
> |these days, outside of using more contractors for
military missions).
> |
> |While the role of contractors is set to increase. The
> |military as a whole is committed to an all volunteer
force
> |and other than some noisemakers on the lunatic fringe,
the
> |volunteer military has been quite successful to date,
thank
> |you very much.
>
> The "draft" was only used as a possible alternative.
Why? It has never been a serious consideration by any
Department of the Army planners.
In reality, it
> is contractors who seem to be the force of the future.
That is also set forth in the Army Transformation "White
Paper" and is only to supplant depot level and above Combat
Service Support or to act in areas where there is little
likelihood of hostile action.
In time
> contractors will replace most of the Army's logistical
force and maybe
> a good portion of the military intelligence staff.
Please read the above reply. However there is no plan for
the use of contractors to act within the "Battlespace" as
defined in FM 3-0 and within that area, the US Army will
still rely very heavily upon the integral logistical support
units that accompany the Division, and Brigades deployed.
Moreover, Additional Logistical Support such as field water
decontamination/processing and transportation assets will be
brought in from the Reserve units that would be activated to
perform Combat Support and Combat Service Support within the
"Battlespace" and from rear area support bases and depots to
the Battlespace.
As to the outsourcing of MI functions, DoD would like to
have more control over this aspect of the US Army but, I
suspect that ultimately there will be enough of a backlash
against it by commanders in the field to create a situation
that even the current CSA designee/appointee will resist
this attempt. After all, in the battlefield intelligence is
analyzed and used to derive conclusions about enemy
capabilities and intentions. As opposed to the way it works
in Washington DC where intelligence is used to support
pre-concieved conclusions about enemy or potential enemy
capabilities and intentions.
Even in the field.
> This is not part of any doctrine, but definitely part of
what is
> practiced.
>
Not in the US Army as I know it nor even in the Joint
Commands and not even in the Pentagon or the Agency with
which I last worked supervising intelligence analysis.
> While the military is a part of the nation, they stand,
often and
> sadly, in an elite position with respect to the American
people.
Really? Which country are you speaking of? I'm discussing
the US Army and the United States of America. Our men and
women are drawn from a low to low middle income cross
section of the population of the United States of America.
They are not considered to be in any "elite" position by a
majority of the population of the United States. They are
just ordinary people.
We
> see too many news stories daily on how poorly the average
high grad is
> educated, on how overweight too many are (even at a young
age).
And this has what to do with your assertion that the US
military is "soft and weak"
The
> military makes up only 1.5% of the population. While we
recruit from
> the general population, nearly half of those who seek to
join are
> rejected due to lack of intelligence (or poor education),
being
> overweight, health issues and especially with respect to
character
> issues such as having a felony, drug or alcohol abuse or
financial
> problems.
>
Financial problems would not necessarily disqualify someone
from entering the military. It might be a factor regarding
the MOS which they may be trained for, but not a
disqualification from entry. In fact the US Military is a
volunteer force that maintains a very high standard and
expectation of the individual who are allowed to serve in
its branches. That some number fail to meet the
requirements for active service is probably less a result of
being "soft and weak" and more likely due to a myriad of
other social and physical factors. However, since I am not
in USAREC I am not as familiar with those factors as someone
who is a recruiter.
> Do not just look at those you serve with but at the
general
> population.
>
I do, every day. I've always lived off base. There's
nothing all that wrong with most of the people in the
general population that getting out and enjoying an active
lifestyle or the combination of Basic and AIT can't help.
> | Even magazines like
> |> Mother Jones and American Prospective are now becoming
> |concerned that we are relying too much on Professional
Military Companies
> |(PMC) such as DynCorp to fight wars.
> |
> |It gives them something to talk about. But, if you don't
> |like that you can see if your Congress critter will
> |re-authorize about half the units that were "re-aligned",
> |reorganized or retired in the past fifteen years.
>
> I doubt it. From what I am seeing, we are going to see
the Army cut
> by 23% starting this fall.
>
Yet, you don't seem to know that the current call-ups,
deployments and employment of forces is in accordance with
FM 1-0 and FM 3-0. So what are you seeing? And based upon
what information? Please cite the source for your statement
about a 23% cut in forces starting this fall.
> | And nearly half of our intelligence
> |> community is staffed by contractors (I work for such a
> |company as a retired military person, great money!).
> |>
> |My tax dollars wasted on another "beltway bandit
> |boondoggle", it figures. Another Alphabits clone.
>
> In reality, contracting firms have far more political
influence than
> even the National Guard has. And far more than those on
active duty
> have.
>
Yep, especially with the current version of McNamara in the
DoD. Although you may be surprised at what goes on within
the walls of the Hart, Dirksen, and Russell Buildings and
the Cannon, Longworth and Rayburn House Offices.
There's a lot about DC and how it works you've yet to learn
grasshopper. :-)
RTO Trainer
Five Regiments is what MAJ Vandergriff proposes in "Path to Victory."
They'd be an administrative structure that would control officer and
enlisted personnel assignments and recruiting within its subordinate
units. Each Regiment would be regionally based CONUS with OCONUS
responsibilities and units would rotate from CONUS to OCONUS.
--
"In this era of American triumph, only two institutions continue to resist the future: blue collar unions and our armed forces. The unions have a better case."
--Ralph Peters
SPC Robert White
31U, OKARNG
ssn...@earthlink.net
"R. David Steele" <steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote in
>
> |> |Are the Reserves going to take on the State mission?
Is
> |there statutory authority for that?
> |>
> |> How often is the Guard in any state ever called out?
Once
> |a year, at most? And could not this mission not be dealt
with by
> |other state forces?
> |>
> |Perhaps not where you live. But in Texas and several
other
> |states they perform real life missions for disaster
relief
> |and SAR.
>
(compared to states
> like California or Illinois). A corrupt governor often
appoints
> leadership that corrupts the whole Guard.
>
As SGT Casey says, and now we see an agenda. LOL! You
really need to come out of your ivory tower if you think
that Texas politics is all that pristine and pure. Just
look up the latest iteration of the "Killer Bees" in Texas
just a couple of months ago. LOL! You are at least
somewhat clueless.
> There is nothing that is currently being performed by the
Guard that
> could not be transferred to the Reserves.
How about the entire State mission. Also, shifting the cost
burden to the Reserve is not fiscally a sound move in a
recessionary economy or hadn't you taken that into
consideration. As it would shift the cost from the States
to the Federal Government without any additional revenue
streams to support the change. Also, it would be very bad
politically for a Republican Congress and President to make
a move that increased the size of the Federal Government
(can you say "Tax and Spend Republicans"?)
And the reserves are far
> easier to meld into the active components (ie the IMA
slots). The
> Guard has too much political baggage from the state
politicians.
>
I don't know the Guard units in Afghanistan and Iraq
currently seem to have melded into the Active component
quite well and Colin Campbell's unit has actually
outperformed his Active Duty counter parts at Ft. Lewis so
I'd say that you may be rushing headlong into the fallacy of
over-generalization.
> There is a real dislike of armor. The SecDef has even
referred to the
> current Army leadership as the "armor mafia". Armor will
be cut.
> That includes several ACRs (bad move in my opinion).
That doesn't seem to be in the card since the ACRs and the
Heavys are maintained as part of the "Legacy Force" in all
current Army Transformation scenarios. So please cite your
source for the conclusion that armor units will be cut from
either the Active or National Guard components? Especially
since the Army and DoD are going through all of the trouble
of installing multimillion dollar electronics suites in the
Abrams and other AFVs even as this post is written .
Just as the Air
> Guard is losing airframes, look for the Army Guard to lose
armor.
I don't know much about the Air National Guard (might I
suggest you discuss the USAF in rec.aviation.military) I do
know that there are no plans afoot for FY 2004 - FY 2013 for
the National Guard to lose armor. There is one National
Guard Brigade that is slated to receive Strykers in order to
make it an IBCT but that is an Infantry Brigade IIRC.
The
> SecDef sees armor as too costly. And this line of
thinking isn't even
> showing up in Force XXI documents, it is mostly on the fly
type of
> thinking.
Really? In an organization whose budgets are set five years
in advance and where programs are budgeted and changes in
TO&E are set in place ten years in advance you expect us to
believe that this is happening without any prior notice,
definition and scope?
Please cite the memorandum that threw the five year and ten
year planning out the window as it hasn't reached the Army
Chief of Staff's office and it hasn't filtered down to
FORSCOM that all their planning and work has been for
nought. Shouldn't we tell them?
Hell, none of us have good guidance from the SecDef or his
> senior staff.
Who is this "us" you speak of?
>
> And there are those in Congress who welcome contractors
who they see
> as the new patronage force, one that is not under the
Hatch Act.
>
Maybe, and there are others who have a different point of
view. Then there are those who have views you and I will
never know until they vote and that will depend on the quid
pro quo common to the game of politics.
> Good points. Too often the state level Guard leadership
(the TAG who
> is a political appointee) does not provide good oversight.
And NGB is
> seen as very corrupt. The new chief of the NGB is forcing
the Guard
> to become a Joint operation (there is a letter out, I
should post it).
Yes you should.
> And often too many Guard officers are promoted because
they have
> political connections rather than performance. Of course
that differs
> from state to state. There are good Guard officers, but
way too many
> who are political hacks.
>
As far as Good Officers and political hacks that is also
true of the Active Duty component as well. This tends to
occur when there is a "peacetime" mentality at home.
> Again, much of the mission of the Guard can be done by the
Reserves,
> with far less political influence. The state mission
could be
> performed by other means.
>
It couldn't be done as economically and would involve
massive expenditures at both National and State levels that
neither could afford fiscally or politically for the
forseeable future.
> | The leadership here is more willing to fund more
> |> police, including light armor and helicopters, than
fund a
> |separate military force.
Actually, they are willing to promote expenditures to
various businesses to purchase expensive and probably
unecessary (although once purchased they'll find a use for
it) equipment. That seems to be the nature of such
agencies.
Besides the Air Guard does litter or no
> |state missions. When was the last time the Air Guard was
called
> |out for a state mission? Do we use F16s to attack
criminals?
> |>
> |
> |It is feasible and may be possible that the National Air
> |Defense mission which the Air National Guard currently
has
> |sole responsibility for, may return to the Active Duty
Air
> |Force However, the Air National Guard is a lot more than
> |just it's Air Defense role. (you might look up what the
> |USAF says that its current role is, by looking at
> |http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=160 to
make
> |sure you have your facts straight before you render your
> |pronouncements.)
>
> Much of those documents are being ignored. And again,
much of that
> mission can be done within the reserves.
Actually, those are the very missions and activities that
the Air National Guard is performing today. When I came
back from Afghanistan the Transport that took us on our last
leg from Dover was an Air National Guard operated C-130,
One of the refueling KC-135s that we took on fuel on our way
into Afghanistan was an Air National Guard aircraft. The
A-10s that are flying over Iraq are Air National Guard
A-10s. Some of the SAR birds that went out to look for lost
hikers this year were Air National Guard aircraft. During
the recent Spring flooding in the Southeast and elsewhere
the Air National Guard flew in relief supplies to some of
the areas that were affected. Other Air National Guard
units are flying hurricane watches all along the Gulf.
Still others take to the air on Tornado watches as well.
So you'll have to prove to me that those documents are
ignored when I see evidence that they are not all around me.
Tank Fixer
9...@earthlink.net says...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 04:20:35 GMT, Tank Fixer <carr...@yuchoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> At Fort Lewis the gates are being manned by an engineer unit that was
> >> called up for Iraq. The worst thing you can do in terms of retention
> >> for a reserve unit is have the troops do things other than what they
> >> signed up to do.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >How are they doing BTW ?
> >
> >Our PAO doesn't do a very good job of keeping us informed back here
> >at home..
>
> They are doing a very good job so far. There may be a fight in the
> future over their training (1st MP BDE does not want to release them
> from gate duty to perform MOS and METL training).
>
> Personally I feel that they are getting screwed. The active duty
> units here have been pulling gate duty on a rotating basis for years
> (with indifferent success). I see no reason why a guard unit needs to
> be mobilized to relieve them of a chore.
>
From what I understand they were to be part of the follow-on forces
into Iraq but the "powers that be" decided to keep them CONUS
instead.
If they needed force protection troops seems better to tag one of the
other infantry BN out of 41st SIB since they have one OCONUS and one
just back from the Sinai..
The brigade is in no way deployable as a brigade for the near (two
years) future.
Tank Fixer
steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE says...
>
> |> Corrupt governors such as we have in Illinois and California?
> |
> |Ah, the agenda shines through. Finally!
>
> used Army Intel types in the Guard during the '60s for political
> purposes. The problem is that state and local government is more
> likely to be corrupt.
>
We certiannly know Illinois is.
How many votes did JFK get out of Chicago ???
ssn...@earthlink.net
> Five Regiments is what MAJ Vandergriff proposes in "Path
to Victory."
Essentially similar to the unit rotation system used before
the buildup to Vietnam. Although I'd use the Corps
structure over Regiments since it would involve a lot less
reorganization.
> They'd be an administrative structure that would control
officer and
> enlisted personnel assignments and recruiting within its
subordinate
> units. Each Regiment would be regionally based CONUS with
OCONUS
> responsibilities and units would rotate from CONUS to
OCONUS.
>
If you substitute the word Division in place of Regiment,
that is the type of unit rotation that the CSA and GEN Keane
had spoken of this past spring. Albeit the problem of the
bases from which the divisions operated in CONUS would still
not be very effective for mounting a defense of the United
States. But, provided we kept a very aggressive stance and
defended well forward of US territory, I don't see a problem
with the concept as a whole.
Tank Fixer
bill....@us.army.mil says...
Do you have the ISBN for this pub ?
Or was it a magazine article ?
ssn...@earthlink.net
"R. David Steele" <steele...@verizon.net.REMOVE> wrote in
> ne. These folks came from Texas (Bliss).
> |
> |Perhaps that is why the BRAC commission did more harm to
the
> |US Military than just realignment and closure of bases,
they
> |did not look carefully at the potential need to defend
the
> |US from an attack. Rather a short sighted approach don't
> |you think? Kind of like the ones you propose in this
> |thread.
>
hell with
> building up the reserves and Guard! Until they give the
Army and Air
> Force back up, screw the reserves!"
Interesting comment. I wonder if he understands the concept
of a "reserve" force. As it is just that, a back up for the
Army and Air Force. There are two parts to that reserve
currently, the first the Active Reserve which in the US Army
performs as an adjunctive element to supplement the CS and
CSS resources of the US Army where and when needed on a pro
renata basis.
There is a battle and it is for
> resources. And at the moment, the active components are
out to rape
> the Guard and reserve. The real problem is that if we had
a bigger
> active Army, we could not fill the slots. I doubt that we
could
> recruit enough qualified young men these days.
I rather doubt your assertion here and would like to see a
citation as I recall that the USAREC has achieved 110% of
its goal as of last quarter. Apparently the Navy, Marines
and Air Force had similar results, which considering that
the US is at war on two fronts is better than some pundits
expected. In fact the only laggards in recruiting are the
USAR which fell short by 182 and the Army National Guard had
only achieved 86 percent of its goal falling short by 2,107
recruits. The source of these figures is the US Department
of Defense Defenselink news letter.
Without a draft, we
> are possibly getting the maximum enlistments that we can.
Well, considering that recruiters are actually turning
marginal candidates away, I think we're doing fine.
Remember as
> well how stupid (poorly educated that is) too many kids
are these
> days.
Really? can you provide a citation for this?
Recruiters complain about having to reject half of all
those
> who come through the door (lack of education, over weight
or character
> issues). And then 10% of the males (25% of the females)
do not finish
> Basic with 25% of the males (50% of the females) not
finishing their
> first tour of duty.
Which is why recruiting goals are set with just those
figures in mind (BTW, they are a bit old and have been
revised I believe although I haven't seen the new ones in
PERSCOM site yet.
It gets even worst when you look at the numbers
> who do not make through specialized training such as
Airborne, Special
> Forces (and SEALS or other Special Ops programs) or
Rangers.
>
Not really, those are designed with high drop out rates,
Airborne School is set at about a 30 percent rate, Ranger
school about 40 percent and SFAS and SFQC combined will
eliminate 50-60 percent of all candidates. My friends in
Coronado tell me that they like to maintain a 50 percent
failure rate in Phase I of BUDS and an overall failure rate
of 70 percent. It is not so much that the candidates are
poor as much as it is that the training is that hard. It is
kept that way puposely so that the quality of the people
completing these programs is high enough to assure the
greatest likelihood of success in the field.
> One point, recruiters comment that they are seeing higher
pass rates
> from those kids who enlist directly into the Army's
Special Forces (18
> CMF).
I'd like to see where you got those figures from since there
have only been about four classes that have completed the
SFQC since the inception of the 18X program. So I rather
doubt if there are any statistically significant populations
to work with in order to base such a comment.
Also the recruiters say that those who are university
grads
> tend to seek out combat arms while those who are just high
school
> grads seek jobs that have skills that can be used in the
civilian
> world. Guess that the university types want the adventure
and already
> have marketable skills.
>
Again, I'd like to see a citation on this as it doesn't seem
to gybe with what I've seen in my time in the US Army (over
twenty years).
RTO Trainer
GMT, Tank Fixer <carr...@yuchoo.com> exclaimed:
>> Five Regiments is what MAJ Vandergriff proposes in "Path to Victory."
>> They'd be an administrative structure that would control officer and
>> enlisted personnel assignments and recruiting within its subordinate
>> units. Each Regiment would be regionally based CONUS with OCONUS
>> responsibilities and units would rotate from CONUS to OCONUS.
>>
>>
>
>Do you have the ISBN for this pub ?
>
>Or was it a magazine article ?
>
I'd go into more detail on the book and the plan but I've loaned my
copy to my S-6.
Title: The Path to Victory: America's Army and the Revolution in Human
Affairs
by Donald Vandergriff
ISBN: 0891417664
Publisher: Presidio Press
Pub. Date: 2002
--
Pain heals.
Chicks dig scars.
Glory lasts forever.
SPC Robert White 31U, OKARNG HHC 45th eSB Thunderbirds!