thedrifter
02-10-04, 06:37 AM
02-06-2004
Reserve Reorganization: Just Another Boondoggle?
By Paul Connors
The Defense Department, led by master strategist Donald H. Rumsfeld, announced early last summer that re-organization of the reserve components was a major task that still required completion. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as previous mobilizations under the Clinton administration, where large scale use of National Guard and reserve personnel have caused concern in the services, families and employers, may have been the catalyst that prompted planning sessions by DoD.
The “meals on wheels” programs sponsored by President Clinton in the Balkans, Haiti and Rwanda, became a drain on active-duty forces and prompted the call-up of Army National Guard and USAR support units on a continuing basis. And that was before the Bush administration took office or the attacks of 9/11.
The war in Iraq, with its ongoing nature and the Army’s need to rotate units on a massed basis has shown, once again, that the peace dividend that should have accrued to the nation at the end of the Cold War has been at best, a failed dream. Despite military personnel cutbacks reaching 40 percent of total military strength, the U.S. armed forces have never been more stretched than they are today. Denials by Secretary Rumsfeld, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers or new Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker, do little to persuade military members, their families or the general public that our force levels don’t add up.
What is especially disheartening to members of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve is that they have finally realized that this nation, incredibly cheap when it comes to military preparedness, uses them as temporary labor, as stopgaps when the senior military and political leadership realize they don’t have the people they need to get the job done.
The war in Iraq has proven the fallacy of now discredited plans that stated that the U.S. military should be able to fight two major regional conflicts. Just how did our leaders plan to do that with an Army numbering fewer than 500,000 active-duty personnel? And now, to buttress lower numbers, the geniuses at the five-sided puzzle palace have decided they will “reorganize the reserves.”
Some of the initial plans have been released and they are the epitome of simplicity. For years, more than 60 percent of the Army’s artillery capability has resided in the Guard and reserve. Rumsfeld’s answer: Convert the vast majority of Guard and reserve artillery units to MP companies and battalions. After all, MPs are what we need in Iraq, right? Well guess what folks, these mission conversions are being completed on an “ad hoc” basis; most of the former artillerymen are receiving a mere 45 days of military police training before their units deploy to Iraq.
The same is being done with several Guard armored units that have been detailed for Iraq duty. Former tankers are receiving minimal training as light infantrymen and MPs before they too deploy to replace rotating active army units.
What is frightening about this wholesale minimizing of training is that recruits who enlist to become MPs receive more than ten weeks of training before they are allowed to function in MOS 95B (Military Policeman). They are then assigned to constituted MP companies and battalions where they work alongside more experienced MPs. A career MP senior NCO recently told me that the Army shortchanged itself years ago by transferring too much of the MP force into the Guard and reserve. “In the process, they turned MPs, with experience in law enforcement, investigations and civil disturbances into light infantry with 9-mm. pistols,” he said.
Reserve re-organization is not limited to just the Army National Guard and reserve. The Air Force is being forced to up-end its very successful relationship with its reserve components. Proposals in the Pentagon and at the National Guard Bureau include the massive movement of Air National Guard flying units to the nearest active-duty airbase. This is being done so that Rumsfeld can achieve his target of closing 25 percent of the current base infrastructure during the 2005 base closure hearings.
Senior ANG leaders are preparing proposals that will see the inactivation of many fighter units, especially those in interior states or not located near active-duty installations. States with more than one ANG unit will likely see the inactivation of one or more units and it is entirely possible that there will be states that will no longer have an Air National Guard component.
Because the National Guard is both a state and federal military force, it is not politically possible to take flying units out of a state, where it may operate at a municipal or international airport and move it a state or two away to the nearest Air Force base. One of the enduring legacies of part-time military service is that Guard and reserve units generally draw their members from the states and communities in which they operate. Does Rumsfeld really expect Air Guardsmen from Indiana to commute to Pennsylvania to fly their air refueling missions?
The current deployment schedule and the overall small size of the active-duty force has all but demanded the use of members of the Guard and reserve to fulfill all of our world-wide mission requirements. And, as DefenseWatch has confirmed in many articles since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there have been problems with reserve and Guard mobilizations. But to attempt to re-make an entire military, while at the same time fighting a war in Iraq, Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda, is asking for trouble.
The abuse of Guard and reserve personnel since 9/11 has been the grist that numerous writers and commentators have used as leverage to criticize the overall war effort. It remains to be seen whether retention of reserve component members will plummet as individuals and units are demobilized.
There will be reservists and guardsmen who will remain steadfast, as they have done since Concord Bridge and Lexington. However, the Defense Department is rapidly losing the trust and faith of these dedicated part-time soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen. Changing their mission postures and realigning or closing their units is just another slap in the face that they should not have to endure.
Once again, Rumsfeld and his team have shown that they really are out of touch with the real and ongoing needs of our defense establishment.
Paul Connors is a Senior Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at paulconnors@hotmail.com. © 2004 Paul Connors.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=359&rnd=703.8011751858846
Sempers,
Roger
:marine:
Reserve Reorganization: Just Another Boondoggle?
By Paul Connors
The Defense Department, led by master strategist Donald H. Rumsfeld, announced early last summer that re-organization of the reserve components was a major task that still required completion. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as previous mobilizations under the Clinton administration, where large scale use of National Guard and reserve personnel have caused concern in the services, families and employers, may have been the catalyst that prompted planning sessions by DoD.
The “meals on wheels” programs sponsored by President Clinton in the Balkans, Haiti and Rwanda, became a drain on active-duty forces and prompted the call-up of Army National Guard and USAR support units on a continuing basis. And that was before the Bush administration took office or the attacks of 9/11.
The war in Iraq, with its ongoing nature and the Army’s need to rotate units on a massed basis has shown, once again, that the peace dividend that should have accrued to the nation at the end of the Cold War has been at best, a failed dream. Despite military personnel cutbacks reaching 40 percent of total military strength, the U.S. armed forces have never been more stretched than they are today. Denials by Secretary Rumsfeld, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers or new Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker, do little to persuade military members, their families or the general public that our force levels don’t add up.
What is especially disheartening to members of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve is that they have finally realized that this nation, incredibly cheap when it comes to military preparedness, uses them as temporary labor, as stopgaps when the senior military and political leadership realize they don’t have the people they need to get the job done.
The war in Iraq has proven the fallacy of now discredited plans that stated that the U.S. military should be able to fight two major regional conflicts. Just how did our leaders plan to do that with an Army numbering fewer than 500,000 active-duty personnel? And now, to buttress lower numbers, the geniuses at the five-sided puzzle palace have decided they will “reorganize the reserves.”
Some of the initial plans have been released and they are the epitome of simplicity. For years, more than 60 percent of the Army’s artillery capability has resided in the Guard and reserve. Rumsfeld’s answer: Convert the vast majority of Guard and reserve artillery units to MP companies and battalions. After all, MPs are what we need in Iraq, right? Well guess what folks, these mission conversions are being completed on an “ad hoc” basis; most of the former artillerymen are receiving a mere 45 days of military police training before their units deploy to Iraq.
The same is being done with several Guard armored units that have been detailed for Iraq duty. Former tankers are receiving minimal training as light infantrymen and MPs before they too deploy to replace rotating active army units.
What is frightening about this wholesale minimizing of training is that recruits who enlist to become MPs receive more than ten weeks of training before they are allowed to function in MOS 95B (Military Policeman). They are then assigned to constituted MP companies and battalions where they work alongside more experienced MPs. A career MP senior NCO recently told me that the Army shortchanged itself years ago by transferring too much of the MP force into the Guard and reserve. “In the process, they turned MPs, with experience in law enforcement, investigations and civil disturbances into light infantry with 9-mm. pistols,” he said.
Reserve re-organization is not limited to just the Army National Guard and reserve. The Air Force is being forced to up-end its very successful relationship with its reserve components. Proposals in the Pentagon and at the National Guard Bureau include the massive movement of Air National Guard flying units to the nearest active-duty airbase. This is being done so that Rumsfeld can achieve his target of closing 25 percent of the current base infrastructure during the 2005 base closure hearings.
Senior ANG leaders are preparing proposals that will see the inactivation of many fighter units, especially those in interior states or not located near active-duty installations. States with more than one ANG unit will likely see the inactivation of one or more units and it is entirely possible that there will be states that will no longer have an Air National Guard component.
Because the National Guard is both a state and federal military force, it is not politically possible to take flying units out of a state, where it may operate at a municipal or international airport and move it a state or two away to the nearest Air Force base. One of the enduring legacies of part-time military service is that Guard and reserve units generally draw their members from the states and communities in which they operate. Does Rumsfeld really expect Air Guardsmen from Indiana to commute to Pennsylvania to fly their air refueling missions?
The current deployment schedule and the overall small size of the active-duty force has all but demanded the use of members of the Guard and reserve to fulfill all of our world-wide mission requirements. And, as DefenseWatch has confirmed in many articles since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there have been problems with reserve and Guard mobilizations. But to attempt to re-make an entire military, while at the same time fighting a war in Iraq, Afghanistan and against Al Qaeda, is asking for trouble.
The abuse of Guard and reserve personnel since 9/11 has been the grist that numerous writers and commentators have used as leverage to criticize the overall war effort. It remains to be seen whether retention of reserve component members will plummet as individuals and units are demobilized.
There will be reservists and guardsmen who will remain steadfast, as they have done since Concord Bridge and Lexington. However, the Defense Department is rapidly losing the trust and faith of these dedicated part-time soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen. Changing their mission postures and realigning or closing their units is just another slap in the face that they should not have to endure.
Once again, Rumsfeld and his team have shown that they really are out of touch with the real and ongoing needs of our defense establishment.
Paul Connors is a Senior Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at paulconnors@hotmail.com. © 2004 Paul Connors.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=359&rnd=703.8011751858846
Sempers,
Roger
:marine: