National Guard Commanders Rise In Revolt Against Active Army; MG Rossi Questions Guar

[VooDoo6Actual]

National Guard Commanders Rise In Revolt Against Active Army; MG Rossi Questions Guard Combat Role
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/03/national-guard-commanders-rise-in-revolt-against-active-army-mg-ross-questions-guard-combat-role/?utm_source=Breaking+Defense&utm_campaign=ee6a7625ad-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4368933672-ee6a7625ad-407326797

[skydivr]

I don't see the problem here. I, as a former Reservist, would agree that a BCT fully manned and led by Guardsmen/Reservist would not be as immediately effective as their Active Duty Counterpart. As it was designed, trained and funded. Give them a few years side by said in the same AO, might be different, but in the short term, I would expect the Regular units (who usually are supplemented by Guard/Reserve units) to take the lead.

I see this as political posturing by the ARNG for the coming budget fight for dollars. And believe me, the Guard has more political clout than the Active Components do.

[Sensei]

I don't see the problem here. I, as a former Reservist, would agree that a BCT fully manned and led by Guardsmen/Reservist would not be as immediately effective as their Active Duty Counterpart. As it was designed, trained and funded. Give them a few years side by said in the same AO, might be different, but in the short term, I would expect the Regular units (who usually are supplemented by Guard/Reserve units) to take the lead.

I see this as political posturing by the ARNG for the coming budget fight for dollars. And believe me, the Guard has more political clout than the Active Components do.

Just compare the percentage of junor officers and senior NCO's having Ranger Tabs, EIB, etc. between an IBCT in the ANG and one in the 18th Airborne Corps. Something tells me that the numbers will not be the same. Granted, I do not think that peacetime schools are the end all be all of unit caliber, but many of the ANG units struggle to get 80% of their soldiers to show up to drill. Of those who show up, a significant number can't pass the APFT or have a profile that keeps them off the track.

[skydivr]

The entire purpose for maintaining a semi-ready force is to have a manpower pool that can be brought to speed in a shorter period of time than from scratch, while cheaper to maintain than full-time. Given those constraints, the Reserve forces we maintain do a damn good job of filling that role. There are outstanding soldiers of equal caliber in both components, but the staffs do not get to train or syncronize large scale operations, and therefore that experience is learned AFTER mobilization. And, there are dirtbags in both also.

[Spurholder]

I don't see the problem here. I, as a former Reservist, would agree that a BCT fully manned and led by Guardsmen/Reservist would not be as immediately effective as their Active Duty Counterpart. As it was designed, trained and funded. Give them a few years side by said in the same AO, might be different, but in the short term, I would expect the Regular units (who usually are supplemented by Guard/Reserve units) to take the lead.

I see this as political posturing by the ARNG for the coming budget fight for dollars. And believe me, the Guard has more political clout than the Active Components do.

OIF III comes to mind, with multiple Guard BCT's doing what we used to call "full spectrum" missions. And like you said, they required some extensive training (several months) before deploying. I seem to remember lots of praise for the Guard BCT's in those days.

[ABNAK]

They state that conventional warfare would take longer to train-up for than COIN. It would seem to me that our military is, by design, a conventional force----and a damn powerful and efficient one at that. We're pretty good at all-out combined arms warfare like the invasion of Iraq or Desert Storm. It's gets trickier and stickier in COIN.

[chuckman]

For my own education, can a SME explain how ANG funding works? Why does state "A" get all the cool toys, but state "B" have hand-me-downs? How do unit allocations works (i.e., why does state "A" get a proliferation of infantry, but state "B" get, say, supply units?)?

[skydivr]

For my own education, can a SME explain how ANG funding works? Why does state "A" get all the cool toys, but state "B" have hand-me-downs? How do unit allocations works (i.e., why does state "A" get a proliferation of infantry, but state "B" get, say, supply units?)?

One word: Politics....and I don't mean military politics, I mean elected-official politics...

[chuckman]

One word: Politics....and I don't mean military politics, I mean elected-official politics...

I get that...I guess a better question is, since it is under both the state and the DoD, how does that play out? Who pays for what?

[High Tower]

I am no SME on Guard funding, and I'm not sure anyone has the straight answer on that. But a lot of the state's funding comes from what resources the state has. So if they have a IBCT, they will get funding from big army to take care of that etc so forth and so on. I would imagine that the number and frequency of troops deployed also plays in on deciding things. Travel funds come from another area and schools from another area etc, so forth, and so on. As Skydivr said politics is the overall answer. You'll drive yourself crazy learning the nitty gritty of our funding.

But just as with big army, the guard has some awesome units and some shitbag units. The Guard is very very different from what it was back in the 90's and before. It seems that we are constantly judged by those comparisons and by the units that are worthless. It is one of the most frustrating things about being in the Guard as there gets to be a point where you wonder if there is any point in doing your best because you'll only get treated like a shitbag anyway.

[skydivr]

I am no SME on Guard funding, and I'm not sure anyone has the straight answer on that. But a lot of the state's funding comes from what resources the state has. So if they have a IBCT, they will get funding from big army to take care of that etc so forth and so on. I would imagine that the number and frequency of troops deployed also plays in on deciding things. Travel funds come from another area and schools from another area etc, so forth, and so on. As Skydivr said politics is the overall answer. You'll drive yourself crazy learning the nitty gritty of our funding.

But just as with big army, the guard has some awesome units and some shitbag units. The Guard is very very different from what it was back in the 90's and before. It seems that we are constantly judged by those comparisons and by the units that are worthless. It is one of the most frustrating things about being in the Guard as there gets to be a point where you wonder if there is any point in doing your best because you'll only get treated like a shitbag anyway.

There is honor in serving your country, regardless of component. There are some well-funded, well-trained awesome units out there. Many of their members are AC Combat Vets with all kinds of fruit salad, who for one reason or another decided they didn't want to be on Active Duty anymore. Frankly, if there was ever a way to say "the war(s) have been good for some" it's actually upped the game of our Reserve/Guard Forces. It's a mixed bag just like in the Active Components. Don't for a sec cut yourself short. Thank you for your service!!