Even before 9/11, equipment shortages were the hallmark of the National Guard's existence. After the terrorist attacks and engagement of the most Guard troops in overseas operations since World War II, the situation has only gotten more serious.
Through efforts such as the Rapid Fielding Initiative, any of the initial equipment problems the Guard experienced going to war have largely been resolved. At the same time, the cost of moving particularly heavy equipment, such as vehicles to and from Iraq and Afghanistan necessitated Guard units leaving equipment behind for follow-on forces.
The result back home, however, is that many Guard units return with little to train with-and more important-little to address responsibilities at home for state missions and natural disasters.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita as well as the infamous 2004 hurricane season that had Guardsmen performing cleanup work in Florida after five storms and the unprecedented engagement level of Guard forces worldwide, made equipment a key issue on Capitol Hill late last year.
Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, last year announced the Guard would need $20 billion to reset from the war on terror, with $7 billion requested in an emergency spending bill.
In the fall, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., took the lead in a Guard fight for immediate cash to fund depleted Guard stocks after the hurricane season with an amendment to the 2006 Defense Appropriation bill.
"I worked closely with my National Guard Caucus co-chair, Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.), to include $1.3 billion in additional equipment for the National Guard to respond to natural disasters and other emergencies," he says. "When the federal government shortchanges the National Guard on the right equipment the Guard needs to do the job we are asking, we are weakening the entire response capability of the country."
Senator Leahy, however, suggests that it takes more than Congress.
"Congress alone cannot appropriate these critically needed funds at the tail-end of the budget process," he says. "The [president's] budget requests should be part of a larger plan to address the enormous shortfalls in large- and medium-sized vehicles and communications gear."
He notes that the National Guard Reserve and Equipment Account, which Congress uses to purchase equipment beyond the President's budget request, is a proven model to ensure funding hits areas in which the Guard is in need.
But as addressing these shortfalls requires continual efforts, the Pentagon took a slightly different tack last month.
A Wall Street Journal article Dec. 5 noted a Pentagon effort to cut costs by cutting active and reserve forces rather than "slashing weapons purchases."
The article particularly focused on the Air Force's intent to reduce up to 40,000 troops by 2011.
While many of those jobs would be lost through attrition, it was reported that efforts to cut the number of recruits would be a component of this as well.
Attrition in the Air Guard could prove a big piece of this.
Lt. Col. Barry Holder, chief of Air Guard recruiting and retention, told NATIONAL GUARD last year that about one-third of the Air Guard force is retirement eligible. While the Air Guard has retained more than he thought they would, "of over 90,000 people, 28,000 people could drop their papers today," he said.
Other issues, such as a good job market, higher paying jobs and availability of more permanent benefits, he says, can draw more people out of the Guard as well.
This fact alone could make the Guard the bill-payer for many of these purported cuts.
On the Army Guard side, the idea of cutting three National Guard brigades also recently emerged-which would amount to more than 10,000 personnel.
"This is one way to pay the bills without messing around with our weapons programs," an unnamed official told the Wall Street journal. The article also noted Gen. Peter Schoomaker's comments that it costs an additional $300 million per year to fund 10,000 troops from when he started as Army chief of staff two years ago.
A report in the Baltimore Sun last month, indicated that as many as 26,000 Army Guardsmen may be cut to help pay for new weapons systems in the future.
As the Air and Army Guard appear caught in the crosshairs for force reduction, NGAUS officials voiced grave concern over these growing sentiments last month.
Retired Brig. Gen. Stephen Koper, NGAUS president, wrote Sen. John Wamer, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Dec. 21, noting that many of these proposals appearing in the media don't include the National Guard Bureau.
"The chief of the National Guard Bureau has publicly stated that the Army has not told him about any decisions on troop reductions," General Koper wrote. "It is astounding that DoD or the service secretaries and senior leadership would even consider such actions based on the current overall level of exhaustion of the manpower resources of the armed forces."
Most troublesome are the proposals to cut forces while in the midst of a war as a "cost-savings measure," he added.
"[I]t seems obvious that the most expensive forces (the active component) should be sacrificed first, followed by the least expensive (the Guard and Reserve)," he wrote. "We would not advocate either of these options absent a full, open debate on the actual savings and the specifics of where the savings would be spent."
Perhaps most puzzling is the fact that talk of cutting troops continues, while the Guard is so heavily engaged at home and abroad. In fact, these reports come at the end of the Guard's busiest year since World War II.
At one point in 2005, the Guard provided roughly half of the combat forces in Iraq and the bulk of the U.S. personnel in the Balkans and the Sinai Peninsula. In addition, Guardsmen comprised about 90 percent of the troops on the ground in Louisiana and Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina.
"[T]he very idea that a reduction in strength of reserve components so fully involved in current missions and projected as the linchpin for future operations, both overseas and in the defense and security of the homeland, is ludicrous," General Koper added.
More than media reports, however, add to the uncertainty among Guard officials.
The Future Total Force (FTF) plan unveiled in late-2004 still leaves questions unanswered and numerous Air Guard units without undetermined missions. Results of the Base Realignment and Closure process (BRAC) also provide angst for Guard officials, who are looking for possible new missions, but aren't sure of when they will come to fruition.
The Guard also is waiting with baited breath for the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) release in the coming months, which officials hope will shed some light on the Guard's future.
In September, Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, National Guard chief, told NATIONAL GUARD he was optimistic about the results of the upcoming QDR. It should identify some new Guard missions and even could establish some new unit types.
These new missions likely will include information operations, space operations, intelligence and possibly more unmanned aerial vehicle missions.
But still lurking out there is the likelihood that the QDR will recommend standing down Guard units with irrelevant capabilities, according to General Blum.
The place these issues all will come to a head, however, is on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers look toward their home states and districts. A transportation unit in Massachusetts without its trucks or a brigade without its Humvees speaks volumes.
And lawmakers won't likely accept simply reducing forces to pay for these new equipment needs.
Senator Leahy's success in getting the $ 1.3 billion in place was a start for the Guard, but it's not what will maintain the force as it moves into the future.
But he's also not the only lawmaker focusing on the Guard as rumors continue to circulate regarding its future.
After teaming with Senator Leahy to push through Tricare legislation for the Guard in this year's defense authorization (story page 38), Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told NGAUS at an awards ceremony in October that Capitol Hill is behind the Guard in the coming year.
"There is a political storm sweeping the Senate to provide billions of new dollars to upgrade equipment for the Guard and Reserve, because you went to war with a Cold War model," Senator Graham said. "In the Cold War, you were important, but never like you are today. And the equipment sometimes was second-class. But it's got to be first class because you're playing a first-class military role."
Looking better than anyone in the game, however, is industry, which would sidestep deep cuts in equipment the Pentagon now appears to want to apply to personnel instead.
Overall, the situation continues its evolution with the future of Guard personnel still a question mark. As the QDR arrives in Congress in February, some answers might emerge. Full realization of BRAC results and new missions under FTF also will have an impact on the future of the Guard.
Until then, however, Guard officials as well as NGAUS members and leadership attempt to get a handle on where the Pentagon wants to go with the future of the Guard.
As Congress heads into the middle of its new legislative season, the emphasis appears to be on Guard equipment. But it appears as if the debate could emerge as "equipment vs. personnel," a debate the Pentagon just might want.
© 2006 National Guard Association of the United States Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Source: National Guard
