National Guard on the Joint Chiefs!?!?!

[dragoon500ly]

Just when you think that nothing more silly can come out of "Wonderland on the Potomac"...

Two West Virginia Democrats, Sen John Rockefeller and Rep Nick Rahall, have introduced the "Guardians of Freedom Act of 2010". The purpose of GOFA is to give the National Guard a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff in order to "overcome decades of underfunding". The National Guard Association is supporting this bill stating "they have earned the permanent seat at the table."

Two years ago, Congress approved the elevation of the National Guard Bureau chief to four-star rank as well as being officially considered to be an advisor to the Secretary of Defense.


I mean no disrepect to any members of the National Guard, but the Guard has never been considered to be an independent service. There is no need whatsoever to promote a National Guard Chief of Staff. This is nothing more than politics as usual in a city known for losing its grasp on reality.

The simple repair to decades of underfunding is for Congress to allow additional funding on the next defense spending bill.

Wait, did I just accuse Congress of not adequately funding something essential....silly me! Its more important to divert that money to build a six lane highway in somebody's district that doesn't go anywhere; or maybe build a four lane highway bridge to a remote island with a couple of hundred people living on it; or maybe spend six million dollars to study the reproductive habits of the North American Spotted, Sprial-Horn Earthworm!

Politicans!!!!

[natehale1971]

Ever notice how stupidity like this happens when people go to DC and think that they can run the world better than the people who are actually on location

[pmulcahy11b]

It's like Joe Haldeman said in The Forever War: You know an army's getting old when it gets top-heavy with officers.

But then again, considering the amount of our defense is National Guard, putting a three-star in charge of all National Guard forces might be legitimate.

[Adm.Lee]

A seat at the DoD table, I can see. Not the JCS. The former plans and prepares for war, the latter executes it, and the Guard(s) have no relation to that function.

IMO, anyway.

[Snake Eyes]

Ever notice how stupidity like this happens when people go to DC and think that they can run the world better than the people who are actually on location

Is that anything like how every other E-4 thinks he knows better than the Pentagon's civilian leadership how to run the military

[pmulcahy11b]

Is that anything like how every other E-4 thinks he knows better than the Pentagon's civilian leadership how to run the military

It's true more often than you think...

[pmulcahy11b]

A seat at the DoD table, I can see. Not the JCS. The former plans and prepares for war, the latter executes it, and the Guard(s) have no relation to that function.

IMO, anyway.

Misread the original post. They don't belong at the JCS any more than, for example, the XVIII Airborne Corps commander belongs at the JCS.

[natehale1971]

Is that anything like how every other E-4 thinks he knows better than the Pentagon's civilian leadership how to run the military

There are many times, that the Civilians put in charge at the Pentagon just DO NOT LISTEN to the military advisers, because they think they know everything. One such official during the Clinton Years was always talking down to the people on their staff because they felt they were so much more highly educated. Turned out one of the O4s on the staff had several doctorates, and had been a member of several groups like Mensa.

The Head of the National Guard (both Army and Air) should have a seat at the JCOS table... but ONLY during a time of war. Just like the Commandant of the Coast Guard has a seat at the table.

Hell, i've been saying for years that the US should have a land-based military branch similar to the Coast Guard... Either called US Border Guard or US Territorial Guard.

[Snake Eyes]

There are many times, that the Civilians put in charge at the Pentagon just DO NOT LISTEN to the military advisers, because they think they know everything.

Sure ... but compare that to the flipside, where the military brass occasionally has to be reminded who is really in charge of policy - McClellan, MacArthur, McChrystal, et al.

Hell, i've been saying for years that the US should have a land-based military branch similar to the Coast Guard... Either called US Border Guard or US Territorial Guard.

Probably not a bad idea.

[Legbreaker]

Sure ... but compare that to the flipside, where the military brass occasionally has to be reminded who is really in charge of policy - McClellan, MacArthur, McChrystal, et al.

Oh, good point!
I wonder if it's a prerequisite to have "Mc" or "Mac" to be a "difficult" General...

[Snake Eyes]

I wonder if it's a prerequisite to have "Mc" or "Mac" to be a "difficult" General...

I never realized that until I typed it out. Weird.

[dragoon500ly]

It's a good ides to have the military answer to the elected officials, its when the elected offcials feel that they have a better understanding of how to conduct military operations (LBJ and Carter come to mind).

I could never be a general officer, simply because if I was in a situation where I was in the Oval Office, watching the President make a dumb ass decision, my bullfrog mouth would override my humming bird ass!!!

[Webstral]

There"s no call for a National Guard representative on the JCS. That"s just silly.

Don Rumsfeld is a perfect example of the non-serving civilian who thinks he knows better than the professionals. He was good at getting certain things done. But the Iraq fiasco has undone whatever good he may have done in the past.


Webstral

[HorseSoldier]

I can +1 the idea of them not needing a seat on the JCS but think there may be something to the idea of evolving the ARNG into its own branch. Having spent way too much time on both the AD and NG side of things one thing I've noted is just how much training time the NG pisses away trying meet AD admin and other requirements.

[dragoon500ly]

The US armed forces has always suffered from too much tail and not enough teeth. A lot of this stems from the US experience in World War Two, where the Regular Army was jumped from ten or so divisions up to 90 active divisions, plus hundred of supporting battalions. The existing RA and NG were so overwhelmed, that one of the surveys that was conducted at the time, showed that there was one prewar soldier for every forty war time only soldiers.

It also didn't help that the National Guard was considered to be a hot bed of political apointees and over-aged soldiers, coupled with several scandals concerning state misuse of NG funding, the Guard entered WWII and suffered the brutal culling of a sizable portion of its prewar leadership. Ever since then, it has almost been a mindset in the RA, that this would have to be done again, in the event of a major war.

The NG has always been considered to be under-funded and poorly-equipped. Even more so during the periods 1970-1990. Even the National Guard Round-Out Brigades were not considered to be combat-ready for at least 30 days with many of the divisions considered to not be ready for combat for 90+ days. But during the lean years of post-Vietnam, even the RA was scrambling for adequate funding. Virtually the only combat capable divisions during this period were 2nd Infantry in Korea, 82nd and 101st Airborne (Strategic Reserve), and US Army Europe. The REFORGER units would have gone into combat missing a third of their front line strength, not to mention shrortages in equipment and personnel on top of that. The equipment situation was made even worse by the stripping of spare parts and the removal of critical equipment from stateside combat equipment.

So I do agree with the decision to move the National Guard bureau chief up to four-star rank. The NG has always needed a louder voice in DoD...but to make the NG a separate branch Or give them a seat on JCS Nope! From its foundation following the Spanish-American War, the NG has always been a reserve componment of the RA.