Active vs. Guard: An Avoidable Pentagon War Â« Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary Interesting article from across the pond. Striking just how many similarities there are to arguments over here. Some phrases that in it that could have been lifted from a thread here: "What you get for that money nowadays is a well-trained and hard-working force, in stark contrast to the traditional and not entirely unjustified disdain for weekend warriors of years past" "For some Reserve and Guard troops, 39 days a year is all the training they need. They can roll right into their military jobs because their civilian ones are so similar. If youre a civilian surgeon, pilot, mechanic, or computer network administrator, for example, its an easy transition to a military hospital, airbase, motor pool, or command center. ... But there is no civilian equivalent for a tank gunner, artilleryman, or infantry soldier and such combat troops require not only individual training, but expensive field exercises to practice working in large units." Had to chuckle at the protagonists' inability or unwillingness to agree what the relative costs of having Reserve / National Guard vs Active soldier, either over their total service period, or when mobilised - plenty of agendas to be served. Looks like they're just about to enter into the 'what do we want our Reserve to actually do?' as we finalise the thinking here.