Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by midwesterner, Jan 15, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Plan to cut 3-6 heavy National Guard maneuver brigades.
The National Guard is realigning just has the active force has done. With NG recruitment problems it makes sense to reduce the size of the NG. However, Congress may block this,
I bet BRAC gets hoisted back to the surface in this round.....( what pork-barrel???)
Also, a great way to disguise the recruiting target shortfall for the NG is to say: " so we've lost x thousand guys and gals from the National Guard since OIF ?...so what? Planned reductions my man...."
In comparison with UK TA, the national Guard incentives for re-engaging are pretty good......still not working as well as some folk would wish, from what I hear ?
NG and active forces have met their recruiting targets for the last 7 months.
the reason the NG is changing its TOE for some of its units is because no country for the forseeable future can stand toe to toe with the prestigious and moral United States of America is heavy armor slug-outs.
We're going FCS baby, and we'll hand over some essential parts so our little buddies the Brits are not in a denser fog in joint training and war than they already are now.
We've been debating this one on other boards, and we can't see it happening. The biggest shortfall right now is troops.
Personally, I have no interest in doing anything other than the tanking I'm doing now. If they cut the Washington brigade (And so my tank battalion), I have no incentive to stay in, unless I'm willing to commute to Nevada for drill. They're already reducing the options available to us, I don't think they realise that some people are in the NG because they enjoy what they're doing.
Do me a favour and translate that into English not American English!
American_Dominion is not an american.
American_Dominion is a troll who should be totally ignored.
The lost of these 6 heavy maneuver brigades (and I guess 2 divisions HQs including all divisional elements, as well as an aviation brigade) is not a numerical reduction, they (said brigades) are being converted to support brigades, so there will be no official reduction in guardsmen. the current reorganization of the National Guard called for what I think was 38 maneuver brigades being reduced to 34 (largely through merging under strength brigades, although some multi-brigade states lost 1 NY, TX, IN or 2 CA brigades ) the national guard will now have 28 brigade combat teams (UA)
Web Page Name
116th brigade combat team
There is not as major a recruiting problem as reported, the main problem is, if I am not mistaken is that prior service (people that have served in the active military) which traditionally 50% recruited guardsmen, are not joining the guard because if you join the guard you go to Iraq for a year. If you stay in the active military you go to Iraq for a year so why not just stay with the unit you are bonded with.
arkansas national guard reenlistment
In a study of recently reenlisted guardsmen (i heard it on NPR), loyalty to unit, was the most common reason given to reenlist.
Most of these purposed support brigades sound very army reserve in nature.
Official, no. But you can bet bottom dollar that there will be an effective one. There are people, not least myself, who have very little interest in joining the military if we can't do shooty things, such as might involve tanks, infantry or artillery.
CT, this may be a stupid question but how come your brigade's in Washington State and your batallion is in California?
Politics, my good man...
The Enhanced Separate Brigades were to be the creme de la Guard, getting increased funding for training, high-speed equipment, and so on. California already had a division, so the Enhanced dollars went to Washington. Still, Washington was short a combat arms battalion, and California really wanted a piece of the enhanced brigade pie, so they provided the third maneuver battalion for the 81st. Similarly, the 29th Bde out of Hawaii has an infantry battalion in California.
Here is the army times version of this story.
January 23, 2006
Memo calls for cutting Guard ranks by 28,000
Guard officials balk, others say reductions are unlikely
By Michelle Tan and Gordon Lubold
Times staff writers
The Army National Guard will lose six brigade combat teams, one combat aviation brigade and two division headquarters if a proposal signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England is approved.
The memo from England, written as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review, also proposes a reduction of up to 28,000 guardsmen.
But in a time when the mission and size of the Army is growing, many in Washington say such drastic cuts will never see the light of day.
According to documents obtained by Army Times, if the cuts are approved, the Army Guard will pay up to $6.4 billion, or 58 percent, of the $11.1 billion in cuts the Army may be asked to make in fiscal years 2007-2011.
News reports about the potential cuts have circulated in the media for weeks, but Army and Guard officials have been reluctant to discuss them.
âWeâre providing 50 percent of the combat forces over in Iraq right now,â said Air Force Maj. Gen. Roger P. Lempke, adjutant general of Nebraska and president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States. âCertainly, the National Guard is being used â¦ in a fashion that was never anticipated during the Cold War. As this gains legs and people begin to understand the ramifications â¦ I think youâll get backlash from communities. I think youâll see backlash perhaps from the states.â
The possible cuts outlined in the Dec. 20 memo are part of an effort to reportedly trade personnel for equipment platforms and comes as the Pentagon is nearing the end of its review of personnel and equipment to support strategy into the new century. The resulting recommendations of the Quadrennial Defense Review are much-anticipated, but few specifics are known about what exactly will come out of it.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is pushing for a lighter, faster force that can be effective in nonconventional battlefields. But the QDR also is expected to seek ways to cut personnel costs, which can top 60 percent of operational costs for some services.
Englandâs memo becomes the Pentagonâs input for President Bushâs budget, which is due to be released Feb. 6.
Lempkeâs association and the National Guard Association of the United States each wrote letters to Defense Department and congressional leaders cautioning against the proposed cuts, which would reduce the number of Army Guard brigade combat teams to 28 from 34.
The cuts would reduce the Army Guardâs homeland defense capabilities, according to an internal Guard document obtained by Army Times. Authors of the document also wrote:
â¢ âArmy National Guard readiness levels cannot improve because funding reductions exceed strength reductions.â
â¢ âWe gain no ground on equipping shortfalls.â
â¢ âEquipment procurement and military construction funding is decreased.â
Also on the chopping block between fiscal 2008 and fiscal 2011 are nearly 14,500 Air Guard members, according to a Dec. 28 internal Defense Department budget document outlining planned manpower cuts.
The reductions are expected to come through both aircraft cuts and operational streamlining efforts intended to allow the service to accomplish its assigned missions with fewer people.
Lempke estimates that the cuts, if carried out, will close a couple hundred armories and 14 Air Guard wings across the country and leave the Guard unable to recruit as many soldiers as it needs.
âOnce we lose those numbers, itâll be almost impossible to get them back,â he said.
The adjutants general have been unable to get information or confirmation from Army officials about the proposed cuts, Lempke said.
âWhat weâre trying to do right now is simply learn whatâs going on,â he said. âThen what weâd like to do is engage Army leadership to talk about ways we can help with the budgeting process without immediately cutting the National Guard. I think we should be part of the process that discusses what the future of the Army should look like.â
When asked to comment on reports citing Englandâs memo, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said: âWe are going to fund the National Guard to their level of manning.â
The Guard has a homeland defense mission, so the Army is rebalancing the force so that it can meet both its operational and homeland defense missions, Army Secretary Francis Harvey said.
âThere is no cut in the number of overall brigades,â he said.
Larry Di Rita, the Pentagonâs chief spokesman, confirmed that England signed the memo, but he said the Army is likely going to increase in size, not decrease.
âAt the end of the day, the operational Army will continue to be larger today than it was yesterday,â Di Rita told reporters during a briefing Jan. 3. âThe operational Army is big and itâs getting bigger because theyâre doing active reserve rebalancing in a way that makes the number of deployable brigades larger today than it was a year ago, two years ago.â
Times staff writers Rob Colenso and Sean Naylor contributed to this report.
Separate names with a comma.