You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
New Commission to Review National Guard Role
2006-03-07
WASHINGTON (AP) -Thorny issues involving the changing role of the National Guard and Reserves and friction between federal and state officials over who controls the citizen soldiers must be addressed, members of a newly formed independent commission said Monday.

Members of the panel, many of them retired military, said they will begin rolling out initial recommendations by June. They cautioned, however, that state officials should not look to the commission to overturn unpopular base closure decisions approved by Congress last year.

Instead, the 13-member panel, chaired by retired Marine Corps Gen. Arnold L. Punaro, will do a yearlong review of how the nation should be using the National Guard and Reserves, and whether the units are properly trained and equipped for their changing roles on the home front and the front lines abroad.

Punaro said Monday that the panel is planning to release a preliminary report around June 1, dealing with key issues - including possible funding recommendations for re-equipping the Guard - that Congress may be working on.

The commission, Punaro said, will look at ``what are the threats, what are the requirements and where are the gaps.'' And, he said, the panel is not going to be reluctant to come out with recommendations that differ from those made within the Pentagon. ``We're not going to dodge any of the tough issues,'' he said.
Posted by:Steve White

#1  First you got to make the National Guard Bureau subject to either the President or the Secretary of Defense rather than operating as a rogue political-paramilitary lobbying organization.

The governors for internal needs require military police, transportation, communication, medical, and the like services. Very few states need armor or artillery. However, that is exactly how it is set up now with the National Guard mainly infantry, armor, artillery units and the [federal] Reserves organized in the combat support and service support roles. That is how the NGB wants it. That's what you got.

Back when the regular Army was being gutted from 750K to 480K, the central planners wanted to downsize the Reserve and National Guard structure as well because the budget was being cut just as deeply. The NGB and the governors lobbied their Congressional reps and were protected, so the active force took an even larger hit in operational budgets. Go back an review the latter years of the Clinton Administration and see the problems with active duty training and readiness. Unfortunately, this is far more about protecting their piece of the pie and not functional military needs.
Posted by: Clomoth Whaving1262   2006-03-07 09:07  

00:00