Military Officer - October 2006 - (Page 12) yourviews “The National Guard should not be treated as just another ‘reserve component.’ ” —Maj. Steven E. Daskal, USAFR-Ret. Guard in Combat … Since my retirement in 1980, I’ve observed a continuing increase in dependency on the Guard and the Reserve to meet DoD global commitments. In addition, we’ve seen Marine deployment greatly expanded to include tactical ground missions far beyond that of traditional Marine Corps operations. During [America’s] greatest natural disaster, Hurricane Katrina, there were rumblings and concerns [from] state government officials about nonavailability of Guard troops for emergency assistance at home. The inland deployment of Marines also seems to raise concerns about adequate logistical support provided by the Navy, plus the change in inland tactical training (that appears identical to Army training). Now, we’ve added the concern for temporary availability of National Guard units to help secure our border with Mexico from illegal immigration. 12 MILITARY OFFICER OCTOBER 2006 There are sweeping proposed changes in military force structures currently before Congress, specifically to address current military force needs described as “many fronts” and “long wars.” It would appear reasonable to question why Congress does not consider it more appropriate and cost-effective to upsize the current regular Army authorizations rather than generate the inevitable complexities of expanding the Marines, Guard, and Reserve. After all, a majority of these global needs seem to be basically Army infantry and Special Forces-type missions. Could it be there are other agendas playing out here? Lt. Col. Joseph P. Griffey, USA-Ret. via e-mail (not FEMA or other federal agencies) should first and foremost support the civil authorities in the states for homeland defense, disaster response, and consequence management. It should be supporting [the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)] in monitoring and protecting our borders and airspace the way the U.S. Coast Guard does for our littoral seas, coasts, and ports. Guard units should not be primarily organized, equipped, or used for overseas operations in support of active components — this is the mission of the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy reserves. With the threats facing this country from hostile forces, infrastructure breakdowns, breakdowns in civil order, and natural disasters, the National Guard does not need an overseas combat role to be relevant! Air and missile defense, border security, search and rescue, etcetera are real and important missions that should be given to the Guard, freeing the active force and federal reserves to continue focusing on their primary missions — global presence and forward deployment. Maj. Steven E. Daskal, USAFR-Ret. Burke, Va. … and Guard on the JCS After reading [“Four-Star Rating,” August 2006], absorbing the fact that the Army Guard provided more than half of our ground combat forces in Iraq, and looking at the picture of the six Joint Chiefs (with two full admirals and two Marine four-stars), it definitely is the right time to include the reserve components at the highest levels of the military hierarchy! Maj. J.A. Nagy, USA-Ret. via e-mail Who will guard America if the National Guard becomes an “operational reserve” with a substantial portion of its strength deployed abroad or preparing for/reconstituting after overseas deployment [“Changing of the Guard,” August 2006]? The National Guard should not be treated as just another “reserve component” of the federal forces. It
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.