Army struggles to shorten Guard tours

[flight dispatcher]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/guard_war_deployments

Premise: If more Guardsman are pulled away for federal duties, shouldn't we be thinking more about picking up "the slack" in their state missions than augmenting positions with the Active Duty Air Force?

WASHINGTON - Army National Guard combat units that go to
Iraq or
Afghanistan through much of the next two years will be on active duty for longer than 12 months despite the
Pentagon's pledge to try limiting deployments to a year, Army and Guard officials say.

The effort to shorten tours of duty to a year — they're now roughly 18 months — was designed to ease the strain on troops and their families, in part by jamming more war preparation into the soldiers' routine monthly training exercises at home.

However, Army and National Guard leaders told The Associated Press that efforts to transfer more training to the states so soldiers can train at home won't be done in time to benefit the thousands of troops going to war this year and in 2008. That is because states don't have the equipment, soldiers or plans they need to do the extra training, officials said.

"It's going to be hard to shorten it at all because so much has to happen," Maj. Gen. Roger Lempke, president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States, said in an interview. Adjutants general command the guard in each state.

"If they're going in early 2008, they would almost need to start preparing this minute," he said.

Guard soldiers typically travel to military centers around the country for up to six months of training before heading to the battlefront for a year, a total of 18 months on active duty.

No final decisions have been made, but Guard officials say they have contingency plans to send two or more Guard combat brigades back to Iraq in 2008 for their second yearlong tour of duty. Brigades usually have about 3,500 troops.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said Thursday that no such deployments have been proposed to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, but other officials have said the planning includes the possibility of tapping Guard units from Arkansas, Indiana and other states.

Stretched by the demands of nearly five years at war and facing growing public discontent, the Pentagon last month decided to limit Guard deployments to one year at a time. Guard units would train for about two months away from home just before deploying, then spend 10 months on the battlefront under the plan.

"We shopped it around, and everyone said if we put them on a predictable deployment schedule like that — a year or less — we can buy into it. But 18 months is killing us," Brig. Gen. James Nuttall, deputy director of the Army National Guard, said in a recent interview.

The Pentagon also has abandoned its cumulative 24-month limit on the time a citizen-soldier could serve on active duty in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

About 270,000 of the more than 347,000 Army Guard soldiers have served in the wars. Under current plans, two Guard combat brigades would deploy to the battlefront each year, besides at least 10,000 more Guard soldiers in smaller, specialized units.

The goal is to deploy Guard units for one year, then give them five years at home. But military officials said war demands would likely give soldiers just three or four years at home.

Lempke, adjutant general in Nebraska, said the new training requirements could force Guard members to do up to two more weeks of regular training each year, in addition to their one weekend a month and one two-week stint.

The Army National Guard's Nuttall said much of the pre-deployment training can shift to the states — from weapons certification and roadside bomb training to dental work, x-rays and paperwork like finalizing wills.

The moves could save days or even weeks of time on active duty.

Military observers, however, say letting Guard soldiers be tapped more frequently could strain families and hurt recruitment.

"It will be tough on the individual, tough on their families and tough on their employers," said Christine Wormuth, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. She said the Pentagon "will have to watch very carefully to see how this affects retention decisions and recruiting. I think this is a calculated risk."

Making the new Guard program work will require time, money and more coordination among beleaguered states already desperately swapping equipment to handle hurricanes and other emergencies. Military officials said they don't know how much the added training will cost.

"The Army has got to make some decisions," said Army Brig. Gen. Stewart Rodeheaver, in charge of training Guard and Reserve units going to war. He said if they want to reduce this training to one year, the Army will have to provide the resources needed to get it done.

The biggest challenge will be finding enough Humvees, weapons and other warfighting equipment to use for training. Lempke said vehicles are already in short supply.

Rodeheaver said Army officials are asking the states to come up with equipment.

The Army, meanwhile, will have to pay to hire more trainers who help with the instruction in the states. The Pentagon will have to provide Guard members with medical benefits before they mobilize, so they can get dental work and other health care done before starting active duty.

"This is not something we can kick down the road a year or so," said Nuttall. He said hiring more trainers and making other preparations "is something we have to do right now."

[DNall]

Premise: If more Guardsman are pulled away for federal duties, shouldn’t we be thinking more about picking up “the slack” in their state missions than augmenting positions with the Active Duty Air Force?

That's exactly the mission of State Defense Forces. If your state doesn't already have one, they should create one. I got no problem with CAP's particular brand of resources (planes, comm, etc) supplementing or working closely with those resources, but augementation should be focused on federal rather than getting into a useless squabling match over who gets to volunteer where & risking state funding for our trouble.

[flight dispatcher]

It being wartime, we are "already saddled up and ready to go". Our skill sets are more appropiate in this regard. The states don't have time to start from scratch. Respectfully DNall, don't agree with you on this one.

[MIKE]

flight dispatcher, please don't copy and paste entire articles... especially when the story is readily accessible by link.

[flyguy06]

I am inthe Army National Guard and was in Iraq in 2005-2006. What was weird to me was looking at the Hurricane Katrina thing on CNN while in Iraq.I was thinking, "Here we are, the National Guard which is designed to react to state emergencies, over in a foreign country fighting a war. The 82nd Airborne Divison,an active duty unit designed to fight wars is in New Orleans trying to help Law Enforcement resttore the peace. Hmmmmmm, roles seem to be reversed here"

Like was said above, The state Defense Force augments the Guard when we are deployed. I ish CAP could do something similar with the Air Guard though. That would be interesting.

[RiverAux]

Assisting the Air Guard?  Sure, if there is no SDF already doing that role.  But as to the Army Guard that might be stretching things a bit too much as a general rule.  If we're not even really doing augmentation for our parent service, its going to be hard to sell that we can do it for somebody else. 

Though, there are some parts of the country where CAP units don't have any easy access to AF, AFR, or AR NG units and working with the Army Guard might be the only realistic augmentation option.   

Its not a bad idea, just lower down on my personal priority list than developing that relationship with the AF. 

[DNall]

Well, we're not saddled up. We got no augmentation program, we got no accounting of skill sets useful to them, etc etc. There's half a dozen threads talking about the the varrious aspects of what we could do & how to do it. You get all that set up & then you can say you're saddled up.

SDFs on the other hand are not only saddled up but this is their job. There's a little thing in govt called staying in your lane. It means the big grand vision was divided up inot individual missions long ago & those got handed out, you don't grab market share or compete against teammates. There's room to expand, contract, and adapt to new circumstances, but you do that inside your lane, you don't go stomping on other people's toes cause you're greedy.

This job w/ regard to the national guard belongs to SDFs. They are eqipped & designed to handle it. That's their purpose in life. We'd be pissed off if they suddenly bought planes & started taking our missions, and rightfully so. If a state doesn't have a well regulated & utilized SDF & they face this problem then they need to correct that. The ANG tends to not need the same kind of help cause they aren't as universally useful in state (title 32) missions. However, when a state sees a need in that area then there are State Air Guard units also. There's a lot we can learn from them & certainly we can do similiar things, but the place to start is on the federal level where they don't get that kind of help. If you want to help relieve pressure on guard units, do it by helping federal units so fewer guardsmen need tobe called up to help out. I'd tell you that alone is quite ambitious. We can't spread our resources so thin we aren't noticed. We need to take care of the AF first & then maybe if there is something left over we can help out in other ways. That's what CAP is all about & always has been.

[flyguy06]

I am just curious because I know very little about the SDF. but hpw are they more equipped to support the Army Guard? Whenever I see these people they are doing support type things like delievering water or pulling gate guard. Things basically any civilian can do. They arent doing some critical mission tat only they can do. They do support type stuff.

[SAR-EMT1]

Illinois, being the most strict/liberal-run state in the Union got rid of its SDF decades ago... and we seem to have spawned a very jr. Congressman who has stated in public that the lives of all soldiers sent to Iraq have been wasted, but also that if elected President (he hasn't even completed his freshman term in DC and he wants to be President?!); his first two acts will be to remove all US troops from foreign soil AND shall do his utmost to remove guns from private citizens. So... yeah IL could use CAP in an augmentation role to the (Air) Guard... question is... will the state gov't and /or our Washington Congressman allow it?

[flight dispatcher]

SAR-EMT1, flyguy06, RiverAux:

     Thank you for your thoughts.   

DNall:

     Every time someone puts an idea on this site, you spend your time ripping it apart, not an ounce of constructive criticism.

[DNall]

Well now I do support a lot of ideas that come up here. I also put out several ideas that I have to say by the end of the conversation I've significantly chaged my position to integrate the outstanding insight of others. Thanks for your vote of confidence though. 

There is a lot we can do in augmentation, and that needs to be developed, but you have to think things thru. The guard is loyal to the state, and the SDF is their auxiliary force. It's probably not a good idea with a program stuggling to get up on its feet to go try to stand between them & tell the states you're there to do the SDFs job. What you're going to get from that is slapped. Now, I'm sure there are some states that don't have an SDF, particularly on the ANG side, and there may be some things you can do there, but it's out in the middle of a minefield to get there. I don't mind us helping in those roles, eventually, but we are a federal organization with federal loyalties first & foremost. We have to focus on that force & only after we're on our feet & doing as much as possible then we can direct additional resources at the guard, if they want the help.

That's the lay of the land, you don't have to like it, but that's how it is.

[RiverAux]

Actually, the Governor of Illinois signed a proclamation reactivating the Illinois Naval Militia (the navy version of an SDF) last year.  So far as I've been able to determine, and I watch this stuff closely, nothing has happened to actually implement the idea. 

Even though there are SDFs in about half the states,  probably only half a dozen do any augmentation for the NG on a regular basis.  Most generally try to go-it-alone and keep themselves separate.  Only about 2-3 SDFs do any augmentation work with their Air NG.  So, there is opportunity out there, its just not the best opportunity for CAP. 

And as long as we're talking about turf battles, the Virginia SDF has an air wing in which they use private planes with volunteer pilots in their own planes to do CAP-type missions for the state.  I wonder if there have been any conflicts between them and VA Wing.

[DNall]

When the Texas State Air Guard was formed, the plan then was to bring them on line to do CAP-type missions, and CAP promptly shot that down, which isn't hard to do when we have federally funds & the state would have to pay for the SDF to do that. It was dead in the water for a while, but eventually some CAP members switched over & helped bring it to life. However it sticks to tradtional SDF roles - civil affairs, comm, SF, & augmentation. Texas has a medical unit too that I think is a real interesting idea for CAP. We run ours on the Army side but as a seperate & co-equal section next to the Army & Air sides of the SDF. We have a naval malitia authorized also, which is primarily to do CGAux type stuff backing up State Parks 7 Wildlife, but far as I know that's still in name only.