Guard Leaders to Congress: Halt 'Flawed' U.S. Air Force Budget Request

[cap235629]

I'm actually on the fence about totally killing USAF in favor of a larger ANG, because it's almost closer to the Navy in terms of needing training currency, which is the reason the Navy is constitutionally authorized.

The reason the Navy was constitutionally authorized and sustained was to protect US shipping interests on the high seas.

We are a primarily maritime nation so a strong navy protects our borders. The threat of on invasion in force is almost nil because the Navy and USAF would smoke it before it got here. Also it was authorized because the founders recognized that it takes longer to train up sailors than infantry.

Ummm nope.

We are a nation dependent on maritime commerce but most of those ships belong to other nations. Last time I checked it took roughly 12 weeks to train a bosun mate and 22 weeks to train an 11B....

Don't you love it when facts contradict opinions held as facts?

;-)

[jeders]

I'm actually on the fence about totally killing USAF in favor of a larger ANG, because it's almost closer to the Navy in terms of needing training currency, which is the reason the Navy is constitutionally authorized.

The reason the Navy was constitutionally authorized and sustained was to protect US shipping interests on the high seas.

We are a primarily maritime nation so a strong navy protects our borders. The threat of on invasion in force is almost nil because the Navy and USAF would smoke it before it got here. Also it was authorized because the founders recognized that it takes longer to train up sailors than infantry.

Ummm nope.

We are a nation dependent on maritime commerce but most of those ships belong to other nations. Last time I checked it took roughly 12 weeks to train a bosun mate and 22 weeks to train an 11B....

Don't you love it when facts contradict opinions held as facts?

;-)

I believe he meant 200+ years ago when it took several weeks to train a sailor and all of 5 minutes to train infantry.

[Extremepredjudice]

I'm actually on the fence about totally killing USAF in favor of a larger ANG, because it's almost closer to the Navy in terms of needing training currency, which is the reason the Navy is constitutionally authorized.

The reason the Navy was constitutionally authorized and sustained was to protect US shipping interests on the high seas.

We are a primarily maritime nation so a strong navy protects our borders. The threat of on invasion in force is almost nil because the Navy and USAF would smoke it before it got here. Also it was authorized because the founders recognized that it takes longer to train up sailors than infantry.

Ummm nope.

We are a nation dependent on maritime commerce but most of those ships belong to other nations. Last time I checked it took roughly 12 weeks to train a bosun mate and 22 weeks to train an 11B....

Don't you love it when facts contradict opinions held as facts?

;-)

I believe he meant 200+ years ago when it took several weeks to train a sailor and all of 5 minutes to train infantry.

It took more than 5 minutes to train infantry. It took 5 minutes to train militia

[jeders]

It took more than 5 minutes to train infantry. It took 5 minutes to train militia

And in the late 1700s early 1800s, there was next to no standing army. There was only the militias of the various states. Now, what that statement means sets off a whole different debate which this country has been fighting over for many years. But keep in mind that at that time, most every man in the nation owned or at least new how to fire a rifle. Training in times of war consisted mostly of, "obey the orders of this guy and fire at the enemy."*

*I'm not a military historian nor do I claim to be, but these statements aren't that far off.

[RiverAux]

Americans held onto the belief that the militia was all that was really needed to protect the country for quite a long time despite lots of evidence that even back then it was an inadequate system.  Of course today's NG bears almost no relation to the militia of the late 1700s and 1800s.  While still "militia" in the technical sense, the amount of training and equipment they have is so far beyond the 1 day a year that some militia drilled back then as to make the comparison almost silly. 

Because of that increased level of funding and commitment to the NG the US can depend upon it much more than it could the militia of the olden days as has been demonstrated over the past 20 years.

[Extremepredjudice]

It took more than 5 minutes to train infantry. It took 5 minutes to train militia

And in the late 1700s early 1800s, there was next to no standing army. There was only the militias of the various states. Now, what that statement means sets off a whole different debate which this country has been fighting over for many years. But keep in mind that at that time, most every man in the nation owned or at least new how to fire a rifle. Training in times of war consisted mostly of, "obey the orders of this guy and fire at the enemy."*

*I'm not a military historian nor do I claim to be, but these statements aren't that far off.

Militias never had discipline. Infantry did.

It takes guts standing in a line shooting at someone. Militia lines always faltered. *

*I'm not a historian, but I am a revolutionary war buff. Plus I asked 90% of these questions from my college history professor. He has a PhD

[MSG Mac]

NG as of now, are part time soldiers. History has shown part time soldiers aren't as good as full time troops. I respect NG as much as active duty, but that is a fact, so I'd appreciate it if I don't get my head torn off.

General George Washington-Virginia Militia
Major General Andrew Jackson-Tennessee
General U.S. Grant-Commissioned in the Civil War as a member of the Illionois Militia.
Robert E.  Lee. Commander of the Virginia Militia Civil War
General of the Army MacArthur. Only Tactical Command was the 42nd Infantry Division-National Guard
Other Reservists/National Guardsmen that may be familiar to you
Lt General Ira Eaker, began his career as a reservist
LT General James Doolittle, USAF R.
Col Charles Lindbergh-Minnisotta National Guard
Captain Eddie Rickenbacker
BG Joe Foss, SDANG, Medal of Honor, as a Marine Reservist during the Guadacanal Campaign.
Col Theodore Roosevelt of the 1st New York Volunteers
The vast majority of those who fought in all our wars have been reservists.  To denigrate them shows both a lack of education and a lack of respect for those who serve. 

[AirDX]

Don't forget my personal favorite, Col. Harry S. Truman of the Missouri National Guard.

[ol'fido]

Well, since no one is going to disband the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard, let's all trot back over to a place called "Reality Land". As every war winds down, everyone starts making their pitch to keep their particular piece of the budget pie. Each service sees itself as the "force of the future" and states how we really don't need as much of those other services or the Guard and Reserve, blah, blah, blah, blah. What usually happens is that Congress makes everyone hurt a bit. Because they control the purse strings, the Air Force can put forward whatever budget proposals they want, but the Congress will make the final call. And they all know that all those Guardsmen and their families are registered voters in their particular state.

[PHall]

Don't forget my personal favorite, Col Capt. Harry S. Truman of the Missouri National Guard.

There, fixed that for ya!

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Don't forget my personal favorite, Col Capt. Harry S. S Truman of the Missouri National Guard.

There, fixed that for ya!

There. Fixed it again.

[NCRblues]

From the web page of Truman's presidential library...

"Starting from the rank of Private in the National Guard of Missouri, Truman left military service 37 years later as a Colonel in the U.S. Army Officers' Reserve Corps"

So, Col. Harry S Truman would be correct...

But the MORE correct version would be, President Truman

[Extremepredjudice]

From the web page of Truman's presidential library...

"Starting from the rank of Private in the National Guard of Missouri, Truman left military service 37 years later as a Colonel in the U.S. Army Officers' Reserve Corps"

So, Col. Harry S Truman would be correct...

But the MORE correct version would be, President Truman

Col. Harry S Truman is incorrect. Col. Harry S. Truman is correct.

There are exceptions to every rule. The Kuwati NG is a modern example of bad part time soldiers.
After the 7 year war, the british created an indian reserve for a specific reason: The militias weren't able to deal with the indians, so the militias always would get british regulars to help, with great expense. The reserve eliminated this.

The lines of militias, in the 7 yr war and the revolutionary war, always broke. 

Militias weren't subjected to 24/7 discipline, so they didn't maintain lines very well.

Anyway, let's get back on topic!

[ColonelJack]

Col. Harry S Truman is incorrect. Col. Harry S. Truman is correct.

Harry Truman's middle name was "S".  It didn't stand for anything.  His parents couldn't decide which of his grandfathers to honor - Anderson Shipp Truman or Solomon Young - so they gave him the simple letter "S" to honor both.  That being the case, the correct styling of his name is "Harry S Truman" with no period behind the "S".  It's his full middle name.

NOW let's get back on topic!

Jack

[cap235629]

*I'm not a historian, but I am a revolutionary war buff. Plus I asked 90% of these questions from my college history professor. He has a PhD

Big deal.. All that means is that he spent enough time in school to convince a bunch of people who spent their whole lives in school that his opinions have merit with regard to the subject matter of his dissertation.  It does not make him an expert nor make his opinions fact. 

[SarDragon]

Col. Harry S Truman is incorrect. Col. Harry S. Truman is correct.

Harry Truman's middle name was "S".  It didn't stand for anything.  His parents couldn't decide which of his grandfathers to honor - Anderson Shipp Truman or Solomon Young - so they gave him the simple letter "S" to honor both.  That being the case, the correct styling of his name is "Harry S Truman" with no period behind the "S".  It's his full middle name.

NOW let's get back on topic!

Jack

The 'S' didn't stand for anything, but he signed 'S.' as often as not. The Wikipedia article, and the references, go a good job of explaining it. 'With period' has been established as official.

</off topic>