Views from the field

National Guard, Nov 1997

Guard Officer Questions Earnestness of SecDef

I was greatly encouraged to see that NATIONAL GUARD Magazine had conducted an inter-,ew with Defense Secretary William S. Cohen (New Direction, September 1997, page 22). Unfortunately, upon reading it, I realized that he is not the sort of leader whom the National Guard should feel comfortable with. The military needs a civilian leader who understands that the military is about-when necessary-the business of physically imposing the nation's political will. Our organization is not one that easily or even correctly adapts to current "business practices." The budget-driven Army is severely endangering the balance between a peacetime standing Army which is capable of deterring the immediate threats to our interests and an Army which is willing to trade what is best for the United States for its own continued funding. If the nation is willing to allow our military to be driven by the budget process rather than national defense strategies, so be it. But we must expect our leaders to make the difficult decisions regarding how best to allocate those limited resources. Maintaining the active Army at the expense of the National Guard is ridiculous when viewed through the lens of the budget process. The National Guard is the most cost-effective structure in the Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense should be someone who can rise above the self-serving cries of any particular military circle and make decisions based on the policies which best serve the nation.

I offer four observations from the interview that lead me to believe Secretary Cohen does not fully understand the importance of the disagreements between the National Guard and active Army:

1) The secretary explicitly pushed the shift away from combat units in the Guard by saying, ".. .we are moving away from combat to combat support efforts." This is a complete dismissal of the National Guard division structure and one more attempt to fully subordinate the National Guard to the active Army. I do not disagree with the strategy of maintaining certain types of combat and combat service support units solely in the Guard and Reserve, but the Guard combat divisions are the cornerstone in our national defense policy with regard to any sustained operation, not to mention a two-theater scenario. The budget process has made Guard combat structure a must for fast force expansion.

2) Concerning the absence of National Guard representation during the QDR, the secretary replied, "I felt that the Guard and Reserve were adequately represented. But to the extent that they do not feel they were fully represented, then I think they can take some comfort..." The Guard was not represented at all! The secretary did order the off-site meetings, but all that came of it was another promise from the active Army (which their leadership promptly denied and discredited) to adhere to certain principles.

3) The Secretary referred to the active component lieutenant colonel in Louisiana who is commanding a Guard battalion as a "positive sign." I need only to refer to General Philbin's timely Capital Focus article in the September issue to highlight the fact that this is not a positive sign for the National Guard. It is yet another attempt to break the back of the National Guard while offering the active-duty officer corps the spoils.

4) Only once did the secretary mention the real reason for the armed services, "to remain the best fighting force in the world."

CPT Thomas A. Ryan

North Carolina Army Guard

Soldier Describes Woefully Inadequate Armory

For the last 10 years, our unit has been promised a new armory, only to be put off until the next year. Unless there are other units in metal sheds, I do not understand why we cannot at least get a decent place to train. Our unit trains in an old Tennessee Department of Transportation garage with a section added for the supply room and old, leaky, lighteningattracting-tin buildings. There are three offices, a single-stall rest room and a small so-called classroom with only enough room for one squad of a platoon to train MlA1 tank crewmen. Our mess is cooked on portable field trailers and then brought in to tables in the old garage where we eat. Our tanks sit idle on a fenced lot next to the building. We can only perform some of the necessary preventative maintenance, checks and services because there isn't enough land to maneuver them safely. We use them in the local Christmas parade and at available recruiting spots.

The local county of Cheatham donated several acres of land in the industrial park for an armory to be built and the state is adding a fourlane highway to make the trip between the local town and Nashville safer. What is the DoD and the govemment going to do? Our unit is growing. We are recruiting two to three new soldiers each month. When I see the Guard in other states being used more and more for defense maneuvers and expending more time and being asked to do it with less money, I wonder why we are building new buildings on halfempty, active-duty bases. Why can't the DoD take care of the real volunteers of the military? We sure don't make enough to say we do this for the money, but that's another story.