Views from the field

National Guard, Oct 1998

Magazine Regains Its `Punch, Appeal, Size'

Finally! The September issue of our magazine began to resemble the one I looked forward to receiving each month. I have been concerned for some time about NATIONAL GUARD losing its punch and appeal, and size.

I retired several years ago, having commanded the 20th Special Forces Group during a time of high tide for the Guard and the military at large. I have been saddened over the last five or six years to watch our Guard strength dwindle, and the active component move closer and closer to its goal of relegating the Guard and Reserves to strictly back seaters.

Our association, our current leaders, our magazine, and even our old folks must find and touch the right nerve in order to revitalize the citizen army that has stood every watch, both state and national.

We must all come to attention, and make waves if need be. CPT Brent Bono from Louisiana dared ask questions in the September issue (Views from the Field, page 10) of how commanders and senior NCOs could continue to cope with piled-on tasks, and try to do it with fewer troops, which is the result of removal of more and more programs such as the splitoption [program] addressed by LTC [Kozuo] Webb from Virginia in September (Views from the Field, page 10), and a result of an apparent failure to do those things calculated to bring back esprit de corps among our soldiers and airmen.

I am encouraged to see what I hope will be a beginning by beefing back up our voice, NATIONAL GUARD. We must act now with a groundswell of support for the salvation of the magnificent old Guard before it disappears into something completely foreign to its charter and its gloried history.

COL Tom Boggs (ret.) Alabama Army National Guard

Editor's note: The number of pages and the use of four-color processing have been reduced during the past three years because, in the face of defense industry mergers, advertising revenue has declined. Although this has tightened our magazine budget, we continue to publish large issues in April, our legislative edition, and September the annual conference issue. We recently hired an advertising firm to help us expand advertising in the magazine beyond traditional advertising sources so we can increase the number of pages every month.

Letter On Target But Response Missed Mark

September's editorial by CPT [Brent] Bono regarding the increasing burdens placed on company-level commanders was right on target. Unfortunately, your response was not. The issue is not one of optempo, but one of bureaucracy. The NGAUS does an excellent job of political intervention, but this problem resides with leaders, not politicians.

As a three-time company-level commander between 1987 and 1995, I saw an ever-increasing stranglement enveloping commanders. Top-down, high-level solutions being forced on units to solve local problems have become a huge distractor for the commander. He is now faced with managing paperwork and programs rather than leading and training his men. Numerous examples abound involving new programs and initiatives, but the best one I recall is when we were told to fully implement the Army Communities of Excellence Program. This program's result was numerous meetings, piles of paperwork and less time training all to chase a few dollars in incentives. Result: very little return on time invested. Common sense needs to prevail.

MAJ Phil Proctor

Georgia Army National Guard

Did Split-Option Training Work Too Well for Us?

With reference to LTC Webb's letter in Views from the Field (NATIONAL GUARD, September 1998, page 10) concerning the elimination of the split-option recruiting program. Of course the regulars have torpedoed this program. It was a success in getting personnel into the Guard. This is but one more example of how the regular Army will go to any length to undermine anything that will support the idea that citizens can be an effective military force on a part-time basis. Some of the reasons for their actions include:

a) Quality personnel recruiting has always been a problem for the Guard. By taking this action, recruiting goals will not be met. This then becomes justification to reduce the number of Guard units and end strength in the regular Army or for whatever other purpose they desire.

b) The regular Army has recently been forced to accept more and more category IV recruits. The split-option recruiting program produced personnel who were virtually all high school graduates or college students. This made the regular force look bad so it had to be eliminated.

c) The regulars have never liked the idea of "state benefits" for Guard soldiers, the largest of which by far is the free-education benefit. This benefit reduces the pool of quality recruits for both the regulars and the Army Reserve. By eliminating the splittraining option, very few potential recruits will enlist in the Guard for the education benefit because they can't afford to give up a semester of school. The regulars could care less that this action would disrupt the lives of Guard soldiers, reduce Guard personnel, or even deny an education to some. The whole idea is to make the Guard unattractive and look foolish to potential recruits.