Looking for answers

National Guard, Nov 2002 by Hargett, Gus L

CHAIRMAN'S MESSAGE

Many of you have heard or read about the new Army National Guard Restructuring Initiative.

The effort replaces the Army National Guard Division Redesign and is supposed to better support the war-fighting effort with units capable of full-spectrum operations.

Army Secretary Thomas E. White unveiled the initiative at the 124th NGAUS General Conference in September in Long Beach, Calif., saying it was is "a major step forward in the transformation of the Guard to the Objective Force."

"The program," he said, "introduces two new types of organizations into the Army structure: mobile light brigades and multifunctional divisions."

This initiative differs from division redesign in that we don't know exactly what the structure looks like. It also provides us with more questions than answers.

Will the savings in maintenance and recapitalization costs be used to modernize the rest of the Army Guard? Will this type of situation be used in Total Army Analysis11, which provides the force structure for the next Program Objective Memorandum, or POM, the five-year outlook on budget requirements?

And how does this initiative fit into the POM? If we don't cascade the track-vehicle fleet from active to Guard units and we don't begin the initiative until fiscal year 2008, what happens to the units in the interim? What schools do these soldiers attend? With what equipment do they train? Will there be like-type active-Army units?

These are the questions our soldiers and leaders are asking. And they must be answered before we can begin to implement any changes.

As I see it, the multi-functional divisions/mobile light brigades will not be capable of major combat operations. We will be trading heavy legacy equipment for light legacy equipment, which gets us no closer to the future combat systems of the Objective Force.

These new units will be relegated to homeland security missions and peacekeeping operations. They may also be the billpayer for active-Army transformation.

We can clearly see the challenges facing us and we must deal with them. We must work through this while at the same time fighting the global war on terrorism. This will not be easy nor happen quickly.

The men and women in our Army National Guard deserve answers. We must provide predictability to their future. No matter what we call it-division redesign, transformation or the Army National Guard Restructuring Initiative, the Army National Guard cannot be left behind. Our eight divisions and 15 enhanced brigades must be missioned and relevant across the spectrum.

"We will work final decisions on force structure and missions together," Secretary White told us in Long Beach. "To be very clear with you, I have no intent of losing the strong working relationship that we have developed over the years.

"Rather, I intend to enhance it," he said. "Our current relationship is one of trust and confidence, and our very future depends on sustaining that, and I intend to do that."

I applaud the secretary's openness, and I hope I am wrong about this initiative. The Army must change to remain relevant. As part of that, we must also change. Let's do it together.

Let's together secure the resources required to ensure our Army remains relevant. And let's together maintain a viable structure capable of full interoperability with all components of the Army.

We owe no less to the men and women of our National Guard and to the citizens of this great country.