Posted on Sep 8, 2015
COL Jon Thompson
18.9K
76
37
11
11
0
This article from Military.com talks about some of the efforts that the National Commission on the Future of the Army is looking at for the future of the Army. Anyone who has served in the Army knows that relationships between the active component, the Army Reserve, and the National Guard are still somewhat fractured. What can each component do to change that culture? Also, what can the reserve components do to respond more quickly in a national emergency? We learned a lot of lessons over the past 14 years so how do we implement those and make sure the Army remain's combat ready even with the drawdown.


http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/08/effort-to-bring-army-national-guard-closer-results-in-redesign.html
Posted in these groups: United states ar seal.svg Army ReserveArmy national guard logo Army National Guard
Avatar feed
Responses: 14
LTC Chief, Relocation Plans
6
6
0
Make annual mandatory training requirements occur every 5 years. Currently there are more hours of mandatory training than available in 40 days of drill/AT. Why are we surprised when readiness falls or it takes forever to train up past team-level skills?

Make all schools the same -- if a box of books or a two-week DL course can make an officer CCC qualified in the Reserves, then why are we wasting funds sending AC officers away for 4+ months? (This is a little tongue in cheek -- I believe the answer is the opposite, and we won't find satisfactory training in this method ... And will need all personnel to attend in residence.)

Acknowledge and ensure all Soldiers understand the purpose of each component and what it is designed to do. When AC folks get in a bunch bc the RC has train up time, they demonstrate lack of understanding for their own organization.
(6)
Comment
(0)
COL Jon Thompson
COL Jon Thompson
>1 y
I like that idea of reducing the annual training requirements to something less than that. I know those are easy to measure for the report card vs. training on your mission. In my last unit, we failed miserably in my opinion. Maybe even combining BAs into super BAs 6Xyear to give more training time to battle tasks.
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC Chief, Relocation Plans
LTC (Join to see)
>1 y
There are a few commands where they do this -- I know the 9th MSC has policies that support their personnel manning by allowing Soldiers from the mainland to come over and do drills in bulk. Also, that's the normal plan for IMAs -- believe we'd be better off with longer BAs, but there's definitely more planning necessary to keep everyone engaged.
(0)
Reply
(0)
COL Battalion Commander
COL (Join to see)
>1 y
The good thing is that USARC finally is allowing commanders to accept risk "mandatory training requirements," save eight (safety, suicide prevention, SHARP, etc.). The rest can, with justification, can be requested to the first O6 in the chain if commanders are willing to accept risk and can justify why.

Haven't tried it yet, but Injust got wind of this at PCC and am about to get a staff drill down on this to see what we can push to the right and what to focus on for the next TY. We'll see how it works!
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Warren Swan
4
4
0
1. Senior leadership buy in. No matter what comes down, when the troops see their superiors arguing and bickering publicly it undermines whatever policy they could put in place. Make one unified team and run with it. Keep your differences to yourself and away from the congressmen and news reporters.
2. Top down mindset change. Even with a unified front, if those who will put ideals to the pavement (COL-CSM) are still of the old mindset, they'll do it because they have to; not because they want to. We need to make them do it, but make it so they want to do it.
3. Enforce the regulations throughout the service. Too many time I've seen what the AC does gets knocked down because that's not how the NG, RC troops do it, and vice versa. If it's a AR, DA PAM, FM or whatever the AC Army leadership provides, it's the law of the services, and not to be interpreted by the state leadership in any manner that is inconsistent with what Army leadership provides. But in the same breath, the AC leadership needs to understand how the states regulations can affect the desires and directives of AC leadership.
4. This might not be fun to some, but I think promotions should be the same as the AC. No more of the eternal SPC's that are 50 years old and their date of rank was before I was born with no breaks in service. The AC promotion schools should be attended by all components. Same standards, same levels of instruction. The attendee's can test out in certain cases based upon experience, but SGM Academy, First Sergeants School, and officers mandatory schools should be mando attendance. Build the team with one set of schooling that mirrors each other. The time the NG/RC troops are attending these schools could count towards their weekend/AT time, so it could help rather than hinder.
5. Stop using the NG/RC as the dumping grounds for outdated AC equipment. This I've seen personally, and that's not right. If we expect them to fight alongside us on equal terms, how can they do that with M-1's and we're using M-4's? Or using Shermans and we're using Abrams? (example not reality) If the AC cannot use it, there is a reason why. That shouldn't be an instant reason to dump crap equipment on anyone else with upgrading the equipment to serviceable standards or DRMO'ing the equipment.
(4)
Comment
(0)
COL Jon Thompson
COL Jon Thompson
>1 y
A lot of good points. As long as there are different standards whether it is professional development courses, training, and equipping, the RC will not be seen as equal partners. All officers go to the same BOLC after commissioning. After that, the paths diverge with most RC officers doing a combination of distance learning and ADT to complete the Captains Career Course. Yet we expect them to be as proficient as an AC Captain. Thanks for your reply.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
4
4
0
A few months ago a few things were mentioned, but one that stuck out to me was:

1) Align every state with a "contingency zone" or region of the world. Train like you'll fight.

2) Everyone becomes Army Reserve or National Guard. No exceptions. You might be on "Reserve orders" or "Active Duty orders" but no more "Regular Army." It's a heck of a lot easier to inflate/deflate reservists than active duty folks. It will also get us back to the Constitutional "intent" of the Army Clause.

3) National Guard is CA, Reserve is CS/CSS.

4) During initial commitment, you are on Active Duty orders (unless you specifically join as a "reservist"). From there on out, you get augmented for the remainder of your career.
(4)
Comment
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
>1 y
COL Jon Thompson I don't disagree, however I think as the de facto militia of the States we run into the issue of the States losing the CA component entirely.

I think having three components is what is really creating this major tug of war that could be resolved if we stripped it down to two, even if both were CA/CS/CSS "mirrors" of each other. Two many many demands, pulling too many directions simultaneously... The other services don't really have that issue as near as I can tell.
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC Veterans Employment Representative
LTC (Join to see)
>1 y
One of the important reasons the NG has so much Combat Arms force structure is because of the state mission. When you have a disturbance, or need someone to build a sandbag wall, you need Soldiers. And lots of them. And Governors want that capability to have an 800 Soldier Infantry battalion to do those things. Another reason is the historical role of the State's militias. Lastly, after Desert Storm, DA deliberately divested the Army Reserve of the Combat Arms mission, deciding that it would belong exclusively to the ARNG. The ARNG role of a strategic, combat arms reserve is vital. How broken would the Active Component be if they didn't have ARNG units to call upon during the GWOT? There's NO WAY the AC & USMC could have managed GWOT commitments, Bosnia/Kosovo, MFO, etc without the ARNG. You can't "grow" Combat Arms units as fast as you can grow CS/CSS units.
(2)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Contracting Officer
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
Transporters, and engineers would serve the Governor's much better than an HBCT with Abrams and Bradleys.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
>1 y
MAJ (Join to see) - Concur. The concept likely can't use the simple CA/CS/CSS split. I thought it was a novel and simplistic approach to the "too many hands in the cookie jar" issue that seems to exist. However, I bet some variation of it could come close to feasible.

As you said, a Governor doesn't really need tanks, but added logistics capabilities, or MPs would definitely be welcome. Figuring out the "perfect cheeseburger" as Cheech & Chong would say.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close