LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® 45007 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>As the government cuts costs, some have proposed combining the Reserves and the National Guard. The Reserves do not have combat arms (with the exception of the 442nd) and the National Guard does. Combining could save money, make operations more efficient and save money. But tradition is tough to overcome. Thoughts? 2014-01-27T02:10:24-05:00 LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® 45007

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>As the government cuts costs, some have proposed combining the Reserves and the National Guard. The Reserves do not have combat arms (with the exception of the 442nd) and the National Guard does. Combining could save money, make operations more efficient and save money. But tradition is tough to overcome. Thoughts?

2014-01-27T02:10:24-05:00 2014-01-27T02:10:24-05:00 SSG Private RallyPoint Member 45010

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>No I dont believe so I think it would violate the consitution by not having the States individual milita however, if they disband the reserve and merge it with the state lead force.In result having an Active force and a National guard force. I believe it would make sense and be consitutionally sound,and save buck.

2014-01-27T02:20:13-05:00 2014-01-27T02:20:13-05:00 LTC Private RallyPoint Member 45059

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Federal Government is cutting back.  They will not absorb the huge cost of absorbing the National Guard (it comes out of state budgets).  Plus the NG is huge tool in state disaster relief.  States don't want additional obligation so likely won't increase the NG sizes.  

2014-01-27T05:57:42-05:00 2014-01-27T05:57:42-05:00 COL Private RallyPoint Member 45104

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I think that state National Guards (i.e. militias) should definitely retain their non-federal character for several reasons, while the Reserves should also retain their character. <br><div><br></div><div>First, NGs gives the state government an ability to react to local disasters quickly. Without having to request federal permission and coordinate through outside CoCs, a governor can manage his own state's business without dependency on the federal government. Not to mention that federal law (posse comitatus generally disallows the use of federal troops within U.S. territory). </div><div><br></div><div>Also,  state-centric guards retain a culture and tradition that is unique to their states. As the federal government has become more dominant in recent history, many forget that the states' authority to have a guard is important as it gives the states the ability to operate as distinct sovereign governments, which is the intent of the federal Constitution. Having a reserve combat force (while probably increasing the uniformity of training, promotions, etc) would degrade from that intent and be arguably unconstitutional.</div><div><br></div><div>With regard to de-federalizing the reserves, while it is the more constitutional choice, I don't think it would entirely work for a few reasons. First, the job of the reserves is largely federal in nature. I'll use my own branch as an example: Civil Affairs. Our job within the U.S. (according to our current mission statement) is limited. Most of our military work goes in direct support of combatant commands and overseas operations. Having our direct authority run through the states would run contrary to our mission. Additionally many reserve soldiers serve as IMAs to federal units, thus making it necessary for them to be federalized. Other non-CA TPU units also typically serve in ways that make them unnecessary for state requirements. Why would a state voluntarily opt to fund a unit that gives their own jurisdiction no benefit? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.</div><div><br></div><div>While I don't necessarily think that the current guard/reserve forces are efficient, the solution is definitely not to simply merge the two.</div>

2014-01-27T08:23:56-05:00 2014-01-27T08:23:56-05:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 45588

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Some people say that the Reserves and Guard have different roles/missions.  However, within the Guard itself or the Reserves there are already different types of units with diverse roles/missions.  I think it would strengthen the state mission of the Guard to absorb the functionality that currently reside only in the Reserve, and the capabilities would still exist for the purposes of the federal mission.  All while reducing some of the administrative overhead costs of having two separate non-Active Duty command structures.<br>

2014-01-28T02:02:13-05:00 2014-01-28T02:02:13-05:00 MAJ Private RallyPoint Member 45762

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I agree with the majority of respondents on this one: the National Guard and the Army/Air Force Reserves are designed for different purposes.<br />In addition to raising an number of constitutional questions combining them would fundamentally shift the paradigm behind our military employment strategy. America generally takes the approach that national military authority and power is for projection abroad whereas the national guard is a cooperative group of state military authorities designed for a more protective and defensive purpose at home. To combine them in the era of a strong, heavy-handed national government would degrade the nature of the United States by further shifting the center of gravity for homeland military authority from states to the national government.<br />While bringing the Reserves into the National Guard has its benefits and may produce a different result, the prospect of that is very unlikely. Look at the emergence/evolution of NORTHCOM for an example.<br />...Just my opinion.

2014-01-28T12:00:26-05:00 2014-01-28T12:00:26-05:00 SFC Stephen P. 45775

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I would actually eliminate the National Guard leaving militia responsibilities to the states. I would then expand the Reserve as needed to meet national defense needs (making liberal accommodations for former Guard members) and combine the command structure with the Regular Army. <br><br><br><br>

2014-01-28T12:30:14-05:00 2014-01-28T12:30:14-05:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 46531

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>PLEASE NOOOOO.....those two are so different that its not even funny. I regret leaving Guard and switching to Reserves. 

2014-01-29T15:39:59-05:00 2014-01-29T15:39:59-05:00 SFC Joe Ping 47926

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>No.. The National Guard does both Combat Arms and Combat Support misssons and the Reserves is Combat Support, both critical to the support of the Active Duty Military, But unlike the Reserves, The Guard has both the Federal and State Mission.

2014-01-31T12:50:39-05:00 2014-01-31T12:50:39-05:00 SSG Ralph Watkins 47975

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>No.  Reserves are exactly what they, a reserve force for the active military.  National Guard is a state militia who swears an oath to their state governor.  They are a state asset until the federal govt needs them &amp; federalizes them.  The wars in Iraq &amp; Afghanistan have kind of blurred the lines separating these services.  In times of disaster, using active duty troops to help would be great but that would diminish readiness for an external threat.  Leave the roles as they are.  It's worked for over 200 years.

2014-01-31T14:13:43-05:00 2014-01-31T14:13:43-05:00 CW2 Geoff Lachance 48116

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>If the Reserves were absorbed into the National Guard and the National Guard maintained it's dual purpose.  I'd say, go for it!<div> </div>

2014-01-31T18:07:34-05:00 2014-01-31T18:07:34-05:00 SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member 136241

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>An enthusiastic yes!. There is not a need for two Reserve components. And the States need the Guard. I would go further and allow every citizen the opportunity to through a branch immaterial basic training and not have to serve X number of years. Instead, they would be a trained pool from the general population who would be ready if a state or national emergency arose. To help fund it, I would do away with the Selective Service system which, in today's high speed age, does not make sense.

2014-05-27T18:34:17-04:00 2014-05-27T18:34:17-04:00 CPT Private RallyPoint Member 136674

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>At first, I was raising an emphatic NO to this. Mostly, for the reasons that everyone has already stated. <br /><br />However, I think that maybe it is something that could work. I would think that if we were to absorb the Guard into the Reserve components that we obviously need to address the state operations issue. The Reserves have recently began being able to respond to such situations. There would have to be new policy drawn that permits the Reserves to respond to much more localized disasters and support missions. <br /><br />Here is where I see the largest benefits to the states: many states have a large contingent of USMCR, USNR, USAFR, USAR, and USCGR resources that are never used when disaster happens. These servicemember live in the local community and would likely want to help where they can. Adopting a method for these services to be called up during disasters like the Guard would present a much more diverse and larger force for the operations. In the case of flooding, a USAR bridge unit could utilize their boats to assist with flood rescue and other water-based operations. Post tornado, a USNR Seabee unit could assist with heavy equipment operations and restoring power to the local populace. In these areas, the Guard may not have these resources. <br /><br />It could also open up more career options across the board. This would be nice for those who have often been slowed down by lack of promotion at senior levels within the brigade (in the context of many Guard BCTs and other Brigades). It would also open for a more combined arms approach by combining the combat arms forces found in the Guard with the CS/CSS and training forces found in the Reserves. Joint training could lead to better packages ready to respond with the new geographical alignment that the Army has been pushing over the past few years. It could also add an element of braodening to assignments which would help develop stronger Soldiers and leaders. In the Reserves, I will never be an ENCORD for a BCT. If we were combined with the Guard, that is one more potential assignment I could experience to help me develop further. <br /><br />I can see a benefit to it. I think the red tape would be almost insurmountable, but it looks like there could be some definite advantages.

2014-05-28T10:18:08-04:00 2014-05-28T10:18:08-04:00 SFC Joe Ping 136730

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>No, these two organizations have two totally different missions. The Guard has both a state and federal mission, The Reserves are Combat Support missions and the Guard is both Combat Support and direct Combat missions. I do not see how it would make operations more efficient, what do you do with the state missions? Would you have to re direct the mission of reserve units when the state needs them?

2014-05-28T11:30:36-04:00 2014-05-28T11:30:36-04:00 LTC Private RallyPoint Member 136795

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Interesting question. I don't think there is any basis for eliminating either as they have separate missions. It makes sense for the NG to be federally sponsered as it ensures uniform equipment, training, etc. However, it was a mistake to take the Combat arms out of the Reserves- why obligate Soldiers to serve two masters (State and Federal) if they didn't want to? Reserves should at least have light infantry and special forces.

2014-05-28T12:27:41-04:00 2014-05-28T12:27:41-04:00 SSG Ralph Watkins 290610

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Guard &amp; reserves are absolutely two different entities. The Reserves are the reserve force for the active duty. The Guard is not. The Guard swears an allegiance to their state governor. They are a state asset. Only when the POTUS activates the Guard &amp; most times with the permission of the governor of that state. The Guard is supposed to help &amp; protect their home states &amp; the US mainland with cooperation between states. They are the state militia as mentioned in our US Constitution. For the federal govt to try to scoop up &amp; keep the Guard at a federal level would be a violation of our basic laws. When SecDef Gates &amp; President Obama went to take the AH-64 Apaches off the Guard without warning there were 51 governors ticked off &amp; met with President Obama to protest this since those aircraft could not be given to the states, signed for by the governor, &amp; then snatched back by the federal govt without the permission of the governors. That violates the law. So when Governor Perry activated the National Guard to cover his southern border in Texas, that was within his right as governor even though people were upset in DC. DC cannot violate a state's sovereignty per the law.

2014-10-23T13:45:08-04:00 2014-10-23T13:45:08-04:00 SGM Private RallyPoint Member 290674

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>No, not at all. States should have a militia, and the national guard at the state level plays an additional role. When "federalized" the role is different and operational control is no longer at the state. The Reserves are always federal. Different laws exist supporting all three roles. <br />It's also possible to have ranks in all three components, although all may not be federally recognized. Some State AGs are appointed, some elected.

2014-10-23T14:13:21-04:00 2014-10-23T14:13:21-04:00 MSgt Private RallyPoint Member 290695

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Yes they should be consolidated with the caveat that certain units would still have a dual role to the state for the governor to use in state emergencies. And it could be Navy or Marine units also. I believe this would make everything more cohesive.

2014-10-23T14:23:28-04:00 2014-10-23T14:23:28-04:00 SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member 291002

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Definitely not because the National Guard is the states militia and natural disaster response. The Guard has the same standing mission as Active Duty and the Reserves, plus we have the additional duty to respond to natural disasters.

2014-10-23T17:56:19-04:00 2014-10-23T17:56:19-04:00 COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM 291017

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Combining the National Guard and Reserve is a bad idea for more than tradition reasons. I will list but a few reasons below:<br />- Authorities. In a nutshell it is called Posse Commitatus. Federal forces (Reserves) can not be used in a police role. State forces (National Guard) can. Combining the two components decreases our national capability for what potentially are neglible benefits (cost savings).<br />- Capability and Capacity. The National Guard and Reserves do have distinct differences in capability and capacity. NG has more combat capability/capacity while Reserves have more CS/CSS capability/capacity. This goes back to authorities. Would you rather have combat forces performing a policing function in a DSCA operation or would you rather have CS/CSS forces filling that role.<br />- Assumptions versus facts. "Could save money" is different from "will save money". Show me the details on how exactly money will be saved by combining the Guard and Reserve.<br />- Efficient vs effective. The #1 priority of the US military is to be effective. The #2 priority is to be efficient. What is the point of having a highly efficient force that can not win battles or wars?

2014-10-23T18:11:38-04:00 2014-10-23T18:11:38-04:00 SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member 291049

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>how would that work with one being state, one being federal...is this even possible?

2014-10-23T18:46:11-04:00 2014-10-23T18:46:11-04:00 SMSgt Thor Merich 1077414

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>No. I served Active, Guard, and am now in the Reserves. The Guard and Reserve are actually very different and serve a different purpose. The Guard has a State function (Disaster relief, riots, etc), that by law, the Reserve cannot perform. While seemingly redundant, they actually service different useful purposes and combining them would cause more than relief.

2015-10-30T15:22:14-04:00 2015-10-30T15:22:14-04:00 LTC Charles T Dalbec 4680330

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The 56 States and territories will never approve what they have been saying for &gt;25 years. Congress has a hard time doing what they should be doing for the Executive Branch so don’t expect any movement to combine the Reserve Components which is cadre and senior level strong with a National Guard That is Skill Level 1 and Junior and General Officer Strong!!!

2019-05-29T21:38:07-04:00 2019-05-29T21:38:07-04:00 SrA Daniel Hunter 4680411

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>My opinion is they are doing the same mission in most cases now. The Guard and Reserves have different missions over all but both have been used as reserve forces for the Active Forces for a long time. I personally think the National Guard should be limited to operations in U.S. Territory and not be deployed to foreign territory.

2019-05-29T22:14:44-04:00 2019-05-29T22:14:44-04:00 MSG William Wold 6845008

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Bean counters do this once in a while. No. Don’t. Anyone that was around for desert storm knows what happened right afterwards. Lots of units got switched from NG to Reserves. Like mine. Army Watercraft. The state was always calling on us, Department of Fisheries, etc, for little things here and there. <br />Desert Storm some governors refused to activate units. (Guess what ones, starts with a D) anyway after reviewing personnel, they moved us to Reserves. <br />Reservist can be activated individually whereas NG soldiers have to be activated as a unit. Then disbursed. But need a truck driver or two? Or a bunch of Combat arms?

2021-03-22T18:52:55-04:00 2021-03-22T18:52:55-04:00 2014-01-27T02:10:24-05:00