Posted on Jan 27, 2014
Should the National Guard and the Reserves be Combined?
22.3K
54
48
6
6
0
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?
Posted in these groups: 
Reserves
Reserves
Posted 12 y ago
Responses: 24
10
10
0
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.
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).
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.
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.
While I don't necessarily think that the current guard/reserve forces are efficient, the solution is definitely not to simply merge the two.
(10)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
The Guard is under state control, hence title 10 vs title 32. Unlike AD & USAR which are Federal, the NG can be called up by the state as a militia and be transferred between states under emergency conditions where Federal troops can not. While the units are included in the BCT force structure their primary mission is to homeland defense.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
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.
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
Combining the National Guard and Reserve is a bad idea for more than tradition reasons. I will list but a few reasons below:
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
(6)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
I agree there is still roles where both fill. I think the National Guard has been cut too deeply to be able to support both it role to the home State and to the Federal government in several States, but that not here or there. The National Guard continues on the role that fills that the local militia filled before it creation. Where as the Reserve is always under Federal control.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I agree with the majority of respondents on this one: the National Guard and the Army/Air Force Reserves are designed for different purposes.
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.
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.
...Just my opinion.
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.
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.
...Just my opinion.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
If the Reserves were absorbed into the National Guard and the National Guard maintained it's dual purpose. I'd say, go for it!
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SGT(P) (Join to see)
I also forgot that it is unconstitutional for Active Duty and the reserves to perform any actions on UZS soil outside of training purposes unless martial law is declared. If ya'll remember from Hurricane Katrina when the 2-325 AIR from the 82nd ABN DIV deployed to act as additional security and then they pulled out shortly after because they were about to get in trouble for performing a policing action on US soil.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Abbott Shaull
Yes I remember, back in the late 1800s and early 1900 before the National Guard was formed it wasn't uncommon for the local military garrison to find itself involved in settling labor disputes. It is one of the major reasons why the laws were passed to limit duties on U.S. soil. Just a shame that today it also includes military bases. I would think the Military would be more qualified at security their own base, than a bunch of low paid rent-a-cops who honestly could care less if some slime ball got on the base. Just saying. Like I said, National Guard Units and even the Regular military should be cut as deeply as they have been and as they are planning on. Especially with the way things are developing in the Middle East with ISIS/ISIL and over with Comrade Putian, um President...
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SrA Daniel Hunter
I have to disagree. Not only would such a combination violate state's rights, it would be in violation of the Second Amendment. The fact that the National Guard has been used as a de-facto reserve force not withstanding, that was not its intent. They were to defend the states against intersection and invasion (see Federalist #29). In addition to being a counter balance of a standing federal army (see Federalist #46).
(1)
(0)
SFC(P) (Join to see)
I do not understand how consolidating the Reserve component and making that component be the Guard violates either the second amendment or state's rights. The Guard already exists and should be strengthened in each State.
(0)
(0)
SrA Daniel Hunter
Second Amendment "...A well regulated militia..."; State's rights covered by the 10th Amendment. In this case the 10th excludes the Federal Government from consolidating the militia into a reserve component of the standing Federal military except in the cases of invasion, insurrection or to establish public order. That is, if we were to fold the Guard into the Reserve we would no longer have a Federalist system. At least with regard to the military. This is in-part why Congress decided to pass the National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933. This required Guard members to swear an oath to the State and the U.S. For further Constitutional limits check out the following. http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/history/Pages/ConstitutionalCharteroftheGuard.aspx
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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 & federalizes them. The wars in Iraq & 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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google