Your Response was posted! Click here to see it.
3
3
0
Doing this could save money. Less active duty in Europe and less dependents. More training for the guard with rotations through Hoenfels.
Posted in these groups: 
NGB
NGB
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
3
3
0
I would rather see it as a optional service rotation, ie. post needed MOS/AOCs and trial it. There are certainly guardsmen that would opt in. I will volunteer for 30 days in Paris, say....late spring. :)
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
I thing rotating the Guard through Europe and Korea would be a good way to save a little money AND keep the Guard relevant as an operational force. We've worked to hard to be shunted off to the back burner again.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I'm thinking the savings would come from no longer supporting dependents overseas. The Army could also rotate AC units to Europe on one year tours.
NG units could rotate BNs or BCTs every 10 years or so. If my research is correct there are 28 NG BCTs. Maybe do a BCT or 2 for 6 month deployments. So once every 7 years. Don't think this would be a huge strain on civilian employers.
As far as the State Militia I think it's already been proven the NG is much more than that. One BCT gone every 7 years should not strain the state militia role.
NG units could rotate BNs or BCTs every 10 years or so. If my research is correct there are 28 NG BCTs. Maybe do a BCT or 2 for 6 month deployments. So once every 7 years. Don't think this would be a huge strain on civilian employers.
As far as the State Militia I think it's already been proven the NG is much more than that. One BCT gone every 7 years should not strain the state militia role.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Javier Rivera
That sound feasible: 6 months every 7-10 years. That rotation strategy provides operational continuity and stability back home to our Citizen Soldiers.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Javier Rivera
On a note: this does not constitute a reduction of forces from what is currently on the ground but a sustainable plus up. And for those questioning what is for the state. very simple: operational experience. Since is a Title 10 mission all of the train up for the mission is funded by the DoA vs. state while the experience (the Soldiers) are local. If I was the commander (TAG) I would be screaming to get my folks 1st in line!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
CMSgt James Nolan
LTC (Join to see) Yes sir, if you can work that out, let me know. I am thinking either Germany or England. We always wind up going to less desirable locations. Going somewhere with good beer would be fantastic. Obviously the issue would be putting Guard/Reserve units on permanent rotations.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
MAJ (Join to see) No, in my opinion that NG should never leave CONUS. If they are supposed to be the state's militia that is.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Honest question.
"Is it advantageous for the State for the Guard to do so?"
By that I mean, how does it benefit Rhode Island or Ohio or Hawaii (or random state) to rotate through Europe? As the Guard is the de facto militia of the State, it has to have actual benefits for the State in question for their troops to rotate through.
Additionally, how will CS & CSS be handled?
Furthermore, though you will have less "active duty" in Europe, I have a feeling it may be a "Rob Peter to pay Paul" scenario going on. The second these become deployment cycles, those NG become "NG on Active Duty" which becomes cost "null" and may actually end up costing more in the long run, as you still end up having the same number of Active Duty, but now you have Deployed NG in addition.
I'm sure there are benefits. However what are the benefits in comparison to the drawbacks. That's the real question.
"Is it advantageous for the State for the Guard to do so?"
By that I mean, how does it benefit Rhode Island or Ohio or Hawaii (or random state) to rotate through Europe? As the Guard is the de facto militia of the State, it has to have actual benefits for the State in question for their troops to rotate through.
Additionally, how will CS & CSS be handled?
Furthermore, though you will have less "active duty" in Europe, I have a feeling it may be a "Rob Peter to pay Paul" scenario going on. The second these become deployment cycles, those NG become "NG on Active Duty" which becomes cost "null" and may actually end up costing more in the long run, as you still end up having the same number of Active Duty, but now you have Deployed NG in addition.
I'm sure there are benefits. However what are the benefits in comparison to the drawbacks. That's the real question.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google