Tension between National Guard and Active Duty Army?

I generally avoid this tension between AD and the NG.&nbsp; I am in the NG and deployed with the NG.&nbsp; We completed our mission on schedule and efficiently.&nbsp; That is all that ever matters to me.&nbsp; Whether Active duty, or NG, if the mission is successfully completed and in a professional manner, job well done.<br>

I remember at the start of the war in Iraq, every NG Soldier couldn't believe AD just did 4-6 month rotations. NG were stuck for a minimum 12 months. (16-17 months counting mob and premob) Minnesota Red Bull's were extended twice! 22 months total for one deployment. When I came around on my third deployment they changed the length AD deployed to 12 months, almost 5 years later. I'm sure this brought on some of that tension.

I see a lot of folks commenting on how handy the Guardsmen's civilian skillsets have been, but there are also times where the Guard shows up the Regular Army on the pure-military skill side.

Way back when the NTC was still relatively new, as part of the OPFOR I got to see first-hand how well units performed in large-scale combat/maneuver exercises. It was common for brigades to suffer massive failures, such the day our morning attack got repeatedly delayed and then cancelled because the blue-force battalion defending our objective could not locate the equivalent of one company (one platoon had been out of contact for a couple of days, and there were several squads which they lost contact with).

When a National Guard unit came through on a rotation, we naturally expected them to fair at least as poorly as the Regular Army units did. Instead, they handed the NTC OPFOR some of its soundest defeats. One "battle" in particular stands out in my memory, where 2 motorized rifle battalions were stopped cold by a couple of well-positioned platoons -- the dead OPFOR vehicles were so thick that the crews were able to swap rations by tossing them between vehicles while watching the fight, and only a couple of OPFOR vehicles made it past that defensive position (I think the Guard unit wound up executing a planned withdrawal when they ran low on ammo). To say we were impressed would be an understatement -- towards the end some of us were applauding each time an OPFOR vehicle lit up and halted.

I think that was the first day I really started believing that line about experience and cunning trumping youthful enthusiasm and vigor.

It' s been the norm for decades.

I served in the National Guard from 1997-2001 which was a great CAV/Infantry unit in the WARNG. My unit fought in the Battle of the Bulge in WW2 and earned the Belgian Forregaure. I dismiss people when they talk about nasty girls. I saw my guard unit in Iraq in 2005 when I was with 3rd id and they were still a squared away unit, very competent.

It's almost a polar opposite reaction in the Air Force. I've always worked with AD airlift squadrons who were envious of us as a guard unit because of how we flew, the quality of the aircraft we flew (due to superior maintenance from our ANG mechanics), and where we lived when not deployed. I say envious of how we flew because your average ANG squadron has seasoned experienced pilots and aircrew that have more flight time in that particular airframe then their AD counterparts. There is really no substitute for time in type when it comes to flying airplanes. Most ANG pilots are also commercial airline pilots as well so their situational awareness was very high when it came to international flying--something that a new AD pilot flying C-130's might not be exposed to yet. When we deploy in a C-130 unit to support combat operations in the ANG we join an Expeditionary Airlift Squadron in the deployed location. We inter-fly with AD crews (i.e. some pilots or loadmasters might be from different ANG or AD units, or both) and have a great safety record and high mission accomplishment rate in tough conditions (Think night combat air-drop missions in high altitude mountainous terrain, or landing a heavyweight airplane on a short dirt landing strip) That's thanks in large part because we all train initially to the same standard during our formal training.

I have been in the Guard for nearly 18 years with nearly 11 of that active service. When I hear another Guard Soldier bash the Guard, I usually ask them why they joined the Guard? Especially if they are a "Guard Baby". I can see how Active Component Soldiers have a slanted view when they transition to the Guard, but even then, the Soldier is basing his entire statement on what he/she experienced in the past.

As a Guardsmen, I have Mobilized/Deployed 5 times in support of either OIF or OEF. Does being in the Guard make me any less a Soldier or Leader? I say no. With my civilian experience included, I have a greater breadth of knowledge and experience to draw from when faced with certain issues/situations. I would say that those Guard leaders who have that and can utilize it for the betterment of a unit makes them better than their active component counterparts.

Sir,<div><br></div><div>Any Soldier, Sailor, Airmen, or Marine that doesn't respect another branch; is sadly lacking in personal confidence and trying to build themselves up though this negitive type of talk. If it is just inter-service rivalry, that I get; but if anyone thinks these last 13 years could have been accomplished without all members of all services, well their's isn't a mind worthy of effort.</div><div><br></div><div>I spent 12 years Active, 11 on the Guard side; I've seen stellar soldiers on both sides, likewise I've seen people I wouldn't trust to pick up the turds my dog drops on both sides. It is the whole team that wins the fight, it is the whole team that makes the US Armed forces the beast that it is.</div>

<p>The only experience I have serving alongside the National Guard during deployment was not a positive one. They were the NG from the Virgin islands. They were the most undisciplined, disrespectful, arrogant group I have ever met. One of their leaders got fired and one went to jail following the end of the deployment once they got back to the islands. Everyone of them (except one) failed their PT test and failed tape. Our Commander who was active duty who had these soldiers attached to us tried to get them administratively removed and sent back home. Unfortunately powers above wanted them there. </p><p>I was also stationed at Fort Bliss and it is a MOB site for the National Guard and Reserve. it is also a haven for on the spot corrections and just seeing things that make you stop in your tracks and ask yourself... Did this person go through Basic Training or did they buy their uniform at GI Supply?</p><p>I am sure there are a lot of NG and Reserve units out there that have significant achievements for the current wars and do not match the individuals I had the opportunity to serve with. I just have not had the opportunity to serve with the good&nbsp;and its those like stated above that give the NG a bad rap. I am not bashing anyone, I am telling you as I experienced it. It is those experiences that create the gripe between the two. Hell, Active duty has gripe between inner branches. Infantry, field artillery, armor, etc. </p>

There is tension between active duty platoons in the same company... between companies of active duty soldiers within each battalion. &nbsp; It's strange, but if you don't believe that you are in the best unit (platoon, company, battalion) you are probably in a pretty lousy unit... and about 80% of the soldiers I have known believed they were in the best unit in the Army... &nbsp;same dynamic within the Marine Corps - in addition to the tension between active duty Marines and active duty Soldiers... &nbsp;such is military life!<div><br></div>