To join a reserve component, should it be a required to serve X amount of active duty time first?

[edit] Other people are providing much better thought out answers than I have, so here's take two.

That logic is somewhat flawed, the national guard and the reserves have both deployed many soldiers and units who have acted admirably in theater. It can be quite challenging to maintain a unit wide RL1 status in the National Guard when you are faced with the same requirements as Active Duty, but only have around 40 days a year to meet them. Because of that, and because of the multitude of civilian backgrounds, Guardsmen are bringing a lot to the table in terms of outside of the box solutions and additional support you might not think of. There is nothing that Active Duty first program like that will bring to the table that isn't already here.

There is a different culture in the Reserve components. As a member of the National Guard, we do not "live" the active duty lifestyle. We are civilians with a military ethos. Just like Active Component, we have a wide range of focus and dedication from each individual soldier because we have to juggle full-time civilian jobs, college and other demands while being available 24/7 for service requirements all at the same time. Our families may be spread out for many miles making it difficult when we are deployed to help support each other emotionally like active component can. Reserve components bring more real world experience with them to the fight than active component because we have more life experience, multiple skillsets, prior active component soldiers, as well as experience multi-tasking. The demographic for Active component are younger soldiers right out of High School and College who may or may not have any skills outside ofnwhat they will learn in AIT. We work better with local civilian populations since we live as civilians for the majority of our time. We have demonstrated through OIF, OEF and past conflicts, that we are fully capable to carry out our missions with less real time training. If anything, it is the Reserve component soldiers who are more adept at an ever changing combat environment and capable of doing more with less. We may not appear as real soldiers in the etes of many active duty soldiers because of the active mentality but Inassure you we can perform at or above the level of many active component units.

I have been NG for over 13 years and my experience has been wonderful. N G soldiers bring common sense to any mission.

Reserves bring a wealth of experience to the force; many jobs have civilian acquired skills ( ie first responders, medical, engineers) some are former active duty; others not. Of course many reservists/guard members get active duty anyway many times in combat. Also if an active tour were required, it would be hard to get the enlistment/appointment quotas needed.

To a point I agree. There are the RC attitude that I don't have to listen, or do it that way because I'm the "Guard". I have been both sides. they think because they are in the guard that the Regs don't apply to them or that they are coming off orders what are you going to do to me. I'll go home and it will all go away! I think that a small active stint would do the trick to some extent but then would revert back to the same old same ole!

SGT Garrett Butterfield,

So you take a unit in Western Nebraska and make it a Truck Company. You have Farmers, Ranchers, kids that have grown up around heavy equipment. Most of them own guns and have hunted for many years, I leaned to shoot a .22 when I was 5 from my father, he to served in the Army. Then add in teachers, law enforcement, carpenters, a computer technician, you have a very broad base of skill sets to draw from.

This changes the picture a little does it not. I have served on both sides of the fence, yes when I was active I thought the RC's to be a bunch of rag bags. Well they don't have a lot of time to practice D & C and other Garrison dog and pony shows. They train to get the job done.

Just due to the culture that people have in rural places like I am from are more capable than you think, many of the civilians can shoot as good as or better than most soldiers. I have seen guys drop a coyote at 300 yards on a dead run. My second deer was taken at about 400 yards running away from me, I think I was 16 at the time. My Father could shoot a fence post at a quarter mile with open sites (No Scope).

There is a rifle range not far from where I live where they have 1000 yard range and people from all over the area come to compete.

Things I leaned to do on active duty when not doing my MOS. Buffing floors, mowing grass, raking leaves, police calls, stand in line, painting, and what ever other detail some one could come up with.

Got to say no. First is the retention and recruiting hurdles although that isn't your point. Making AD a requirement would put a lot of people out of contention right off the bat. But to go to your point, I think you're trying to discuss the military bearing and military mentality within the ranks.

Frankly, I'm one of those guys that don't have the military mentality during drill weekend. I've got about 15 years of experience, 3-5 years of which are in AD. But every time I go to a school, deployment, or extended AD period, I'm still the laid back guy I am in the civilian world. I set myself apart from the clean cut hooah-hooah guys (and gals) I'm surrounded by. However, I never loose my military bearing or professionalism.

In the civilian world (which pays my bills), I'm a professional business man. I make decisions and network with people WITHOUT having the military authoritative right to give them the open hand point to get things done. Come drill weekend, I'm working with those same people. It works for us. It works for a lot of people. Drives the AD guys crazy come MOB station. But objectives are met, meetings are held, MDMP happens (although maybe even quicker and with good banter).

But like I say at work all the time... what's the so-what? What's the objective? Is it to have a bunch of guys able to line up and march everywhere they go? Or is it to have a problem solving, enemy butt-kicking, OPORD writing, trench digging, rifle shooting cohesive team that saves the world? My squad of firefighter, business owner, IT guy, pest control, pilot, and truck driver guys can do all of that.

No. There are a lot of people who prefer staying in the Guard or Reserve and have no interest in going on active duty except for basic and then annual training. Also many people are going to school full time and can't take the time out for 4 years of active duty. And there are active duty people who have no interest in joining the reserves.

Yes there should be mandatory active duty service first. This gives the person a true sense and respect for military traditions, and appreciation for military discipline and need to follow orders.
I have seen reservists and guardsmen, that have no sense or feeling for the history and the whys of the military.

I like the idea but then you need privates in the National Guard. If you had to rely on the exiting service members as a pool of candidates you would be a limiting factor. The experience would be welcomed as it currently is but there would be too many limiting factors.

No. One of the great things about the reserve component is people can resume their civilian lives after completing BCT/AIT. If the balloon goes up, those people WILL be ready. We've done it before - we can do it again

This sounds like a good idea ! It just might make the army national guard and or reserve function better and more proficient !!

I don't think that active service should be a prerequisite to service in the reserve component. I can see the point that you are making, but it doesn't account for the fact that every component and every branch is designed to fit a particular aspect of personal service. Requiring active service prior to entry into the reserve component would eliminate the ability to for many to serve who have obligations such as college or a business from serving. I have served in every component of the Army active, reserve, and national guard and each was right for me at the time. Though I did have two years on active duty it did little to prepare me for the various jobs that I have had since that time, but I still value that experience none the less. What I mean is that as Specialist on active duty trained in communication did not provide a lot of value while serving as a First Sergeant of a MP Company. I have read throughout the threads that it is recognized that the resrve component brings a lot to the table in their service and that they are every bit the professional as others who serve on active duty.

The Reserve and Guard are required to attend IADT. There is a different mentality in the reserve components, but to assume the the different mentality is negative in any way is short sighted and foolish. The Reserve and National Guard bring much to the table that the AD soldiers do not realize or understand. If nothing else, the cost of prolonged AD would be cost prohibitive, and that is before considering the recruiting repercussions.

PFC Ward,
In my experiences (all OHARNG) the Active Duty units we replaced on deployments were subpar compared to us. Understandably your MOS is harder to do training on at drill, being a medic, but you need to bring it to the attention of your squad leader or section sergeant that you are craving more training. Being familiar with your BN I know you are attached from HHC with probably one other medic. Make it aware during your AAR comments. There are plenty of opportunities outside your BN but within the Brigade to get some training done with other medics.

PFC Ward,
I spent 7 years in the National Guard from 1988-1995. It was always beneficial to have some prior service guys around. Don't forget the purpose of the National Guard though; they are to augment our Active force and by and large have more Soldirs than the active component. There just aren't enough prior service folks to fill the ranks. You don't have to be prior service to make a difference. In closing, don't sell yourself short; you are not lower enlisted but junior enlisted.

I have had this thought many times since I served on active duty for 120 days beginning the day I reported in. At the end of those 4-month orders, the difference in deployment readiness and MOS proficiency between myself and the other junior Marines - reservists - who had been there for years was obvious.

Many have had this thought, and although it isn't a bad idea...I would have a hard time saying that it's a good one. The National Guard for instamce is a state force, which is already already (and wrongly) controlled by the federal government, but to make it so that only people who had served federally could get into the force would be a complete conflict of interest. For the reserves..
perhaps, but the NG and reserves really do benefit from the experience that alot of their people bring from the civillian world. We also tend to much less regemented and by the book which can be of benefit. I say all this as a former active duty service member. If the state decided to make it mandatory for anyone in command positions to have served some AD time I think that could have some benefit, but that should be entirely their decision.

No, the Federal government could never afford the financial burden of having that many Active Duty Soldiers for one. Also, both Active and RC require those E1-E4 people in their ranks. That's why there are often recruiting bonuses to bring in fresh blood

NO, as beneficial as that might be.