Posted on Oct 10, 2015
What are your thoughts on the (4) Recommendations For The Future Of The Total Army?
15K
60
20
9
9
0
What are your thoughts on the (4) Recommendations For The Future Of The Total Army?
Here’s how the Regular Army, National Guard, and Reserve can work better to maintain U.S. land power dominance.
RP Members (active and veterans) do agree or disagree?
http://taskandpurpose.com/4-recommendations-for-the-future-of-the-total-army/
After nearly two years of bitter skirmishes between the three components of the U.S. Army — Active, National Guard, and Reserve — a congressionally mandated commission of retired Army leaders and Department of Defense officials will study the current force structure of America’s land force and make recommendations on its future composition. Though the National Commission on the Future of the Army was formed as a result of sparring between the three Army components and their interest groups, it presents an opportunity to create an Army capable of meeting the complex security threats our nation faces today and into the 21st century. With the Islamic State still controlling large swaths of Iraq and Syria, renewed uncertainty in Afghanistan and Russia’s perpetuation of “frozen conflicts” along its western border, the need for a decisive land force capable of meeting conventional, asymmetric and hybrid threats is as critical as ever. So how can the Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve work better to achieving that end? Here are four recommendations for the National Commission on the Future of the Army to consider.
Here’s how the Regular Army, National Guard, and Reserve can work better to maintain U.S. land power dominance.
RP Members (active and veterans) do agree or disagree?
http://taskandpurpose.com/4-recommendations-for-the-future-of-the-total-army/
After nearly two years of bitter skirmishes between the three components of the U.S. Army — Active, National Guard, and Reserve — a congressionally mandated commission of retired Army leaders and Department of Defense officials will study the current force structure of America’s land force and make recommendations on its future composition. Though the National Commission on the Future of the Army was formed as a result of sparring between the three Army components and their interest groups, it presents an opportunity to create an Army capable of meeting the complex security threats our nation faces today and into the 21st century. With the Islamic State still controlling large swaths of Iraq and Syria, renewed uncertainty in Afghanistan and Russia’s perpetuation of “frozen conflicts” along its western border, the need for a decisive land force capable of meeting conventional, asymmetric and hybrid threats is as critical as ever. So how can the Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve work better to achieving that end? Here are four recommendations for the National Commission on the Future of the Army to consider.
Soldiers
Army National Guard
Reserves
Future
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 16
7
7
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs These four concepts may be useful but I doubt they are sufficient.
1. Give the Total Force “teeth.” [General concept which if fully resourced could be sufficient]
2. Keep Apache helicopters in the National Guard and Reserve. [very specific
3. Provide a continuum of service across the components. [This is a violation of the law which ensures that we could not go to war without Congressional actions calling up the reserve component service support assets required to support a war after 30, 60 or 90 days]
4. Revisit multi-component unit structure. [Multi-component force structure could work well in periods of stability. Unfortunately when reserve component units are called up more frequently and when they are used as other units such as FA units becoming Infantry, convoy security, etc. without sufficient training or resources or both]
1. Give the Total Force “teeth.” [General concept which if fully resourced could be sufficient]
2. Keep Apache helicopters in the National Guard and Reserve. [very specific
3. Provide a continuum of service across the components. [This is a violation of the law which ensures that we could not go to war without Congressional actions calling up the reserve component service support assets required to support a war after 30, 60 or 90 days]
4. Revisit multi-component unit structure. [Multi-component force structure could work well in periods of stability. Unfortunately when reserve component units are called up more frequently and when they are used as other units such as FA units becoming Infantry, convoy security, etc. without sufficient training or resources or both]
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
This may be more aimed at politicians...
1. Realize the budget cannot be cut, while the cost of overhead, training, acquiring modern equipment systems and personnel... is increasing.
2. Due to the restructuring and force drawdown, realize that it is now impossible to deploy the active army without engaging the reserves and national guard.
3. Realize our TOTAL ARMY is made up of ALL VOLUNTEER PERSONNEL. As such, this means the Army needs to provide competitive pay/compensation packages to attract the best we can get.
4. Do not neglect the ever changing scope of electronic operations.
This may be more aimed at politicians...
1. Realize the budget cannot be cut, while the cost of overhead, training, acquiring modern equipment systems and personnel... is increasing.
2. Due to the restructuring and force drawdown, realize that it is now impossible to deploy the active army without engaging the reserves and national guard.
3. Realize our TOTAL ARMY is made up of ALL VOLUNTEER PERSONNEL. As such, this means the Army needs to provide competitive pay/compensation packages to attract the best we can get.
4. Do not neglect the ever changing scope of electronic operations.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
First, and most important, get rid of the toy guns (the cute little plastic guns that fire a modified .22-caliber bullet). Big American Wars - Spanish American, WWI, WWII, Korea where won with big guns .30-caliber or NATO 7.62mm. Develop a gun similar to the AK47, big bullet, rugged but lighter than the M-14. Bring back the M-1911 .45-cal. pistol - 9mm bullets are good for target practice. Retire the Humvee, bring back the Jeep. Why do the troops go into battle with 80-pounds of equipment? Bring that crap up later. WHERE THE HELL IS THE ARTILLERY?
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google