Posted on Mar 22, 2016
What do you think about the Army's transition to the "one force" model?
13.2K
62
43
10
10
0
Many knew this was coming, but the Army announced the Associated Units Pilot Program, which now blends RA, USAR, and ARNG units.
On the active duty side, I'm curious as to your thoughts on management and C2.
On the National Guard side, some brigades will lose their patches in faovr of active duty patches, some of whom have long storied histories dating back to the Civil War.
On the active duty side, I'm curious as to your thoughts on management and C2.
On the National Guard side, some brigades will lose their patches in faovr of active duty patches, some of whom have long storied histories dating back to the Civil War.
Posted in these groups: 
Army National Guard
Reserves
Army National Guard Reserves
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 14
8
8
0
Gen. Milley was the CG of ISAF - Joint Command when I deployed to Afghanistan. From what I've gathered from that and from statements that he has made since taking over as CoS, he loves the Guard. I can't say I didn't see it coming when he took the job.
I've been on both sides of the fence and I can't say that I'm a fan of this idea. I've enjoyed my time in the Guard more than I enjoyed AD. From what I've seen in my 7 1/2 years as a Guardsman, we focus more on doing our jobs when we're gathered than all the check the block nonsense that AD tangles themselves up in. If you start having AD people creeping around Guard units, you're going to inject all that AD BS into the Guard...and we don't have the time or the patience for it.
I've been on both sides of the fence and I can't say that I'm a fan of this idea. I've enjoyed my time in the Guard more than I enjoyed AD. From what I've seen in my 7 1/2 years as a Guardsman, we focus more on doing our jobs when we're gathered than all the check the block nonsense that AD tangles themselves up in. If you start having AD people creeping around Guard units, you're going to inject all that AD BS into the Guard...and we don't have the time or the patience for it.
(8)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Same thing in the Reserves. We do the mission, we don't play the f#@! f@#! games like active duty does.
(2)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
There is certainly a culture difference. The Regular Army would say that they follow the regulations, which is what I believe you are referring to as AD BS or "F#@! F#@!" games. Now, the AC doesn't have enough time to do everything it is told to do either, which is why Commanders have to make the decision of what not to do. The same thing goes for USAR and ARNG. It's just different stuff that falls off the plate when you are looking at conducting training in the amount of time you have. Just because an AC unit belongs to an ARNG unit in this plan doesn't mean that they will be allowed to slack off when it comes to requirements. Just because an ARNG unit is Associated with an AC unit in this plan doesn't mean they are going to have more time to do menial tasks that it doesn't have time for. Train how you fight, right? I haven't been to war without an ARNG unit somewhere subordinate to me or on my flank yet.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
Well, I wrote the memo for the Secretary of the Army and one of the orders that is currently on its way to be published on this. This has been a LONG road. A couple of people have said that it's been tried before and that's generally true. The Army Total Force Policy (Army Policy Memo 2012-08) was put under the auspices of the ASA-MR&A and has been in effect for a while. This document lays the ground work for a part of what is being done now...so it's not new, it's just a different way of going about it. Previously there were informal partnerships requiring Memorandums of Agreement between FORSCOM and individual states or even Corps and Divisions with local units. The Associated Unit Pilot Program formalizes these relationships with actual written guidance and authorities. Association is actually a legal term used in U.S. Code, Title 10. In summary, the Secretary of the Army has the authority to designate units which are essential to the execution of the National Security Strategy and Associate them. In doing so, he grants authority to a gaining commander to control their training plan, review their readiness and conduct assessments of their compatibility with the gaining command. THIS is the big change. Everything before was personality driven...based on MOU's. This has teeth. A commander has actual authority over the Associated unit. It's tied to resources. Unlike the programs of the past, where it could fall apart if senior Army leadership didn't put emphasis on it, we've built a program where tactical commanders now have control and it doesn't go away unless the Secretary of the Army makes another decision.
(6)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see), this only affects the units identified by the Secretary of the Army...at this point. More will be added as the pilot program renders its findings. These aren't alignments, these are Associations. We tried to make them as regional as we could. Some are closer than others. The USAR IN BN in Hawaii is Associated with a Brigade Combat Team from the 25th ID. The 48th IBCT is Associated with the 3d Infantry Division in Georgia. Task Force 1-28 IN (formerly 3d Brigade, 3d Infantry Division), an Active Component battalion task force is associated to the 48th IBCT. We did our best to keep them in an area where they could realistically do training and coordinate. Alignments aren't formal ADCON relationships. They are very lose and low. An Association would overrule that relationship and break it. We did our best to use FORSCOM's partnership planning as a baseline in order to maintain already established relationships. Very few were changed. Deployment times would change, but it would likely be between their current timeline (90-115 days) to something like 60-90 days. The objective of more training days per year is to reduce the time in post-MOB training.
(0)
(0)
LCpl Dale Blackmon
Is this legal under the Constitution? I mean, how does this affect the Second Amendment Rights of individual States as far as keeping a well regulated militia? Does this take away command authority of the elected governors of these individual states?
(0)
(0)
COL (Join to see)
LCpl Dale Blackmon You're mixing Title 32 and Title 10 authorities. Unless you have read them and understand public law, you'll be in way over your head throwing constitutionality around. Bottom line is that it is legal and authorized by public law which is subject to constitutional limitations.
(0)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
LCpl Dale Blackmon - The national gaurd isn't a militia. It still falls under the US Army.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
GEN Milley has the right idea. The National Guard and Reserves are main stream America stationed across thousands of readiness centers in all 54 States & Territories. We will never go to war without main stream america again. The current system is 3 stove piped Army organizations that only really meet up in special cases (NTC, operational partnerships), overseas, and at the very top of the organization (Pentagon planners).
There are efficiencies to be gained to integrating the three components into a total Army operational force. Given the current low level conflict that is likely to go on indefinitely spreading deployments across the total Army means more dwell time for Active Component and more operational experience for the Reserve Component. It means you can outsource a battalion or brigade to the RC and not pay so much money. ...Maybe it means that the Congressional Representatives have a continued stake in the Army as it will be units from their home districts that continue to deploy to the low level conflict or other operational deployment.
There are efficiencies to be gained to integrating the three components into a total Army operational force. Given the current low level conflict that is likely to go on indefinitely spreading deployments across the total Army means more dwell time for Active Component and more operational experience for the Reserve Component. It means you can outsource a battalion or brigade to the RC and not pay so much money. ...Maybe it means that the Congressional Representatives have a continued stake in the Army as it will be units from their home districts that continue to deploy to the low level conflict or other operational deployment.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google