What do you think about the Army's transition to the "one force" model?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:04:05 -0400

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.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 8:16 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:16:57 -0400

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.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 22 at 2016 8:55 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:55:03 -0400

About 60 of us AC folks and 60 AGR formed up as a NG TSC. We essentially created the AC and AGR groups instead of one hybrid and cohesive group. Throw in the MDAY soldiers and we further alienated the AC group. That's just how the punches rolled.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Mar 22 at 2016 9:45 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:45:36 -0400

Its been tried before, many years ago. Its just a way to save money and I think that it will be a bumpy road. The Guard tends to have a different mentality (mostly to cut out or ignore the bull) then the AD side. I can see some teething issues for sure.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 9:53 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:53:20 -0400

I was asked if I had any interest in volunteering for the unit. I chose not to, I don't know if I would have gotten it if I had, they made it sound competitive. I decided I would wait to see how it turns out, before I switch units. If it's a good gig, the opportunity will arise in the future. I would have been a lot more tempted if I had known they were going to deploy right off...

http://fox6now.com/2016/01/04/65-wisconsin-army-national-guard-soldiers-deployed-to-iraq-kuwait/

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/167005/arng-and-usar-soldiers-don-historic-old-abe-patch#.VvH1T4-cHcs

65 Wisconsin Army National Guard soldiers deployed to Iraq, Kuwait

MADISON — Gov. Scott Walker, Maj. Gen. Don Dunbar, Wisconsin’s adjutant general and senior Wisconsin National Guard leaders joined family and friends at a January 4th sendoff ceremony i…

Response by 1LT A. Uribe made Mar 22 at 2016 11:02 PM

1LT A. Uribe — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:02:47 -0400

I think it's great, I know California national guard needs some AC in their ranks.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2016 8:03 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:03:42 -0400

I've spent a lot of time in very old units on both sides. 3d Cavalry was from 1846 and 181 Infantry regiment the nations first from 1636 that currently serves under the 26th ID patch. Most soldiers, NCOs, and officers really don't care too much about the history anymore. That being said, the concept is strong. The CSA is a scholar warrior to the extreme, I trust his leadership.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2016 8:58 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:58:26 -0400

Wow, what's old really is new again... LT, I suggest you look into the old WARTRACE program (look at AR 11-30) from the mid-90s, which itself was a refinement of an affiliation program that dates back to the early 70s. The program partnered RC/NG units with an AA unit for combined training and wartime planning, deploying together, and METL alignment. Even things like using the AA patches in place of RC/NG traditional patches is giving me déjà vu.

In other words, this program is just the latest iteration, just as WARTRACE was a renaming and roll-up of a prior program called CAPSTONE, which was also a renaming/revitalization of the original 1970s one. Give it a decade or so, and just as before, new O-5/O-6 commanders will de-emphasize the specific affiliations (though they will technically remain), and then we'll get a new Army Chief who remembers the old programs from back when he led a BN/BDE and institutes a new round of it.

To be clear, I'm not complaining about it; in fact, I think the alignment of RC/NG units for strategic purposes has merit and should happen. I'm just surprised how *thoroughly* the same program gets forgotten.

From the AR I mentioned (note how similar it is to the current proposal): "The intent of Affiliation was to improve the training and readiness of RC combat battalions and brigades by associating them with AA units. Under this program, AA divisions formed training relationships with ARNG and USAR units and worked with these units during both AT and IDT. In 1976, combat support (CS) and combat service support (CSS) units were added to the program."

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2016 9:05 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:05:24 -0400

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.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2016 5:49 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 17:49:58 -0400

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.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2016 11:49 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:49:31 -0400

I am very excited about this. This is something that we really needed. We need to unify our forces. I am so tired of this "Guard vs Active" crap. We are one Army. We can learn from another. I think having a guard BCT fall in line with a Active Duty Command will help it stay in line with it's expected readiness and focus its training. On the same token it would greatly help the officers in the Guard to work with Active Duty officers. In the Guard we don't get to have a lot of experiences that the Active side gets. We can learn from them.

Something like this has been done in the past but not to this extent. I am looking forward to see the impact this has on the Guard overall.

Response by MSG Jeff Anderson made Mar 27 at 2016 5:35 PM

MSG Jeff Anderson — Sun, 27 Mar 2016 17:35:57 -0400

This is nothing new. It was done back in the 80s and 90s. Back then 48th IBCT was partnered with 24ID when it was at Fort Stewart. All totaled there were 15 ARNG maneuver Ready brigades with the majority partnered with AC units. It was only marginally successful then. The true test would be if a ARNG brigade could deploy with its parent AC Division during a contingency mission. Do not recall on ARNG that deployed with its parent AC unit during Desert Shield/Storm. During Desert Shield/Storm three ARNG maneuver brigades were mobilized but did not deploy. The downsizing of the AC component makes the use of the ARNG even more critical in order to meet all projected mission requirements. The main issue is that many ARNG maneuver brigades need to modernized and need increased manning. Many ARNG units have numerous shortages in many range of MOSs and need additional funding to recruit and increase their level of manpower to reduce shortages. Unless these units can get sufficient funding for recruiting, training and modernization then the One Force concept will be hollow. Also, the ARNG force structure will need to be reviewed to see if it will be relevant enough. For instance there are plenty of infantry units but few armor formations. Just stating that we will have One Force will not translate to capability.

Response by 1SG Michael Bonnett made Jun 3 at 2016 7:57 AM

1SG Michael Bonnett — Fri, 03 Jun 2016 07:57:20 -0400

Quite simply it is a play by the current President to take control of the State's Defense forces in without having to federalize them in violation of the US Constitution as per the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution, under 32 U.S.C. § 109.

It lets him use them for actions they should not be deployed to because there is not an overriding national threat that would let him attempt to Federalize them...

Does it help training sure....so does a draft, and just as legal with out the approval of Congress......

Response by LTC James McElreath made Mar 8 at 2019 11:23 PM

LTC James McElreath — Fri, 08 Mar 2019 23:23:48 -0500

The one problem that I experienced while in Iraq war when the command needed to fill a spot they plucked you out to fill the position, and heaven forbid they not need you in the position than you got pulled again. If one has no real affiliation with the command than as stated get shoveled around the battle field. This job/locations bouncing around makes it hard to be respected by the command.

Response by SPC Casey Ashfield made Mar 9 at 2019 11:00 PM

SPC Casey Ashfield — Sat, 09 Mar 2019 23:00:22 -0500

I don't like it one bit. My unit, 86th IBCT, donned the patch of their "partner" unit 10th MTN, not long after my ETS. There has always been a friendly/not so friendly rivalry between us, and it has given me a fair amount of bias. That being said in 5 years with the 86th we had no cross training with 10th MTN on a large scale. There needs to be some real collaboration to this partnership and not just patch swapping in order for it to work like COS wants. In any other case, it just degrades unit identity.