What do you think of consolidating the Reserve and National Guard?

2015-03-19T00:13:41-04:00

The post about merging the USMC and USA brought this to mind again. This is something my peers in the RC, both Guard and Reserve, have discussed on multiple occasions. With the impending draw down and budget cuts, does it really make sense to have a National Guard and Reserve in the Reserve Component?

The current system seems to have an immense amount of redundancies, ranging from specific capabilities such as medical and CBRN troops to geographic specific higher headquarters. With the Reserve being reorganized into deployable commands, it seems to me as though it's role of augmenting the regular force at a small unit level has ended.

Merging the Reserve force structure into the National Guard is the solution I would propose. The resulting combined formation, I believe, would increase the strength of our formations while allowing us to reduce some of the overhead bureaucracy, training facilities, and higher headquarters we currently have. This ultimately would save us on personnel and equipment costs while increasing the Reserve Component's ability to generate combat power.

The reasons for integrating the Reserve into the Guard instead of vice-versa are relatively straightforward. The dual Title 10/Title 32 status of the National Guard allows it far greater flexibility in deploying and provides Governors with a pool of resources to draw upon the Reserve does not. Furthermore, the National Guard has both Combat and Support formations, providing greater flexibility in the case of Federal mobilization. Finally, the National Guard typically has a much larger infrastructure available to its units, fostering both training and readiness. The few capabilities that the National Guard currently does not have, such as Civil Affairs or Drill sergeants, would not be that difficult to integrate into say a SFG's force structure or RTI respectively. While I've been looking at this largely from an Army perspective, I can't see why the benefits would be any different on the Air side of the house.

With all of that being said, I've spent the entirety of my 8 years at the Company level. There are likely some reasons at the strategic and operational level that I do not have visibility of. What are your thoughts?

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 19 at 2015 12:17 AM

2015-03-19T00:17:16-04:00

I don't think that could be done. The Army Reserve belongs to DOD under title 10 USC... the reserve for the Active Duty Army. The Army National Guard belongs to their states under title 32 USC, unless federally mobilized... I guess we could figure it out, but good luck... The Guard (for some strange political reason) now has a 4 star seat on the JCS...

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 1:42 AM

2015-03-19T01:42:34-04:00

Yes we need them both. Plain and simple. NG has combat arms and protects within the United States to protect the citizenry even from the Federal Government as it is run by the Governor of each state, it's duty to the people of that state. The Army reserves is a federal force who answers to the president and is legally banned from being used against the citizenry or as a police force within our borders. So yes. They have VERY different missions and have the same redundancies as the Marines, Air Force, Navy and the Army all do with each other. The present system has worked since WWII. Why mess with it

Response by SPC Lukas Jones made Mar 19 at 2015 3:24 AM

2015-03-19T03:24:35-04:00

I agree with COL Charles Williams ! The National Guard serves the state and the governor and are only allowed to be pulled into national service with the permission of the state's governor. They exist to be available to each state should a natural disaster or state emergency occur. The Reserves exist to augment the Active Component Army should the need arise for a sudden increase of soldiers (war, national or international incident). Combining these branches would detract from the National Guard's ability to support their state as the governor would then have to request military forces from the White House before any action would be taken.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 4:32 AM

2015-03-19T04:32:59-04:00

Other than some Constitutional "issues", I don't think the States need/could handle the economic burden that inheriting a greater force would cause. I have seen some pretty financially strapped National Guard units.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2015 9:20 AM

2015-03-19T09:20:17-04:00

I find it a compelling conversation, and without knowing the absolute monstrosity that is both of these organizations, I would say that it seems like a plausible idea. My concerns would be:

1) State control. How do we properly allocate slots to states that may not be able to fund these, in some cases, thousands upon thousands of new service members.

2) Promotions. Right now, the USAR promotes nationally. I am limited not by state allocations but by national allocation. How would that change if, all of a sudden, Michigan gets all USAR slots within its confines.

3) Mission Command. Would the 300th MP BDE (USAR) and the 177th MP BDE (MIARNG) fall under a new HQ? The 300th falls under a command in Maryland. How would that structure change? Would we be creating a whole lot of new intrastate HQs, or would we have interstate HQs?

4) Total state control. Would federalized service change for those currently in the USAR?

My hunch tells me that the federal government dislikes very much giving up control of anything so it would prefer that the NG be assumed by the USAR. However, there are 100 senators, 50 governors, and territorial administrators (plus a 4-star on the JCS) who would fight to the death for that. So, I think that it would make sense and that we could iron out the significant folds should there be a political consensus. I mean, my goodness, we did mobilize an army of millions from nothing in the 1940s, we fought a civil war and reunited, and we broke away from a 18th-century great power. We've done far more difficult things, but there has to be a political will. I think that would be the great stumbling block.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 19 at 2015 9:57 AM

2015-03-19T09:57:22-04:00

I'll throw this out from a Marine perspective.

I worked with MARFORRES right around 9/11. As part of my in-brief, they explained the philosophy to me. (this information is extremely dated, and I may have missed quite a bit)

Although we have Marine Reserve Units, their primary focus was about activating individual Marines.

Most Active Marine units run at about 75-85%~ strength. We rate 4 people, but have 3. When war breaks out, we recall a reservist and send him to an Active unit, bringing us up to 100%. There's no expectation of recalling an entire Reserve unit and being able to fight with them.

Does the Army do something similar with your own reserves?

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 19 at 2015 10:01 AM

2015-03-19T10:01:51-04:00

With many of the calls to cut costs in defense this could be an ideal situation. It also allows the state governors (assuming all reserves are switched to Guard) more control over the forces. This can afford more power to each state on the commitment of their forces to a particular war. This can be a good thing, but could also lead to political posturing.

Response by SGT Tyler G. made Mar 20 at 2015 3:00 PM

2015-03-20T15:00:21-04:00

No, the National Guard is a state asset, while the Reserves are a federal asset. The National Guard, though having served in a federal capacity during the war on terror, is meant to serve the states needs first, and as such merging them with the Reserves would unnecessarily take power away from the states, and diminish their ability to deal with crisis.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2015 11:10 AM

2015-03-31T11:10:28-04:00

While you are correct that these two elements have redundancies, your logic doesn't support a merge of Reserve into Guard.

1) Overhead. You note that the NG has a "much larger infrastructure available to its units." That's because there are 54 HQ/infrastructure duplications -- one for each Guard element.
- The Reserve provides regional support, streamlining admin and training support, and reducing duplication.

2) Deployment. The NG is more difficult to mobilize/deploy.
a. To mobilize the NG, not only does the NGB have to concur, but so does the JFHQ in each state, and the Governor. If you want a whole unit at the BCT level, you have to get concurrence from more than one state -- since only in TX does a single state man an entire BCT.
b. As a result of this, we have over-mobilized NG units for the last decade plus, as the NGB, et al. does not support providing the forces that are required for the mission, but rather whole, intact units. While this is nice for unit esprit de corps, it also means that some NG Soldiers deployed without a mission requirement, and either twiddled their thumbs or got re-tasked into something that was actually viable, work-wise.
- The Reserve, as a federal entity, is required to report and execute their mission, in the manner in which they are required, much like their AC counterparts.

3) Organization. DOTMLPF does not support integrating CA into SFGs or DS into RTI. Also, its not just DS which are part of the Army's Reserve Institutional Training capability set -- and you're not going to integrate Instructors who cover ILE, AIT, CPX, etc. into RTI. Those are much bigger than the RTI mission.

4) Flexibility. Sure, the governors have their own little force. But Title 10 12304a authorizes the use of federal reserve forces CONUS, in a way that previously was not possible. However, we can't send the Guard OCONUS (as noted elsewhere in the comments). Additionally, since we have to use multiple funding streams to support the NG, we are forced to have more administrative regulation and "tail" to take folks from M-Day to T32 to T10 orders, etc.

5) Old news. The 1992/3 Off-site agreement is what developed the Guard and Reserve into what they are today. The Guard gambled that the way to remain relevant and required would be to focus on combat & combat service elements. They tacked on some CSS so they could have women in their formations and not eliminate 1/2 the enlistment pool. In reality, we see today that these formations are difficult and expensive to maintain on the limited training days available to reserve component forces. Meanwhile, the Reserve focused on the CS and CSS elements, which have inverted career paths (your options only get better as you gain rank, as opposed to combat arms, where there are not positions for "miscellaneous infantry officer" on staff) and which Congress has consistently off-ramped from the AC formations.

As a result, the critical requirement is the Reserve, not the Guard.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Apr 30 at 2015 12:17 AM

2015-04-30T00:17:09-04:00

Do to the inordinate amount of discrepancies and political meandering between the various states, merging them into the guard would be the ultimate military folly. A few States have the governor pic the TAG, a few have the state legislature do it, and one state in particular allows the TAG to still be publicly elected. Another State has its TAG wear a three star even though they are only in a two star billet but give him a third star. There is a that state leases out its armory on College football weekends and sends the troops off so alumni have a place to park their giant RV's. The cronyism would be off the charts, far worse than it is today, and there is a lot of cronyism out there, it just doesn't get talked about as much.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2015 11:34 AM

2015-06-12T11:34:09-04:00

Merging the National Guard and Army Reserves has been examined since 1947 (the Gray Board) established by Secretary of Defense Jim Forestall to examine the status of reserve forces (they actually recommended abolishing the National Guard). In 1964, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara recommended merging both reserve components of the Army under National Guard management. These proposals stalled due to lack of congressional support resulting from the lobbying efforts of associations representing the National Guard and Reserves as well as other interest groups.

There is no doubt that such a merger would save costly overhead and reduce costs for the American taxpayers we serve. I believe the biggest obstacle to obtaining such a decision and implementing this merger is the loss of General Officer billets. It is amazing how self-preservation instincts kick in if GO positions are at stake.

Response by CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret) made Sep 10 at 2015 7:08 PM

2015-09-10T19:08:20-04:00

This will never happen - the guard is owned by the states.

Response by SSG Raymond Whitener made Sep 12 at 2015 8:15 AM

2015-09-12T08:15:37-04:00

Merging the two, not going to happen, but forming Joint task forces for special missions stemming from Riot control to Firefighting, Border patrol, and Air/Ground coordination, these things would save money and manpower with the forming of JTF's.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Nov 20 at 2015 9:44 AM

2015-11-20T09:44:38-05:00

"What do you think of consolidating the Reserve and National Guard?"

Worst idea ever.

Walt

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2015 9:52 AM

2015-11-20T09:52:44-05:00

I am for it. In PA the reserves and Guard share many of their armories all ready. And it seems that PA gets tapped for a alot of federal duties so cutting title 32 orders for those reservists missions wouldn't be that hard.

Response by MAJ Alvin B. made Nov 22 at 2015 11:31 AM

2015-11-22T11:31:03-05:00

No, I do not believe they should be combined. They actually serve different roles, have different capabilities, different authorities, and there are Consittutional issues to consider as well.
In a nut shell: The current system is a compromise.

The Reserves exist to supplement and augment Active Duty force capabilities. The vast majority of military sustainment units exist in the Rserves as do,specialized units that are not always needed I peace, but would be crucial to certain operations. The Rserves also exist to support a quick mobilization if required. The issue we face today, is one created due to a convergence of factors, Cold War end, budget reduction, force deprawdown, the global,war on terror, the desire to not impact the average citizen as a result of the wars, etc...these have led to a redesignation of the Reseves from their near 100 year status as Strategic forces, to their current status as Operational forces.

The National Guard as we know it today is a compromise resulting for the Federal,Governemt's attempt to control the State Malitias and Civilain Malitias (e.g. 1st USV of Spanish-American War fame) as part of the reform movement which emerged after the Spanish-Amercian War. Prior to the reforms the states controlled their own military resources without Ferderal,oversight or control. Since the reforms the Guard traditionally has contained 80% or more (100% in some categories), of the military combat power and units. These units answer to the State Governor until federalized and are dual funded by state and federal funds. These units are traditionally the deep bench strategic strength if the military. However, they too have been designated operational assets. Meaning, we have tapped deeply into our military power "savings and investments" to execute military operations over the past 15 years.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2015 11:32 AM

2015-11-22T11:32:28-05:00

The Guard has drill sergeants. My unit shares an Amory with an RSP unit complete with DS

Response by SPC Kortney Kistler made Nov 22 at 2015 1:35 PM

2015-11-22T13:35:37-05:00

To preface this, I was a Combat Engineer (equipment Operator). My Unit was Combat Heavy with two General Construction Platoons (Vertical) and One Heavy Equipment Platoon (Horizontal). No self respecting Reservist would want to be a Guardsman and vice versa. I am not certain about the legalities and command structure that has been discussed in depth on this post, but what I am certain of is in my tenure as a reservist my annual trainings ran 2 trips OCONUS and 1 CONUS cyclical. Being from the Mid-West, all the Guardsmen that I knew went to Ft, McCoy WI every AT. Not much of an adventure, or opportunity as military service is concerned.

This is what I can say about rank and classification: When I was in anybody with the appropriate amount of promotion points could occupy an NCO slot without proper credentials (Non-MOSQd). They were not forced to join the unit that held the slot they occupied. They could continue drilling where they were and receive all the pay and privilege of the rank that they wore on their collar. It prevented a lot of good soldiers from earning their way up the ranks in their Home Unit, a bit of a career killer for many. This has since changed. If you take a promotion in a slot that is not in your unit you have to commute to the unit where you hold that slot. With the proper amount of motivation and career dedication someone can make a decent career in the reserves and attain rank in a timely manner. Anywhere the troop is willing to relocate or travel to, they can take that slot if eligible. If the soldier was willing to train there were schools everywhere they could get sent to keep learning.
I don't know how other unit's did things, but in my company we did everything above and beyond our MOS. If something needed to be taken care of and you knew how to do it, you just went ahead and made it happen. We got stuff done. We went beyond the military training and took into account the civilian skills that people had and put them to work.

As far as I know of the National Guard, you are restricted to what is available in the state that you belong to as far as rank and training are concerned. You have a fairly limited career path as to what you were hired to do and that is about it. Promotion opportunities depend on what is available in the allotted slots available in the state structure and that is it. If you have a civilian job that doesn't allow you extra time to be a super soldier and gain the points needed to make rank you are stuck as a specialist.

Things have since changed as I have been out for 10 years. It has always seemed you had more opportunities in the Reserves over the National Guard.

I don't think they should combine the two because they both fill a very important niche. Guardsmen are mobilized for CONUS disaster relief as well as their Title 10 obligations, while Reservists do a lot od OCONUS humanitarian missions as CS roles when mobilized.

I don't know if anything I have said makes sense or how much truth there is to it all of being backed by regulations or fact, but it has been my experience.

Response by SFC James Pritchert made Nov 22 at 2015 8:23 PM

2015-11-22T20:23:07-05:00

Two distinctly different missions and chains of command. It will never happen.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2015 2:32 AM

2015-11-23T02:32:02-05:00

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...each have their unique roles...let it be. I believe it'd compromise our security even more. If the idea is to save money, then they should merge Congress and Senate, and even reduce their numbers after all they don't do anything. Reducing vague and bogusly over-estimated Military contracts will save costs a lot more.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2017 1:54 PM

2017-04-20T13:54:14-04:00

We should join the reserve and ARNG because the reserve have far more opportunities and it would create a bigger pool of soldiers for competition. I am the spouse of an active duty member and transferring from state to state has been ridiculous and not advantageous for promotion or opportunities.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 26 at 2018 9:59 PM

2018-08-26T21:59:42-04:00

So, who’s going to be the Army’s reserve force ? This means hat whenever the Army needs to draw on its reserve forces, they have to contact a governors office ?
Not ever happening. The Army isn’t even going there and neither is the Air Force.

Response by SSG Ted Strachan made Jun 25 at 2021 1:28 PM

2021-06-25T13:28:12-04:00

No. Absolutely not, unless it's Reserve consolidated into the individual state Guard formations, geographically and unit by unit. The federal government does not need to have any more power and influence over the states than it already has... Entirely too much IMHO. That would be a gross encroachment on the rights guaranteed to the states by the Constitution, and a VERY dangerous proposition in an environment of
accelerated and increasing federal overreach. The states must be able to maintain their Constitutionally separated powers whether Washington likes it or not. This is NOT a political statement, but a Constitutionally granted one.