Posted on Jan 27, 2014
Should the National Guard and the Reserves be Combined?
21.4K
56
48
7
7
0
As the government cuts costs, some have proposed combining the Reserves and the National Guard. The Reserves do not have combat arms (with the exception of the 442nd) and the National Guard does. Combining could save money, make operations more efficient and save money. But tradition is tough to overcome. Thoughts?
Posted in these groups: 
Reserves
Reserves
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 24
10
10
0
I think that state National Guards (i.e. militias) should definitely retain their non-federal character for several reasons, while the Reserves should also retain their character.
First, NGs gives the state government an ability to react to local disasters quickly. Without having to request federal permission and coordinate through outside CoCs, a governor can manage his own state's business without dependency on the federal government. Not to mention that federal law (posse comitatus generally disallows the use of federal troops within U.S. territory).
Also, state-centric guards retain a culture and tradition that is unique to their states. As the federal government has become more dominant in recent history, many forget that the states' authority to have a guard is important as it gives the states the ability to operate as distinct sovereign governments, which is the intent of the federal Constitution. Having a reserve combat force (while probably increasing the uniformity of training, promotions, etc) would degrade from that intent and be arguably unconstitutional.
With regard to de-federalizing the reserves, while it is the more constitutional choice, I don't think it would entirely work for a few reasons. First, the job of the reserves is largely federal in nature. I'll use my own branch as an example: Civil Affairs. Our job within the U.S. (according to our current mission statement) is limited. Most of our military work goes in direct support of combatant commands and overseas operations. Having our direct authority run through the states would run contrary to our mission. Additionally many reserve soldiers serve as IMAs to federal units, thus making it necessary for them to be federalized. Other non-CA TPU units also typically serve in ways that make them unnecessary for state requirements. Why would a state voluntarily opt to fund a unit that gives their own jurisdiction no benefit? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.
While I don't necessarily think that the current guard/reserve forces are efficient, the solution is definitely not to simply merge the two.
(10)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
The Guard is under state control, hence title 10 vs title 32. Unlike AD & USAR which are Federal, the NG can be called up by the state as a militia and be transferred between states under emergency conditions where Federal troops can not. While the units are included in the BCT force structure their primary mission is to homeland defense.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Some people say that the Reserves and Guard have different roles/missions. However, within the Guard itself or the Reserves there are already different types of units with diverse roles/missions. I think it would strengthen the state mission of the Guard to absorb the functionality that currently reside only in the Reserve, and the capabilities would still exist for the purposes of the federal mission. All while reducing some of the administrative overhead costs of having two separate non-Active Duty command structures.
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
Combining the National Guard and Reserve is a bad idea for more than tradition reasons. I will list but a few reasons below:
- Authorities. In a nutshell it is called Posse Commitatus. Federal forces (Reserves) can not be used in a police role. State forces (National Guard) can. Combining the two components decreases our national capability for what potentially are neglible benefits (cost savings).
- Capability and Capacity. The National Guard and Reserves do have distinct differences in capability and capacity. NG has more combat capability/capacity while Reserves have more CS/CSS capability/capacity. This goes back to authorities. Would you rather have combat forces performing a policing function in a DSCA operation or would you rather have CS/CSS forces filling that role.
- Assumptions versus facts. "Could save money" is different from "will save money". Show me the details on how exactly money will be saved by combining the Guard and Reserve.
- Efficient vs effective. The #1 priority of the US military is to be effective. The #2 priority is to be efficient. What is the point of having a highly efficient force that can not win battles or wars?
- Authorities. In a nutshell it is called Posse Commitatus. Federal forces (Reserves) can not be used in a police role. State forces (National Guard) can. Combining the two components decreases our national capability for what potentially are neglible benefits (cost savings).
- Capability and Capacity. The National Guard and Reserves do have distinct differences in capability and capacity. NG has more combat capability/capacity while Reserves have more CS/CSS capability/capacity. This goes back to authorities. Would you rather have combat forces performing a policing function in a DSCA operation or would you rather have CS/CSS forces filling that role.
- Assumptions versus facts. "Could save money" is different from "will save money". Show me the details on how exactly money will be saved by combining the Guard and Reserve.
- Efficient vs effective. The #1 priority of the US military is to be effective. The #2 priority is to be efficient. What is the point of having a highly efficient force that can not win battles or wars?
(6)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google