6
6
0
OK all you Sailors, has the Navy Reserve outlived the mission for which it was specifically created ?
All Sane Men Believe in Reserves
Posted from warontherocks.com
Reserves
Naval/Maritime History
Sailors
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
It's all about cost. Consider what it takes to keep a crew proficient, provide sufficient manpower to keep from over-taxing it, and keep it in material readiness. There's d*&% few Sailors you could pluck out of a NOSC today, and have operating a warship tomorrow. That's not because these aren't quality personnel, but because in many, if not most cases, they simply aren't training to that mission. Granted, many Reserve units' primary mission isn't Surface Warfare. You've got construction battalions, aviation assets, medical personnel, and even lawyers, chaplains, and masters at arms... all of whom may be as qualified, if not more so (based on experience) than their active duty counterparts. Any discussion of the validity of the Navy Reserve has to include this dichotomy.
If there is a problem, I think it has to do with what the article suggests; that many Sailors (including yours truly) had been augmenting missions that fell well-outside the "traditional" role of Sailors from either component. I'm going to be honest, what I saw in OEF was surprising, if not a little surreal. The Army needed manpower, the Navy and Air Force rogered up, and a somewhat Heath-Robinson affair was put together to train-up "transition teams". The training I went through at Ft. Riley was exceptional, don't get me wrong, and it doubtless saved lives... but it also left me feeling more than a little displaced. Personally (and I know I'm going to get roasted for this), I wish they had increased the difficulty/attrition rate, and administratively seconded us to the Army upon graduation. At least then, it could've been clear to us, and the Army leadership we worked for, what it was exactly we were there to do, and what our capabilities actually were. It may also have been more practical for us to have then continued on in that progression, continuing to serve that purpose, rather than attempting to return to the "Navy" having spent up to two years on the "Green Side".
Any way you want to look at it, none of the services want to absorb the costs of increased personnel... the Reserves and the National Guard are a great stop-gap measure, that no doubt gets asked to do more than it should at times. At the macro-level, if it ain't broke, don't fix it...but at the micro-level, what private company doesn't consider re-assigning/re-purposing trained, experienced personnel before hiring new people? The DOD suffers from a constantly shifting set of priorities, and an ever-changing mission statement that the manpower/training pipelines simply can't keep pace with. I'm already sensing that in the next twenty years, we're going to try and get back to "Blue Water" ops, and will likely be right on the cusp of mastering it when...we'll once more be deficient in ground forces.
If there is a problem, I think it has to do with what the article suggests; that many Sailors (including yours truly) had been augmenting missions that fell well-outside the "traditional" role of Sailors from either component. I'm going to be honest, what I saw in OEF was surprising, if not a little surreal. The Army needed manpower, the Navy and Air Force rogered up, and a somewhat Heath-Robinson affair was put together to train-up "transition teams". The training I went through at Ft. Riley was exceptional, don't get me wrong, and it doubtless saved lives... but it also left me feeling more than a little displaced. Personally (and I know I'm going to get roasted for this), I wish they had increased the difficulty/attrition rate, and administratively seconded us to the Army upon graduation. At least then, it could've been clear to us, and the Army leadership we worked for, what it was exactly we were there to do, and what our capabilities actually were. It may also have been more practical for us to have then continued on in that progression, continuing to serve that purpose, rather than attempting to return to the "Navy" having spent up to two years on the "Green Side".
Any way you want to look at it, none of the services want to absorb the costs of increased personnel... the Reserves and the National Guard are a great stop-gap measure, that no doubt gets asked to do more than it should at times. At the macro-level, if it ain't broke, don't fix it...but at the micro-level, what private company doesn't consider re-assigning/re-purposing trained, experienced personnel before hiring new people? The DOD suffers from a constantly shifting set of priorities, and an ever-changing mission statement that the manpower/training pipelines simply can't keep pace with. I'm already sensing that in the next twenty years, we're going to try and get back to "Blue Water" ops, and will likely be right on the cusp of mastering it when...we'll once more be deficient in ground forces.
(2)
(0)
CW5 Jack Cardwell
Thanks for your great response. Most Army Reserve units fill a support role. The National Guard is able to project combat power but at a cost. Increased training which put a strain on the part time soldiers and their families.
(1)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
Very true. I wonder how many folks separating from the active components would re-up if given the option to quickly re-classify, or how many Reserve/Guard personnel would willingly go active component if allowed to transition into a sister service. Just seems to me that the "big brains" can't think outside the box enough to keep from "knee jerk" responses.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google