New US Policy on Active Duty

[Bill Smy]

The U.S. Army is considering a National Guard and Reserve policy shift that could result in part-timers being called to active duty multiple times for up to two years each time, a senior Army official said Thursday.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050106.wrezzy0106/BNStory/International/

 

[jrhume]

Prediction:  It will never fly.

The Guard and Reserves would not be able to maintain manning levels under such conditions.  At least not under current organizational setups.  Employers would have a fit, as well.  Many, many employers support their reservist when called up, even so far as continuing their salary for up to a year.  Few would be able to do that if the tours were longer.

Jim 

 

[pbi]

Interesting. For some perspective, two years ago we had a briefing team from 34ID (USARNG) come up to our Brigade Comd's Conference in Moose Jaw. They gave us an excellent overview of "life and times" in the ARNG. One of the points that was brought up was the increasing demand being placed on the ARNG due to GWOT. The briefers said that (at that time) the ARNG was looking at one year deployed out of every five. At that level, they felt concern over the reaction of employers (especially smaller employers) and on retention and recruiting. Now, with this much stiffer demand in view, it seems even more likely that these things might come true. How many times and for how long can you "go to the well" with a Reserve organization before it isn't really "Reserve" any more? We are on the cusp of the same issue here with the plan to generate Res forces for deployed ops, and we have few of the supports that the ARNG has. Cheers.

 

[tomahawk6]

I think this issue will drive an expansion of the Army. The Army temporary increase to 512,000 will be permanent. Most senior officers want another 45,000 on top of that. But it would take some time to stand up new units. Currently we are organizing Units of Action brigades which I think is an ill advised move. A UA will consist of 2 battalions and a recon squadron/bn. Heavy UA's will have fewer Abram's and Bradley's than the current structure. The heavy UA recon squadrons will lose their armor - another mistake. This structure is essentially a 21st century pentomic battle group that we tried in the late 50's.

As an aside, Deputy Sec Def Wolfowitz looks to be leaving the Pentagon. It is said that he has been opposed to transformation having a higher priority than Iraq.