Reservist Issues Discussion

"President Bush" reports the Associated Press, "will use his new budget to propose cutting the size of the Army Reserve to its lowest level in three decades and stripping up to $4 billion from two fighter aircraft programs."

The Guard and Reserve, once viewed as "Total Force" equals to their active duty counterparts, now face a battle for existence as the Bush administration seeks to strip bases (remember BRAC?), missions, retention, end strengths (down it from 150,000 to 133,000) recruitment ability (stripping away and preventing benefit improvements), and allowing it to be denuded of resources for training and deployment (leaving of equipment in Iraq for units replacing its own deployed units).

"The proposals, likely to face opposition on Capitol Hill, come as the Defense Department struggles to trim personnel costs and other expenses to pay for the war in Iraq and a host of other pricey aircraft and high-tech programs.... The proposed Army Reserve cut is part of a broader plan to achieve a new balance of troop strength and combat power among the active Army, the National Guard and reserves to fight the global war on terrorism and to defend the homeland," the news report continued.

The pattern of deconstucting the Reserve Force would be insane in most times, and can be regarded slightly less when the "Transformation of the Military" process is factored. But ultimate conclusion:

The Guard and the Reserve play little in the way of roles in the 21st Century military Bush and Rumsfeld envision.

That vision apparently hasn't been augmented since September 11, 2001, when it became obvious the U.S. needs a Reserve large enough to sustain occupations (when no allie is ready to do so) and to handle home-front disasters, natural and man-made.

Democrat senior member of the House Armed Services committee, Ike Skelton, has likely hit close to the necessary questions when he asked:

"Skelton questioned whether the reduction was being proposed 'because the Army cannot recruit to the authorized levels,' or whether the Pentagon figured it could not afford to invest in new weapons systems while maintaining current force levels."

Transformation based on theoretical projections dominate current operational and contingency resources that are needed both at home and abroad: A strong, sizable Reserve Force.

The report further pointed out:

"Under the plan, the authorized troop strength of the Army Reserve would drop from 205,000 — the current number of slots it is allowed — to 188,000, the actual number of soldiers it had at the end of 2005. Because of recruiting and other problems, the Army Reserve has been unable to fill its ranks to its authorized level. Army leaders have said they are taking a similar approach to shrinking the National Guard. They are proposing to cut that force from its authorized level of 350,000 soldiers to 333,000, the actual number now on the rolls."

Thus the flag of surrender is run up on recruiting for these two organizations of the Army's reserve force.

No such lazy approach would be tolerated on the active duty side, but it is taken by what the Administration believes is to be the weak sister force that they do not wish to have except as a small adjunct of the military force of the United States - as in the 1970's.

They desire the hollow strategic Reserves of the 1970's not the valuable but costly operational Reserve the Guard and Reserves of the 21st Century have been in Iraq/Afghanisan and Worldwide War on Terror.

"A number of lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, have said the Pentagon has overstretched its forces with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, relied too heavily on reserves and National Guard, and required extended and repeated deployments," commented Reuters in an article on 27 Jan.

Clearly a large Reserve Force could economically be reaching the needed calculus required for proper long term force rotations. Instead, we exploit our presently fewer troops by these repeated re-deployments.

The administration finds out with every attempted frontal assault on the National Guard, BRAC being the latest example, it faces a formidable political opponent in the Guard. That's part of why it wants to write them out of the equation by slicing and dicing them downward in capabilities they must rely upon.

May that continue process?

Yes. But if voters are truly interested in preserving as economical military force which the Reserves and Guard provides, they need to also zero in on protecting the Federal Reserves as well! That force does not have Congressional defenders, as BRAC also proved. That must be changed, and the slicing and dicing of the total Reserve force ended.