AUS vs USARNG?

[Richard]

"AUFC cat fight!"

Richard

Trouble Brewing Between US Army's Active Duty and Guard Forces
DefNews, 13 Jan 2014

In a sharply worded statement released Jan. 13, the president of the National Guard Association called remarks by US Army chief Gen. Ray Odierno “disrespectful and simply not true” while complaining that “the Army chief of staff disparaged the Army National Guard last week by telling reporters in Washington, D.C., that, essentially, the Army National Guard just isn’t good enough to be relied upon more in the future.”

Retired Maj. Gen. Gus Hargett’s statement came in response to Odierno’s Jan. 5 remarks at the National Press Club in Washington, where he said the National Guard would not be capable of taking on more of the active-duty force’s responsibilities if the active force structure falls much below the 490,000 floor that the chief set for 2015.

“The capabilities are not interchangeable,” Odierno said, “there’s a reason why the active component is more expensive. It brings you a higher level of readiness, because they’re full time.

“They are trained and ready to do things at a higher level because they spend every day focused on that,” Odierno said. “Our National Guard, [which has] done an incredible job in the last 10 years, trains 39 days a year.”

The chief’s comments also didn’t go over well with Army National Guard and Reserve chief Gen. Frank Grass, who retorted two days later during his own Jan. 7 National Press Club speech that “the idea of doing 39 days a year, to me, doesn’t exist any more.”

(Cont'd) http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...y-Guard-Forces

[PRB]

Isn't that simply stating an obvious fact...like women are generally not as strong as men.
Does anyone expect any 'pat time' worker to be as effective as a full time worker?
This also does not say they have not done a fantastic job in stepping up to the plate.

Originally Posted by PRB

Isn't that simply stating an obvious fact...like women are generally not as strong as men.
Does anyone expect any 'pat time' worker to be as effective as a full time worker?
This also does not say they have not done a fantastic job in stepping up to the plate.

As a former employer, my answer is absolutely!!!

[PSM]

From talking to my son, who is in the Guard, I don't disagree with GEN Odierno . When my son was in an Artillery BDE they trained hard every drill and during the ATs because they knew that their training time was limited. He even got together with some of the guys on weekends to work on land nav skills. He transferred to an Infantry BTN for his SGT stripes and says it's a nightmare to the point that the mortar platoon is actually dangerous. Plus, they are moving more toward being a garrison unit. (Hey, it's the CO Guard; maybe they are just stoned.) If he can't find a better unit to xfer to, he's not re-upping...and he's the reenlistment NCO.

Pat

[Flagg]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Agreed. The two days a month is not going to be as good as full time when it comes to military skills.

Saying that, there are some things NG and reserve units bring to the plate that is an advantage in some situations. Many reserve/guard units are older so in UW they are more mature and make better decisions. When dealing with civilians the AD guys may not be very good at it. Why, because they have spent most or all of their adult life in the military and civilians are a different culture they are not used to dealing with. When they tell a soldier they need to do something the soldier does it immediately. When they tell a civilian they need to do something they may get an argument, questions or even a good old fuck off. Not something they are used to or always deal with well.

Add to that the conventional military discourages lateral thinking in their culture ie. black or white/friend or enemy yet in real world there is a lot of gray areas as well a neutral group of people.

The key, like everything is to realize the strengths and weakness of each group and exploit and use their strengths to the situation.

I would agree……

I'm a part-timer leading part-timers….sometimes it's like herding cats in uniform.

Sometimes their civilian skill sets, if properly understood, managed, and leveraged, can have a short bus very special forces-like force multiplier effect.

We have our strengths and we have our weaknesses.

And we also have our strengths and weaknesses relative to our specific full-time peer group.

It's going to be interesting to see how full-time and part-time professionals adapt in the future.

It will be very interesting to see if/how part-time roles develop for specific skills such as full-time civvie IT professionals performing a part-time cyber role in uniform if it's called for.

And if so, do you put them through Basic/OCS?

I think the Poms are already playing around with part-time cyber as a completely separate track in terms of basic training.

[2018commo]

Must be hard to justify how 40% of the deployed force costs 15% of the active force without criticizing the capabilities of the reserves.

[abc_123]

Definately ARNG forces require trainup. That shouldn't be a news flash. No way can anyone say that ARNG is the same as AD in all areas at all times. However after trainup at the mob site the ARNG untis have acquitted themselves well over the years...especially after the initial years of the war.

But at the same token all those "instantly ready" AD forces arent as "instantly ready" as the AD would like to make congress think. Oh and as we look at the bigger picture... how much STRAT Lift capability do we posess to get all those perpetually ready AD forces to the fight on a moments notice?

And furthermore like all of us who have been on Active duty know that 100% of the time all AD soldiers are fully engaged in training and/or otherwise gainfully employed. I'm just saying that its disengenuous to not recognize that there are legions of AD soldiers and junior officers (and senior ones for that matter) fucking off every single day... when we talk about cost comparisons.

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by 2018commo

Must be hard to justify how 40% of the deployed force costs 15% of the active force without criticizing the capabilities of the reserves.

And we have a winner!

Maybe some senior leader could spend a lot of money and get RAND to bring in some idiots do to some bullshit, poorly put together, half assed-study full of inuendo to help...

Oh wait...

[sinjefe]

With the way this administration treats the military and their downsizing and budget cutting, the AC may only be training 39 days a year themselves.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

Okay, then eliminate the National Guard.

Can't do that; the Guard belongs to the states.

Pat