Quote:
Originally Posted by afchic
It is bullshit is what it is. From a purely operational standpoint, it is the difference between tasking and asking. AF leadership can task active duty forces whereas they have to ask the Guard. In my experience, at least in AMC, asking the Guard usually turns into tasking the active duty because the guard won't support. All of the force shaping in the past couple of years was done on the back of the active duty and the ANG now has the nerve to call foul?
|
Politics, again... it's not politically acceptable to cut Guard, so active duty units get the axe. At some point the appropriate distribution of assets and forces needs to be addressed, but that's as easy as running a BRAC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cake_14N
We can be tasked as well. I have been invol'd on a number of deployments to backfill for active duty shortfalls.
In my opinion any Guard unit that will not support a tasking needs to be closed down and those assets used to support a unit that will go where tasked.
Ma'am, it seems like you have had the misfortune to work with some Guard units that just didn't understand their role. Might also be the difference between ACC and AMC as well.
|
There's another issue regarding volunteer vs tasked. Some ACC units have indicated they'd volunteer only to later decline due to valid employer problems. They're more than willing to go if tasked, but tasking them also involves taking them off the on-call list for other OPLANs for an extended time frame, which complicates the decision. So the tasking then rolls short notice back on the active force that had planned on a respite. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in mixed force units.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afchic
It is all politics my friends, all politics.
|
Shack.
Threaded Mode
