Commission Recommends Sweeping Change for Guard, Reserves

The following was released last week but has gotten little coverage due to coverage of the Super Bowl and Super Tuesday.


By Fred W. Baker III
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, Jan. 31, 2008 - A Congressional commission today recommended sweeping changes to the way U.S. military reserve forces have been structured and have operated for more than a half century.

The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves delivered to Congress and Pentagon officials its final report, which includes 95 recommendations on how to transition the reserves into a feasible and sustainable operational reserve.

Today's reserve components were designed as a strategic reserve during the Cold War era. "The Guard was part of that surge force that would be dusted off once in a lifetime," commission chairman retired Marine Maj. Gen. Arnold Punaro said today. "That is absolutely not the situation we have today." Reserve components (both National Guard and the Reserves) were designed as a way of keeping a larger inventory of forces on-hand at a reduced cost. Keeping costs low is also way older weapon systems were usually found in Guard and Reserve units. Older equipment often created in the minds of active duty personnel that Reserve Component forces were amateurish and unprofessional. After the Cold War, newer weapons systems began to flow into the Reserve Component along with an influx of former active duty personnel involuntarily separated after Desert Storm. These two factors greatly changed to complexion of Reserve Component forces.

Nearly 100,000 reserve troops are on active duty, according to DoD reports.
In 2006, reserves forces provided 61 million "man days," or single days of duty, in support of the Defense Department. The advantage of Reserve Component forces of course is that you only pay for them when you use them. Reserve Component units (at least in the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve) were originally designed as a training cadre to keep certain skills available in the event of a major mobilization. After Desert Storm, ANG and USAFR units began sending forces as part of OPERATION NORTHERN WATCH and SOUTHERN WATCH which helped reduced the impact of these operations on active duty forces.


It would not be feasible to add an equivalent number of forces to active duty, Punaro said in a news conference at the National Press Club. He called increasing active forces so significantly an "economically unaffordable option" that would cost "a trillion dollars." Reserve Component forces usually have a ratio of full-time to part-time personnel of around 30 percent. The increased OPSTEMPO has had an adverse effect on part-time Reservists who have to continuously leave work (not to mention their families). Active duty can’t meet the requirements without the Reserve Component and the Reserve Component can’t keep providing forces on an indefinite basis.

Right now, for about nine percent of the DoD budget, the National Guard and reserves provide 44 percent of manpower available to the Defense Department, Punaro said. "You've got high quality. You've got great reliability and dependability. You've got significant affordability and availability," he said.

Six conclusions serve as the foundation for the 400-page report, which is based on 163 findings, 17 days of public hearings, testimony of 115 officials witness and 800 interviews and site visits by commission members. It is the most comprehensive, independent review of the Guard and reserves in 60 years, Punaro said.

The commission proposed changes in laws and regulations that govern the reserves, as well as how reserve forces train, equip and approach medical readiness. The commission proposed an "integrated continuum of service" between reserve and active forces, offering the same pay, personnel, promotion and retirement systems.

The changes would allow a seamless transition by servicemembers over the course of a military career to transition from active to reserve, and to even leave the service temporarily for child rearing or to pursue higher education. This is a start but as I stated earlier, the problem is the time a Reservist must spend away from their civilian employers. Companies have been supportive in the past but as combat operations continue, employers can’t be expected to continue their support. Their bottom line is at stake.

Now, when reservists move from one duty status, such as from active duty to state duty, they sometimes face pay problems and delays. The commission recommended moving from the current 29 duty statuses to only two: active duty or not. This is a bad step…for the Reserves they already fall into this category. The Army and Air National Guard, however, fall under Title 32 which places them under the command of the state governor. This proposal could take away the governors primary force for dealing with emergencies (ranging from natural disasters to riots). Constitutional experts would tell you a large standing military was never what the founding fathers envisioned. The National Guard insures states are able to keep the rights articulated in the 2nd, 3rd, and 10th Amendments of the Constitution. In my opinion, the proposed change of statuses may violate the Constitution as well as jeopardize the ability of the governors to respond to emergencies.

For health care, a hot-ticket item for activated reservists, the commission proposed more specific, targeted information geared to reservists and their families. Many of those the commission interviewed expressed frustration with trying to understand the medical healthcare system quickly once their spouses were mobilized, commission members said.

In personnel changes, the commission recommended a competency-based promotion system that recognizes civilian skills and recruits and retains accordingly. However, if Reserve Component members are not going to see a reduction in the number of deployments than their civilian occupations remain at jeopardy.

It is good to finally see the need for a change in the Reserve Component to be articulated. I am just concerned that in the quest to improve the Reserve Component and make it more flexible, the states may lose out.