Force must be ‘rebalanced’ to ease strain, Schoomaker tells senators

The Army cannot continue operating at its current frantic pace, Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker warned senators today.

“We must relieve stress on the force,” he told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee.

Reorganizing and rebalancing the force will help ease the strain, as will the addition of 30,000 troops over the next few years, he said. But the real key to relieving the stress generated by the war on terrorism and homeland security needs is creating a new modular Army, he told lawmakers.

In the modular force, the current number of Regular Army brigades would be expanded from 33 to 43 — and possibly to 48. At some point in the future, the Army National Guard will comprise 34 brigade combat teams, Schoomaker testified.

Currently, the Guard, which controls about half of the Army’s combat power, has 15 enhanced separate brigades, three strategic brigades and eight divisions.

Personally I would return to the 16 division Army which was designed to fight 2 wars and 1 bush war. I think our ground forces need to be full time soldiers so they can maintain unit cohesion and teamwork which is not possible with weekend warrior. The last Gulf Wars show that Guard combat units need over a month to come up to standard. The enemy of the future may not give us that much time to act. I think the Guard units should be expanded to serve as regional homeland security role.

The Guard and Reserves have a definite role to play in the total force, but it should not be the things they are being asked to do now (1 year tours of active duty). That has the potential to destroy the Guard and Reserves in the medium term.

The Guard and Reserves exist to supplement the active forces for 'the big one' Using them for missions like Iraq makes it much harder for servicemen and women to stay long term and less likely to continue to attract good people willing to make the commitment.

The active force needs to be expanded to accomplish the missions asked of it. The guard and reserves are essential for our national security, but not in this way.

I would say that a lot of the Guard members will be re-joining the full time military some time in the future. Pay rates have been increased, housing is being improved, and it's basically a good life.

There won't be many more Iraqs (well, perhaps a few) and then things will settle down to normal. The WOT will continue, but much of it will be under the radar.

One-year tours are hard on most everyone. The Guard and Reserve are doing a good job of sharing this burden along with the active-duty troops.

The mainstream press says this will cause recruiting and retention rates to fall. Don't believe all the doom and gloom -- they just want to print bad news, even if they have to make it up. And when the truth comes in, they'll just make up some new (imaginary) problem to get worked up about.

You are right that one year tours are hard on everyone, but that is a burden for the (hopefully expanded) active army to bear...the service is their full time job. To pull NG/ reserve servicemen and women away from their full time jobs in a situation less than mobilization for total war is inappropriate. And ultimately, I believe it will hurt both retention and recruiting for the guard/reserves....the real and expected cost of joining and staying is defininatively higher now that they are commonly used for peacekeeping and nation building. It used to be one weekend a month and two weeks a year, now it seems more like one weekend a month, two weeks a year and a year every fifth year. Whole generations have served in the NG without being sent overseas, anyone who signs up now will undoubtably be activated for at least 6 months within the next decade for something less than 'the big one'

It is entirely possible that Iraq is different, but while I was in Bosnia, we had some NG support, specifically a field artillery unit out of MA. According to the men I served with, they pretty much stripped the whole battalion to get enough people to fill out the one battery that deployed; those without binding commitments just quit the guard rather than go away for a year. (this was pre 9/11, there was no stop-loss preventing them from quitting if they did not have a binding commitment)

I guess I'll just have to respectfully disagree with a few things you write about the proposed role of the Guard and Reserve. I was in the Guard in the bad old days when there was no money, no mission and no respect. I got out -- I didn't want to serve in units that will never do anything useful for the country. (The Guard is still recovering from the bad old days when their esteem with the public was low. Democrats -- and even a few Freepers -- still feel comfortable mocking the Guard, even though Guradsmen are fighting and dying overseas now.)

Now that the Guard and Reserve have big, real-world missions, you'll find some people who want to get out to avoid that. That's okay -- because you'll find others who really want to serve now that they can make a real contribution.

Just what is your solution if the expanded standing Army isn't big enough for all of the assigned missions, but we're not fighting the "big one"? Joining the National Guard or Reserve is not a "I'll be there in case of the big one, but meanwhile just give me the monthly check and benefits of service" commitment. Every Guard and Reserve member signed up pledging they'd deploy if called upon. Yes, extended deployments are a hardship, but the risk of extended deployment has always been part of the bargain.

From my perspective, one of the most amazing aspects of recent U.S. combat operations has been the low casualty rates that have not even tested the replacement system. Can we assume that future combat operations, say on the Korean peninsula, would have the same results? What happens if an infantry battalion suffers 50% casualties defending a strategic chokepoint? Where will the replacements come from? As during the Korean War in 1951, even though it wasn't the "big one", the replacements were Reservists and Guardsmen called to active duty.

Just because Lyndon Johnson failed to use the National Guard and Reserve in Viet Nam for domestic political gain is no reason to expect such misuse to be perpetuated.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.