Replies

"If they're going to be deployed constantly, then these guys might as well join the active army. I'm sure that's what they're thinking."

During my years as an Army Reserve officer (1982-1993) the Guard/Reservist thought only in terms of a world war and fighting Russians or some other super power. The Gulf War changed that thinking some, but not too greatly in that it didn't last that long and it seemed like an emergency similar to a world war. Plus, they didn't mobilize that many combat type troops, just support (supply, medical, etc.) I left service shortly after Clinton took office in 1993.

In my opinion, it was his (Clinton's) use of reserve/guard units in Kosovo/Bosnia that really started people to looking hard at being in the Reserve/Guard. Then when the WOT started and many were (with necessity) mobilized at first stateside for homeland protection and then units were sent to the Mideast in various assignments. Plus, the conflict has been going on since 2001 and no clear end is apparent, then the perception that the Guard/Reserve were really not that much different than regulars took hold.

There has been a profound paradigm shift in what Guard/Reserve duty means. In some ways I think this is a good thing in that I knew many, many Guard/Reserve members that served over 20 years in that capacity and never saw any active duty. However, as you have pointed out, most folks don't have jobs that will let them be called off on a regular basis. All the "legal protections" in the world cannot stop employers from being biased against hiring these folks. So, we can't sustain a Guard/Reserve force that has a high probability of mobilization on a regular basis, and in less than world war situations.

The obvious answer, which Rumsfeld refuses to entertain, is to increase the regular army's size a great deal. I would speculate that four(4) more divisions are needed (two light ones -air assault or airborne, and two heavy ones - armour or mech infantry). Then the Guard/Reserve could go back to being a strategic reserve that isn't called upon so often.

Of course, we would really have a time manning those new divisions. More parents are going to have to stop thinking, "I support the military, but not with my son going." In my own family I have nephews that are at or approaching military age, and their mothers get freaky at the idea of them serving, as I have suggested to them they should do, while at the same time talk about how they support the war effort? My own son is only 9 years old. I hope that when he reaches military age I will encourage him to serve, and not just leave it to someone else's son.