Posted on 06/26/2002 8:47:31 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
ARLINGTON, Va. — Pentagon officials are studying the creation of a "third force" that would fill the gap between active-duty servicemembers — with their full-time commitment — and reservists — who have other professional responsibilities but find themselves mobilized at rates comparable to their "professional" brethren.The concept was brought up Monday by Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, the newly named chief of Army Reserve.
Helmly, meeting the press for the first time since taking the post May 25, said the Defense Planning Guidance released last month contains a requirement for a study on creating a force that, like today’s Reserves, is "part-time," but in which participants agree to be deployed for a given amount of time, such as six months’ deployment every two years.
In return, such individuals would receive benefits closer to those of their active-duty counterparts, and possibly better salaries than their Reserve counterparts, Helmly said.
With operational tempos at an all-time high, reservists in some high-demand specialties are finding themselves facing deployments that are not only more frequent, but even longer than those of active-duty forces.
"It’s a simple fact," Helmly said. "We are no longer a force in reserve, we are an auxiliary force."
So far in the global war on terror, "major firms have been very forthcoming with supporting their employees who are mobilized," Helmly said.
But with President Bush repeatedly warning that the war on terrorism will be a battle with no defined end, will employers continue to support their reservists who are called up repeatedly and without warning?
That, Helmly said, "is the most pressing issue I face today."
Unfortunately, Helmly said, the reserve forces call-up system is not designed for modern war.
"All of our laws, processes and policies were built for a simpler time," he said. "All of our processes are built for wars in which we have some amount of warning time; against a distinct state actor; against which we mobilize a large amount of forces, and then it’s over and they go home," Helmly said.
"So the question now being asked at the most senior levels in the Pentagon is: ‘How can you sustain a war … whose nature is indeterminate?’" Helmly said.
The "third forces" concept, although in its infancy, is one of the major changes senior leaders are pondering, Helmly said.
Sorting out which kinds of units should fall under the third force umbrella won’t be too difficult, Helmly said.
He cited as examples reservists’ combat support units — for example, mobile field hospital units or even mortuary affairs — that aren’t particularly relevant to the military in peacetime but are critical in wartime.
"Using the patterns of reserve deployments since about 1996 and with the first year of the global war on terrorism under our belts, we can be pretty sure of what the need would be," he said.
The key to ensuring success in such a force would be to keep each unit composed of individuals sharing the same status, Helmly said.
"You would have to be sure people knew upfront what the commitment would be," Helmly said, such as "six months of guaranteed deployment in two years," although that issue is far from settled, he said.
Frankly, if you aren't willing to be called-up for six months, you have no business being in the reserve or guard. Under Clinton, the reserve/guard largely degenerated into a "pay for college" welfare system, for which some people gave up a weekend a month and two weeks a year. In fact, recently, in a TV interview, one young female sailor said, "I'd never have joined the Navy if I knew I'd have to go to war!" (One big dope-slap, please)
We are going to have to rearrange our financial and social lives to enable a reserve/guard that can and will go overseas for six months at a time.
That kind of rotation is going to make it hard to pursue a civilian career. It might be hard to get a job with that sort of thing looming ahead.
Aside from that, I think it's be a great way to break up the monotony :)
Agreed. Why not just enforce the current policies and regulations? Reservists know the risks of deployment before they sign up and it's briefed to them ad nauseum throughout their time in service. The problem is that most Reserve commanders won't do what it takes to hold reservists to their committments because the bureaucratic and legal hoops they have to jump through are substantial, time consuming and not worth their effort. It's much easier to just write the reservist off and re-assign him/her back to the force pool of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).
This is nothing but a scheme to add structure to the USAR in order to remain relevant to the fight, when the structure, by in large, already exists. So what happens when reservists belonging to this 'gap force' decide to walk instead of deploy? My guess is NOTHING, except for the occasional public raking over the coals of some commissioned officer who does the dodge and they decide to make an example of him/her.
On a personal note, I can say that my reserve center (thanks to a new CO) has gotten dead serious about meeting deployment standards in the past 12 months. This "new" proposed level/layer of government would be hard on the individual because this would seriously limit the ability of them to hold down jobs in the private sector.
It's already hard enough for someone to commit to being an active Reservist under the current structure. Adding to it won't solve anything IMO. Personally, I don't know how they (you) manage a full time job, family committments and serve in Reserve units, most of which require much much more than just a weekend a month and two weeks a year. I doubt that the average American understands the full extent of their (your) day to day sacrifice to wear the uniform on pro-rated pay.
Having said that, a committment is a committment and sometimes the price is high. The Reserve Component has a place, but I believe that our Active Component force is woefully understrength for the numbers of worldwide missions and OPTEMPO they have picked up since Desert Storm (at the same time they were downsizing). The RC deployment schedule has increased dramatically over the same period, in numbers of units and people not seen since WWII, just to give some relief to the AC force. Both components are suffering retention problems also, even with a pretty successful front end recruitment campaign. I'd like to see the AC structure back at pre-1991 levels, or better yet, reduce our presence in the Balkans and Western Europe on a large scale and focus on warfighting instead of 'peacekeeping' (I HATE that term).
Seriously, you are quite correct-- I believe 40 yrs is the cut off for the National Guard, yet look at the resources the Army needs, grave registration, perimeter security, laundry units,personnel clerks, hospital staff, truck drivers,and numerous maintenence crews.
If a pregnant soldier can do these tasks so can a mature citizen. Not everyone in the Army carries a 100lb pack at 10,000 ft.It is short sighted Generalship that will not look at a nations assets and adapt the rules to encompass the Army's needs.
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.