Not having the National Guard equipment

[SWCAdmin]

I heard Gen Punaro on the radio last night getting out the PR on his commission's findings. I haven't found that one good link yet, but this one and this one are among the many that speak to the goings on that are going on as we speak.

[sgmgrumpy]

http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/08/28...-of-the-guard/

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (Army News Service, Aug. 28, 2007) - Domestic equipment shortages remain the barrier to even greater excellence from a transformed National Guard, the chief of the National Guard Bureau said here Aug. 25.

"We know what we do. We know why we do it. We know what we need," Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum told National Guard officers and others attending the National Guard Association of the United States' 129th General Conference. "Imagine what we could do if we had what we needed to do it."

For the second year running, domestic equipment levels were the lone dark cloud over Lt. Gen. Blum's "State of the Guard" address.

[Ski]

The GAO is working on a study on the impacts of Modularity and from what I've seen, the results are not pretty for either the Army or the Guard when it comes to equipment.

[Jedburgh]

Commission on the National Guard and Reserves: Transforming the National Guard and Reserves into a 21st Century Operational Force, 31 Jan 08

(Warning: 15.5MB File - 448 page pdf)

....the reforms that the Commission believes the nation must adopt to enable the National Guard and Reserves to fulfill U.S. national security objectives are significant and transformational. They will be welcomed by some and engender considerable opposition in others. To successfully execute the national military strategy in the 21st century, the active and reserve components must increase their military effectiveness by becoming a more integrated total force. It has taken the U.S. armed forces two decades to approach the level of jointness envisioned by the authors of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which did not address the reserve component. Achieving total force integration of the active and reserve components will require changes to the defense establishment of a magnitude comparable to those required by Goldwater-Nichols for the active component.

These recommendations will require the nation to reorder the priorities of the Department of Defense, thereby necessitating a major restructuring of laws and DOD’s budget. There will be some costs associated with these recommendations, but the need for these reforms is critical, and the benefits, in terms of the improved military effectiveness of the total force, more than exceed the cost to implement them.....

[Ski]

I've been trying to get into the nuts and bolts of the commission's final report but between mutliple TDY's and now a touch of flu, I haven't been able to get through the entire thing.

It's pretty radical - a lot of stuff in there that has already caused consternation in the 5 Sided Puzzle Palace. Some good stuff, some bad stuff like any other report.

[120mm]

I particularly like the "continuum of service" concept. The old days of "3 years of active duty and get the hell out, we don't want to see you around here again" for reserve officers never made a lick of sense to me. The stigma attached to these guys is was/is incredible within the service.

I see no reason why a service member can't step back and forth between active and reserves for their career, as their life develops.

We also need to do something about multiple call-ups. I have no problems with calling an "in demand" guy up for multiple tours, but then you owe that guy/gal something for screwing over his civilian career, besides a slap on the back and "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."