I am trying not to pull this thread off target, but I have to scream out loud sometimes...
Prior to our entanglements in Southeast Asia, the Army managed to conduct a moderate scale, protracted stability operations in the Balkans without dipping deeply into the Active forces. They turned the mission over the Guard. This was the ideal mission for the guard since, being a protracted operation over a static territory, it lent itself to the type of long term planning of rotational units that Reserve forces are ideal for. I laugh evertime I see that statement in bold above because the Active Army was never reorganized to conduct large-scale protracted stability operations. It just adjusted the FEBA to the edge of the wire and conducted search and destroy missions.As part of this reduction, the Army would no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, protracted stability operations but would continue to be a full-spectrum force capable of addressing a wide range of national security challenges. The Army National Guard and Army Reserves were not targeted for significant cuts
On the other hand, Active forces, which need to be called up on a moment’s notice, should be forward stationed IF your intent is to be a worldwide power (as opposed to only concerning yourself with homeland defense). This is particularly true of the Army since it is slow to move if not placed somewhere that is close to the fight. For example, you would never keep the forces needed to defend Korea at Fort Lewis. Since we are moving to regionally aligned forces, maybe they should be regionally placed as well.
Bookmarks