Quote Originally Posted by Griz882 View Post
All in all I think this a fascinating thread and it brings to mind an idea I once floated concerning the structure of the Army National Guard (of which I am a member).
. . .
...I propose that both items could be solved by restructuring the reserve forces (USAR/ARNG) as follows:

1. eliminate USAR, roll soldiers into ARNG
2. eliminate existing force structure of BCT's, MEB's, Sustainment BDE's and so forth
3. have each state establish a number of "Peace Enforcement Regiments" based on their available manpower with small states like New Hampshire providing something like three battalions to the structure and larger states providing multiple regiments.

The structure of each regiment/battalion would be MOS skill based, but the unit would not be branch based. Thus, a PEB would look something like this:

HHC - HQ Plt - Sig Plt - Lift Plt (helos) - Med Plt - Log Plt - Civil Affairs Plt
A Co - Infantry
B Co - MP
C Co - Engineer
D Co - Transport
. . .
I recognize that that many "branch disciples" would be aghast at the type of force mixing I am recommending here, but I believe it brings the strength of branch training and a unit mission-focused training cycle together in the positive way. On my last Iraq tour I can’t tell you how many ersatz units I encountered that were made up of armor, engineers, infantry, MPs, artillery, and ADA (just to name a few) – most of whom spoke a common language separated by branch dogma and doctrine.

I say leave artillery to their mission. Leave infantry and armor to theirs. The same goes for ADA and MP. In short, create a force you can use in multiple ways (and at necessary times) while maintaining army for the bigger fight.
It is a good idea. I and others proposed variations on that theme many years ago. Big differences were a Medical Company instead of a Platoon and two Rifle Companies (for the manpower as much as anything); like your proposal apparently, they didn't fly. There are three problems that then impacted the idea and all are still valid:

1. The USAR isn't going away for a number of reasons. Mostly political but also practical. Having a title 10 Reserve structure gives DoD and the Army a lot of flexibility that could never exist with the Guard

2. While your idea has merit IF future war is OEF / OIF-like, what do we do if it's a mid to large size conventional war? The ArNG isn't going to give up the Combat role and even if NGB and the States were willing, Congress would be unlikely to go along. That's probably prudent.

3. The major benefit to the AC in having the RC is the ability to rapidly reinforce said AC with like units and it's far cheaper, easier and quicker to do that with the RC than it is to recruit off the street and build up to equipment issue. We did that in 1940 and the institution that is the Army of the United States doesn't want to have to do it again -- particularly with the speed at which things can occur today. That is akin to but not the same as number 2, above.

Having said all that, I think that the organization of one to half dozen Battalions along the line you suggest in each State should be fairly easy to do and is within manpower capability if some combat brigades were to go to cadre strength (which TAGs will fight ) -- which many are, practically speaking, today at any rate. Man those Composite Bns with the older more experienced guys in the State...

Idea has merit, you ought to work on it. Remembering to tailor your Compo Bns so they can advise /assist a Host Nation Brigade or even two or three...