Quote Originally Posted by Ski View Post
Numerous interesting comments and thoughts here"

1. RC should not be focused on COIN specifically and neither should the Army. The COIN mission is one measure in decades, not years...
Agree with the first part. not so much with the second. Is that historical length of time due to the types of insurgencies and / or the way they were 'fought?' I don't think that decades are required.
2. Most importantly, stop creating and changing force structure. It's my biggest pet peeve...Like Ken said - wait until a lull, and then change it if needs to be changed.
True. I watched one unit in the TN ArNG go from a Tank Co to a Chemical Co to a Truck Co -- in the space of four years. While I understand we hired all these civilian 'Force Developers' and they have to do something for job justification, we've gotten ridiculous. Any force structure change ought to be locked in five year increments; miss a window and wait five more years -- with only rare exceptions. That said, I think we need not wait for a lull -- because the system will never allow one to avoid change...
3. As Field Marshall Nigel Bagnell stated, "over the centuries identifying a nation's future strategic priorities has proved to be a very imprecise art, and as a result peacetime force structures have seldom proved relevant when put to the test of war."
Also true -- and that's why it makes sense to put the heavy stuff in the RC.
4. The cultural differences between the AC and RC MUST be overcome and at the Major and below level...
True, prob is on both sides of the fence, just as it is with conventional vs. SOF.
5. Shifting combat structure from the USAR to the ARNG to the USAR continues to focus on the wrong problem. Just keep the structure stabilized for a while. Using combat structure out of any reserve component has significant political pressure and risks.
True but in many circumstances, use of the USAR is better for several reasons than is using the Guard.
6. The ARNG will never get the HIC mission or the bulk of the heavy forces because the Army uses tank miles to formulate it's OPTEMPO budget.
True on the OPTEMPO today but wasn't true in the past and need not be the way it's done. On the possibility of such a shift you may be correct but I submit the reaction is far more emotional than logical.
... Too much money comes into the AC from this account for them to give it up outright...
That, too is by design -- and designs can be changed.
...HQDA will never let the bulk of Heavy Forces move into the RC...
Possibly true. A question for Congress to ask is "Why not?" --and they should demand a logical answer that does NOT rely on todays arcane and foolish budget and allotment processes.
Just a few thoughts from an admittedly addled mind...
My mind is more addled than yours, so there!