The New York Times article correctly points out that the National Guard traces its roots to the colonial militia and has a dual federal-state role. The remainder of the article is devoted to governors voicing their concerns about the numbers of Guard troops deployed and the amount of equipment being left overseas when the units return to their home states. Traditionally, the national security of the US depends upon the existence of a relatively small, highly-trained, regular military establishment that can be augmented quickly by Reserve and National Guard forces. Following the Vietnam conflict, a principal purpose of the Army reorganization of 1973 was to emphasize the operational readiness of Reserve and National Guard units. This reorganization changed the unit structures from primarily infantry, armor, and artillery units to combat support units, e.g. transportation, military police, and engineer units. The design being, that if the US were to become engaged in a major conflict, reserve component forces would be required.
The Army National Guard, with its dual state and federal missions, requires its members to swear allegiance to the president of the United States and to their governor. When not in the active federal service, National Guard units may be employed by the state authorities for any legitimate purpose: response to floods, forest fires, and hurricanes. Today, more National Guard soldiers are activated for the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) than at any time since WWll. Currently, more than 168,000 are deployed in support of the GWOT or have deployed and have selected to remain in the National Guard. The total federal duty commitment since 9/11 is more than 214,000 National Guard soldiers. It should also be noted that there is no evidence that indicates the responses during the 2005 hurricane season would have been improved if these units or their equipment were not deployed overseas.
In the 2007 Army budget, also submitted last week to Congress, Reserve and National Guard forces make significant gains. ?The Army has paid enormous attention to the capacity that they need across the force, and they are devoting $21 billion, specifically earmarked for proper equipment and providing proper training to the Guard and Reserve,? said Marine General Peter Pace , Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Pace also stated part of the future Army changes will be taking 15 capable National Guard brigades and expanding them to 28, along with sustaining a total of 106 National Guard brigades.
The GWOT has changed our nation and our Army, both active and reserve, dramatically. We are engaged in a protracted war, not one that we have traditionally fought. This war is not with a discrete beginning, end, or on a contained battlefield. Further, the terrorist is difficult to identify, fix, and finish. These changed conditions have greatly affected our armed forces, particularly Reserve and National Guard units. These changed conditions lead to one clear conclusion: the National Guard and Reserve forces must also change. The days of weekend drills and a month of active duty in the summer are long past. Today, the call to active duty is no longer a remote possibility, but rather an expectation for which all Guard and Reserve soldiers, their families, and employers are preparing. To win this war, active and reserve forces will be required to restructure and overhaul their organizations and capabilities. This will mean increased spending by the federal government to improve the training and equipment and increased overseas deployment for the active and reserve forces.
