March 15, 2007
by Robert T. Melaccio Sr.

Do We Really Understand What This Means?

This article was written in 2006 and never posted. Perhaps I should have but at that time I was writing to similar topics. Perhaps it will bring into focus just what is happening to our military, our veterans and their "care".

Since the beginning of our Nation the National Guard was always under the jurisdiction of the state. It is and remains a State Militia. The purpose was to guarantee the integrity and the security needs for each state and to protect the state from the Federal Government. Now that is not to say that National Guard units have not served in every war. In fact they were this nations first fighting force. However, these units were released to the military in time of need by the state. Did we in fact just see the refusal of some states to deploy to the border?

Now as I understand and I can be wrong, they [Commission on National Guard and Reserves- 10/05/06] are proposing merging the reserves into "Operational" forces for duty in Iraq and other hot spots as required. As general Lance Smith "we have made so much headway in this regard," thinks it makes sense to do this. The Commission asked if they should set up National Guard as a separate entity or force is another question for consideration. Gen Smith stated he is not an advocate of this. Mr. Dan McKinnon asked what there plans are for 2006/2007 for non-volunteer forces for deployment to combat zones. The General answered about 18% is the estimated need.

The burden truly lies with the active forces to carry the burden but one of the limits on the forces now is a number of rebuilt forces and when they will be ready. There is also a concern for over extending forces. The general continues to use the term "access to the Guard and reserve" in my opinion implies they will draw as needed. He also uses the term that it is not that forces do not exist but they are not available due to current "policies" but he does not doubt they would become available if needed. In effect these forces are integrated already, if not by law, by concept into the Operational Force.

The general acknowledged most Operational Forces are committed to Iraq and that area of Operation and they are still evaluating against different situations that might materialize. While his confidence was high he did not answer the question.

It is also my understanding that the needs of "Operational" forces would take precedent over state needs when required. These units would be added to the force pool, which is needed to meet war needs in Iraq and other places. To that end that is a fundamental change from what our forefathers perceived as a necessary and required component for the security of each state and the nation.

(Article Continues Below)

As example, if there was a requirement for duty in a war zone that would take priority over, lets say a Hurricane and State need at home. Other units would be drawn form other states to support that endeavor. The military would also be able to draw, whenever required units they require.

Now the reason for this consideration is the inability the regular forces to meet manpower and force requirements. That is being talked about in the halls of Congress but little to nothing is being said in the papers or to the public. So, as I understand, and acknowledge I can be wrong, however it is quite possible that means they are considering merging the "Strategic Reserves with "Operational Forces" if in fact this is now just a paper transaction and it has already been established. However, while listening I did not hear anything about a fully capable Strategic Reserve?

Now in my opinion what this speaks to and in my opinion and perspective only is the inability of the Operational forces to maintain the manpower necessary to fight even one conflict. They have admitted this is the case and they have in fact been doing this merge for quite sometime now in order to meet requirements in any area of conflict. The fact that the recruitment standards are being lowered and the age raised just to meet the manpower recruitment goals is a significant aspect that seems to be blown over. We have always heard it is critical the military has the right capability level of people to man the technical environment they operate in. It now seems they have reversed themselves. Now once again and strictly in my opinion this speaks to a draft. Regardless if they want to address it now before Election Day or later, they will eventually be forced to if Iraq continues and other needs arise.

Why do I perceive this? Well the Guard drew their Citizen Soldiers for duty chiefly at home. That was the main recruitment tool that attracted people to these ranks. When you change the dynamics of that approach you now change the basic assumptions of why people would join that force. You also in my opinion undermine State rights and that is something we should be hearing about from our Governors and State Legislatures. Has the assumption of the Guard into Operational Forces already transpired by an acceptance of the current situational needs?

Now when they talk about the capabilities of the army and reserves they are acknowledging the need for equipment and boots. They are in my opinion acknowledging the need to make all elements equally prepared via training all elements of the military. In other words to throw Reserve forces into combat they need to be equipped and trained on par with Operational forces. That is because when called upon for duty they can integrate seamlessly. If this has not happened we must ask if it has it contributed significantly to increased casualties? Less training, older quality equipment, etc has certainly been a contributing factor we should factor in and consider as a possibility.

Now that in it self is not a bad concept, however, to change the structure of all the forces is at the very heart of what all Americans should be informed about.

So, why haven't we heard more concerning this committee and their objective? If it is just training that seems fine. However, if it is more in line with what I have observed then perhaps we should be hearing more about it. It does not mean Americans would be against it, it just means we should know and those who are members of that force either now or in the future should as well.

Here we are in 2007 and this seems to be the norm? I have also spoken about vets and their treatment with a reference to Rome and how they treated their returning vets. Does not any of this bring a concern to people?

I for one think not. As a person stated to me just yesterday "I'm not eating rice three times a day just yet". It kind of sums up the American perspective in today's world and perhaps just like it did in the days of Rome?

If you enjoyed this post Subscribe to the Free Populist Party Newsletter

     click here

Robert T. Melaccio Sr. [send him email] is a freelance writer.

Copyright © 2007 Robert Melaccio