Why do we need an Air National Guard AND an Air Force Reserve?

As America struggles to figure out how we will pay for all our obligations, aspirations, and expectations in the world and at home, political leaders and public servants look for ways to cut budgets while maintaining services. Duplications are anathema in this fiscal environment. So, why do we need an Army/Air National Guard AND an Army/Air Force Reserve?

It seems like an awful duplication of bureaucracies: there are separate headquarters and administrative systems for the Guard and the Reserve. There is only one reserve for the Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard. Why are there two for the Army and Air Force?

Part of the answer is in the Founders' fear of central governmental authority. Seventeenth century England had seen Parliament's army take over the government and behead the king. The men at Independence Hall in 1787 were familiar with that history - not terribly distant to them - and meant to ensure that the Congress ad the Presidency they created would not be able to run roughshod over the nation: The President is commander in chief of the military; Congress appropriates military funding; and the states retain considerable militia forces. Hence, the Guard. In 1947, when the Air Force won independence from the Army, it was natural that its air units went along as well.

The Army Reserve - and in 1947, the Air Force Reserve - grew out of the distrust the regular army had for the Guard. They had seen too many political generals, too many brothers in law, and too many fiascos. While many Guardsmen had distinguished themselves in war, many failed badly. Political appointees and militiamen all too interested in fancy titles were the bane of the regular army's leaders in the nineteenth century. Forgotten militia generals in the War of 1812 and the Mexican War fell short in the field. One thinks of Ben Butler and John McClernand in the Civil War, and of too many Guard generals in the opening months of World War II, men who were well connected but poorly trained. The only Guard general who came all the way through World War II with his command and reputation intact was Ohio's Robert Beightler. Other men succeeded at lower levels, or in staff positions. But most of the Guard unit commanders in 1940 were canned.

Today's Guard is much more combat capable, its leaders better vetted, its equipment much better aligned to that of the active component. In short, many of the reasons for having two reserve component entities have dissolved.

It would save millions if we simply eliminated the duplicative headquarters structures of the Air Force Reserve (an Air Staff role at the Pentagon), the Air Force Reserve Command (a major command at Robins AFB, Ga), and the Air National Guard (at Joint Base Andrews, Md). Dozens of senior officer billets could be eliminated as well. The same would be true of the Army Guard and Reserve.

Guard and Reserve units are ideal for homeland defense missions. They have engineer, transportation, communications, medical, and police capabilities. They can feed thousands in austere conditions, provide medical care in tents, and return a battered community to safe functioning in the worst emergencies. These capabilities are vital, whether the situation is a terrorsit attack, a tornado, or a toxic chemical spill. Many of the units are Reserve forces, much less readily available to governors and local officials than Guard units. Let the states pick up these homeland defense/ state mission costs and have the Federal contribution to the Guard focus on the warfighting mission. On the Air side, it would necessitate shifting missions: why does the Ohio Guard need F-16s and KC-135s? Stocking the ANG with lots of tactical airlift makes great sense. The C-17, C-130, and C-27 all seem ideal for the homeland mission and have great utility in wartime.

The biggest issue is getting leadership to make the tough calls to enact these changes. It amazes me that military leaders who have exhibited great courage in combat frequently display moral cowardice when faced with hard, institutional level decisions.

Chick-Fil-A

The founder of Chick-Fil-A, Dan Cathy is a devout Christian. He is a man so committed to his beliefs that he closes his fast-food restaurants on Sundays. Think about that: a man whose ideals are so ingrained within him, that he will forego a day’s profit every week in order to honor God in his own way.

Now the liberals are angry that he expressed his views opposing homosexual marriage. So angry that they want to shut down his restaurants, to bar him from Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia, as if a Chick-Fil-A is an affront to tolerance. I find it amazing that liberals immediately go for complete submission to their ideas, unable to countenance any difference of opinion.  If a true conservative doesn't like your opinion, he shrugs and goes about his business. If a liberal doesn't like your opinion, he has to try and discredit you as an uninformed, heartless troglodyte.

This is true of just about anything that pits liberal against conservative. If a conservative doesn’t like MSNBC, he just doesn’t watch it. But if a liberal doesn’t like Fox, he demands a boycott, wants the cable company not to carry Fox, and decries the bias of every person on Fox. I’ve been told that John Stossel, Lou Dobbs, Geraldo Rivera, and Greta Van Susteren are all now unreliable politically biased hacks. I have heard everyone of these praised when they were on other networks.

I have a dear friend who is a liberal. She will believe anything her union (NEA) tells her. But let me mention anything that differs, and the fight is on. One day, as she was telling me how Mitt Romney made money shutting down businesses, I responded with a story my brother told me. His company, Totes, was bought by Bain Capital. Romney’s investors looked at the company, decided it was worth pouring money into, and made the investment. The workers were told “you have about two years to turn this around.” And their pay was greatly increased – Dave’s was doubled in less than four years. Now, if the company hadn’t pulled itself back from the edge under Bain’s direction, then they would have been liquidated. And then I guess my brother would be on a commercial talking about that no-good Romney.

My friend’s reaction: “How can you verify these claims? You haven’t looked into other information.”  How do you respond to that?  All I could say was, “That’s my brother’s experience. Your actual mileage may vary.”

How do you argue with someone who will deny and discount a personal experience? I didn’t claim it was a total explanation or accounting for Romney’s business deals. Simply one man’s story. But to a liberal, it doesn’t count. By this logic, I can’t prove that Babylon or Julius Caesar existed.  I only have the history books, and I suppose it’s entirely possible that all that stuff was made up.

The liberals would go into orbit if you confronted them with this: While a certain skepticism is healthy, total questioning ends up denying any universal concept of truth, denying any universally common ground, even denying unwanted facts. There was a time when right and wrong were commonly accepted. Now, everything is relative.

I believe that we are all entitled to our opinions, but we all have to use the same facts. If I tell you Mitt Romney did at least one thing that benefited someone I know or that Dan Cathy is free to have his opinion, then accept that. If these men bother you, then don’t vote for Mitt and don’t eat at Chick-Fil-A. But don’t call me uninformed and don’t deny Mr. Cathy his right to speak.

Now, I'm going to have a chicken sandwich and some of those terrific waffle fries.

The World At War

I'm watching the 1974 British documentary, The World At War, again. It is an amazing program. At that time, many of the top leaders were still alive, so there are interviews with Albert Speer, Karl Doenitz, Bomber Harris, Curtis LeMay, Ira Eaker, Mark Clark, and a host of lesser ranking people.  It is sobering to see the more ordinary ranking people - Bill Mauldin, Otto Kretschmer, and other veterans - and to realize that when I was a boy, they were still vigorous adults in the prime of life, in their 50's and 60's. It makes you realize how quickly time passes. I vividly remember watching this show in high school. Now I am as old as some of the people pictured here.
But the point of the documentary is the enormous thing that was World War II. The numbers of participants and casualties stagger the imagination. The stakes are almost unimaginable. There was a moment in the fall of 1940 when Germany might have secured its borders and kept control of Europe for who knows how long. D-Day might have failed. We look back with comfortable hindsight at a successful long-ago endeavor, easily forgetting that the 1940's were not simply a triumphant decade of Glenn Miller music and stunning victories, but for years were a time of suffering and fear, when darkness and death swept across the world and threatened to extinguish the light. I've read that for the United States, something like 90% of our casualties came in the last eighteen months of war, 1944-45. Think of the timeline: Facing an ascendant Axis through 1942, the shock of Pearl Harbor and loss of the Philippines, Nazis deep in Russia and Africa. We didn't know then that Midway was a turning point. 1943 was a transitional year of ferocious fighting in the Soviet Union, horrible struggles in the North Atlantic, combat in places that we had never heard of like New Guinea, and Tarawa, and in places still far from Germany - Tunisia and Sicily. In 1944 came the rollback of German and Japanese forces, liberation and recapture of the enemy conquests. It is stunning to realize that the US lost more than 10,000 killed in combat every month through 1944 and 1945. With measurable progress came awful pain and loss.
We have to remember this forever. So much was sacrificed for our freedom. All we can do is to work constantly to keep liberty, the blessing they gave us.

Love Thy Enemy

As a nation, Americans have taken concern for the non-combatant to a level never before seen in warfare.  While it is certainly as high-minded as pacifism, it is equally absurd and destructive to the purposes of the war.  We have resorted to combat because we were attacked by expansionist fanatics, seeking to export their ideology and drive us away from our interests and allies.  Once chosen, the war path must be followed to victory.  Every attempt to ameliorate war's horror simply prolongs the suffering of those caught in its maelstrom.  It is as if we could turn down the minutes of terror caused by an F5 tornado, but we replace it with hours in an F3. For those in the way, it isn't much of a bargain. If we want to bring peace, then let us end the war quickly.  We need to learn to wage war as our grandfathers did - with righteous fury and overwhelming power that propel us to decision - either the enemy bends to our will or he is destroyed.  Or we can return to the Punitive Expeditions of the Nineteenth Century, when powers such as the United States and Great Britain would inflict harsh punishment on those who committed acts against the common peace. We have a right to be left alone by those who would commit mass murder, terrorism, or piracy.

Or we need to stop killing people.

One of the greatest dangers in our less than ferocious prosecution of this war is that we find ourselves placing limits on our own freedom at home, taking extraordinary measures to curb the influence and capability of our enemy.  We are surrendering our freedoms, the very reasons we are fighting rather than pouring hell on the enemy.  Don't misunderstand: anybody who gets in our sights suffers immensely.  But we've lost our bearings, jumping into the nation-building stage before our targeted nations were ready to accept our guidance.  You must wreck the enemy and make his behavior exceedingly painful or remove his means to continue. You have to put him on his back before he will accede to your nation-building.  Trying to nation-build before this level of coercion and control is a recipe for failure and a guarantee of sorrow.  The

Nazis, Japanese Imperialists, and Confederates weren't ready to give up their delusions of mastery until a thorough application of American strength dissuaded them of their ideas. 

Grocery Shopping

One of my favorite things is a trip to the grocery. The sheer abundance of life in America is on display in our big supermarkets. I love the Wal-Marts, Meijers, Krogers, and such, where you can buy fruit from South America in January, fish from the South Pacific, and tires, shotgun shells, and a new shirt, all in one trip. We once hosted an exchange student from Germany and I remember how she was shocked by the 24/7 commercialism of America, by its scope and convenience. Sometimes we decry our lifestyle and the demands it makes on us, but we seem to enjoy it, albeit guiltily.
 I've lived in Germany, where the stores close early and if you don't have what you want on Saturday afternoon, you're going to have to relax till Monday. So maybe our excesses are part of the fun in America.

Perfectionism and the Left

I'm always amazed by the incessant demands of the Left for perfect planning, execution, and service of all of our business, commercial, governmental, safety, military, and social actions. And if we should do something very very well, they immediately fall back to the position that America isn't that good, and that our flaws make us unworthy of judgment or action.
Their litany usually starts with slavery, often goes to the American Indians, then to various environmental crimes and dropping the Bombs on Japan. There's never a mention of context, of alternatives, of the value of hindsight, or of simple human failure.  I think the greatest thing about our history is the fact that Americans set a high standard for themselves, then work hard to meet that standard after our failures. What other nation has ever set such lofty aspirations down as the intent of an entire people and their government?
Perhaps the most troubling part of the liberal perfectionist whine is the complete lack of historical context. They speak as though the miscues and failings of the United States are unique. I ask, "What country would they see as better?"
France - the first foreign nation-state to attack America; the most anti-Semitic nation in western Europe; the erstwhile overlords of Algeria, Vietnam, and a host of other continually suffering former colonies.
Britain - Let a liberal tell you how perfect Britain is, then ask about Churchill, Thatcher, the Boer War, India, monarchy, soccer hooligans, Scotland, Ireland, and then say "What?"
Belgium - read King Leopold's Ghost. What Belgium did to the Congo ranks with Nazi or Communist atrocities.
Netherlands - Really, the liberals tell me that that prostitution is inherently demeaning to women, thus the Dutch are misogynists, yes? And shall we mention the atrocities permitted by the Dutch against women and gays, in their attempt to appease the Islamists? How about we find the people who turned in Anne Frank's family to the Gestapo? And let's give them honorable mention for sending Peter Minuit and $24 worth of trinkets to get Manhattan from the Native Americans. Surely then, the Dutch bear some of our guilt toward the Indians.
Germany - say no more.
Austria - I love the way Austria portrays itself as Hitler's first victim. Just don't look at the photos of surging crowds frilling the streets to welcome the Nazis. Anti-Nazi Austrians in 1938 were about as scarce as the "Family Von Trapp" after they won the big singing festival prize.
I've traveled in all of these countries, and have many happy memories of them. But as soon as they critique America, I am quick to mention that nobody's perfect. We are a generous people, with noble aspirations and dreams. This is what makes America exceptional: We have a dream and we reach for it!

Independence Day

When there are patriotic holidays, my thoughts turn toward the past and the blessing we enjoy in liberty and freedom.  My thoughts on the subject usually begin in the days leading up to the Fourth. I remember my Civil War ancestors, especially those who fought at Gettysburg. That week in 1863 was one of the most important in our history. In Virginia, Lee was driven back on to the defensive for the rest of the war. In the West, Grant took Vicksburg, and the Father of Waters flowed unvexed to the sea. The Confederacy would battle for almost two more years, but it now was a truncated, collapsing nation.
July Fourth is a wonderful time for me. I remember attending celebrations on various military bases, and how proud I was to be part of that - a sponsor, in a way, of freedom. I sometimes think that the meaning of the day is lost on many people today. So many Americans take freedom for granted.  They don't have an inkling how the rest of the world lives, what we have here. Materially and psychologically, we are blessed. If you grow up in Europe, your path is usually determined by your schooling, by decisions made before your sixteenth birthday. In America, the number of people who rise from middling or poor circumstances to the pinnacles of business, industry, or government is a tribute to our egalitarianism.
Our church sang "My Country Tis of Thee" at Sunday service. I can remember the first time I was in England, and retreat was observed on base. Naturally, they played The Star Spangled Banner and God Save The Queen. As the familiar tune of the British anthem sounded, my mind recited the words to My Country Tis of Thee.  But since then, I've learned that like most of our own patriotic songs, God Save The Queen has one verse that is commonly used and several lesser known verses. But the second verse is still applicable to us, I think. Perhaps we should use it, with one change:

O Lord, our God, arise,

Scatter our enemies,

And make them fall.

Confound their politics,

Frustrate their knavish tricks,

On Thee our hopes we fix,

God save us all.