When Ronald Reagan was President, it was easy to see who was on America's side and who wasn't. The Evil Empire was out there and was real. Now we have a heck of a lot more enemies and the threats are more multi-faceted than back in the Cold War. So it's easy to lose sight of the threat and the need.
So when someone claiming to represent the interests of the Ohio National Guard tells me that we need to draw down forces in Europe, or to gut the Air Force to save the ANG, I think we need to take a deep breath. And always be careful what we wish for, lest we get it.
First, the Guard serves a three fold mission: The nation's sword when force of arms is used. The citizens' protectors in time of disaster. And the guarantors of the rights of the states and the people against tyranny. To accept an enlarged Federal role is to alter and potentially neglect these obligations to the states and people. It makes the Guard part of the leviathan, rather than a balance to it.
Second, we have already drawn down radically from our Cold War numbers in Europe. Remember Bitburg, Hahn, Rhein-Main, Torrejon, RAF Upper Heyford, RAF Bentwaters... those bases are closed now. Our military presence in Germany has dropped from 200,000 in 1990 to about 60,000 now. The Russians and Chinese may have left the path of Marx but they are still global economic and power competitors and hostile to the United States in many aspects. The Chinese Premier recently visited Lajes. Why is China looking at a base in the Azores? Russian subs and bombers patrol our coasts in numbers and ways that make the news for the first time since the Cold War.
We are committed to missile defense in eastern Europe, so we need not more cuts, but to augment our few remaining bases in Europe with new ones in Poland and Romania. And look at a globe: Europe is a lot closer to where our military needs to be than Ohio. So, till we recruit a Romanian National Guard, we're going to need an Air Force big enough to support that rotation. And keeping ground forces there makes sense for the same reason. Cutting our commitments in Europe further is a bad idea.
And don't forget - President Obama has announced a strategic "pivot" toward Asia. Maybe it's time to build up the Guam National Guard. Do we have volunteers to homestead there???
As far as the ongoing statement by the Guard leadership that ANG provides 35% of the combat capability for 6% of the cost... that's true if you don't count the missions the Air Force does for the Guard - Basic training, technical training, pilot training, just to name a few. These are missions where the Air Force ought to fully utilize the ANG, missions requiring expertise, continuity, and maturity - three great strengths of the ANG. Also, when we look at USAF costs, remember the Air Force has to move people around, to station thousands overseas and in locations far from our hometowns or that many of us might find less than enjoyable. (wonder what it costs to move an Airman to Turkey or Japan - and his family, and the other 5,000 people on the base and the other 20 or so bases overseas... and to rotate them 3-4 years later?). And don't forget that the Air Force has some unique and costly missions like ICBMs, research & development, and procurement. Not that you couldn't roll the ANG in there, but it has to be considered in budget assessments.
The simple fact is, if the Guard flies a KC-135 and the Air Force flies a KC-135, the gas still costs what it costs for a gallon, a captain gets paid the same either way, etc. The only real savings comes in the fact that in the ANG, you don't pay for people 30 days a month, you only pay for the days they work. You don't provide medical care, dental care, housing, leave, or meals. The Air Force does all that. And the Guard defers paying retirement till the person is 60, generally speaking. The active military pays immediately upon retirement. So those Guard savings come at a cost to the members.
The cost to the members: If we rely more heavily on the ANG - and we already do - it means more mobilizations and more disruption of civilian careers. In the 1980's the active Air Force was nearly 600,000 members. Today it's about 316,000 - just half what it was in the Cold War. The ANG has dropped from 120,000 to 106,000 in the same quarter-century. There were 5 active USAF members for each Air Guardsman in 1990. Now it's only 3 to 1. That means their well dries up sooner, they have to rely on the Guard much more readily than in the Cold War or Desert Storm. How much we can put in the reserve components is a tough question, but there is a breaking point. The ANG is highly responsive and has been amazing in this war. I helped put ANG tankers and cargo planes in the air on 9/11, within minutes of the attack, before we even knew what all would happen that day. And the 121 ARW was activated and flying Iraqi Freedom missions in less than a week in 2003. We were there, but sustaining that is a different commitment. If the ANG takes on more of the Air Force mission, we are going to have to build up a more full-time force. This means that we lose the flexibility that enables traditional members to participate fully in the mission.
Let's not say things or make promises that don't make sense. Guardsmen need to stop impugning the integrity of the active military - and of those of us who served in the Regulars - and keep the focus on what makes sense. People don't understand that the Air Force and the ANG are in some ways competing governmental bureaucracies. Remember that the public doesn't understand a lot about the military. Relatively few people in our country under 75 years old are veterans. In my current employment, I've been asked if a sergeant is higher ranking than a colonel and why did we never fly the KC-135 off an aircraft carrier at sea. We all wear the same uniform, don't we? The general public often lumps us - active and reserve components - together as a welfare constituency or less nicely, as warmongers. We're like an insurance policy: nobody wants to pay the premium but they hope the house never burns down. Never overestimate popular support based on "support the troops" ribbons on cars; ask if they have a loved one in uniform. I've met plenty of folks who "thank you for your service" and in the next breath explain why their child will never go in the military.
It's a complex issue. The overriding consideration has to be what is best for the defense of the United States. I believe in the militia concept as the best safeguard of our Republic and as a cost-effective tool to prosecute many of the nation's military requirements. I am also intensely proud that I was trained by and served in the greatest Air Force in the world, a power that played such a big part in winning World War II and the Cold War. Sadly, the Total Force Concept that was intended to bring America to war with its military has meant that even with its Reserve Components, those of us in uniform - and the large number of us who have gone to war - are isolated from the America that has been at the mall throughout the last 11 years of war.
And yes, fold the Air Force Reserve into the ANG and cut thousands of bureaucrat jobs and overhead!!
No comments:
Post a Comment