The Edmond Sun

Opinion

January 18, 2014

National Guard’s cost-savings should matter during cuts

OKLA. CITY — Senior U.S. military leaders and Congress have some difficult decisions to make about the size and composition of our military. The Budget Control Act and subsequent reductions to defense spending will force the military and political leaders to make some tough calls in the near future about how limited resources will be allocated in the coming decade across all the services. This is especially true for the active Army and the Army National Guard.

The plentiful resources the military enjoyed for more than a decade as we waged war in Iraq and bring the war in Afghanistan to a conclusion are being replaced with budget cuts. A reduced Department of Defense budget has created a debate between Pentagon officials and the National Guard about force structure and how the reductions in spending will be applied to the Regular Army and the Army National Guard.

We shouldn’t go back to the days when the Guard was a seldom-used strategic reserve. And while no one is saying that’s what they want — how the cuts are administered will say a lot about how top Army brass views the Guard today.

 Whatever decision is made, it must be based first and foremost on ensuring our ability to protect our homeland and accomplish our national security interests. From that starting point, we must proceed along a path that is both fiscally responsible and absolutely ensures our men and women in uniform are highly trained and properly equipped to accomplish whatever our nation asks them to do.

There are two differing schools of thought about what is needed in terms of future force structure. Some senior Army officials believe it’s a mistake to shift some of the responsibility for ground combat forces to the Army National Guard and they are vehemently opposed to the Guard assuming additional peacetime responsibilities in this area. While there are practical arguments in both camps, I believe some of this concern isn’t based on today’s reality, which is the Guard is now highly trained and readiness levels have never been higher. Unfortunately, it appears that some senior leaders would rather not debate the issues, but would rather push the Guard aside and relegate us back to “weekend warriors” in order to save force structure in the active component.

Prior to the first Gulf War in 1990, and even afterward in some circles, senior level Army officials doubted the combat effectiveness of some National Guard units. While some Guard outfits did in fact struggle with preparing for combat more than two decades ago when the U.S. removed Saddam Hussein’s Iraq Army from Kuwait, the ineffectiveness of a few units seemed to stain the overall reputation of the whole in the minds of some leaders.

Some 20 years later came 9/11 and the Guard rightfully joined our nation’s response to terrorism. While all units are different in terms of ability, there can be no doubt the National Guard fully proved itself during the past decade as it served alongside regular Army Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether that was in a combat-support role or actually in fighting units.  Some who once thought it was fashionable to discount the abilities of the reserve and Guard components could no longer do so as the Citizen Soldier performed admirably and with distinction.

 More than 63 percent of the National Guard has deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan and 37 percent has deployed multiple times, according to National Guard Bureau data. No other state has deployed more Soldiers per capita than Oklahoma since 9/11.

Having served in Iraq alongside thousands of great Americans, you can’t tell a difference between active duty and a guardsman these days. More than one-third of our Oklahoma Citizen Soldiers have deployed multiple times and many of them have been to both Iraq and Afghanistan defending and fighting for our nation.

There is a tremendous amount of experience in the National Guard today and this certainly isn’t the Guard of decades ago when we only trained 39 days a year.

Of upmost importance to the national treasury and taxpayers, it costs billions less to field comparable Guard units to active duty units. Active duty Soldiers live in subsidized housing and many draw retirement benefits for life beginning in their late 30s and early 40s. Traditional Guardsmen don’t earn housing allowances and don’t receive retirement pay until they reach the age of 60 under current rules. Multiple studies have shown that a National Guard Soldier costs about a third of an equivalent active duty Soldier.   

In the coming weeks, military leaders will try to reach a compromise and I’m confident that will happen if we have a full and honest debate about the effectiveness and value of the Army National Guard. However, I am in no way diminishing the importance of having the best Regular Army we can afford. A highly trained, modernly equipped and an adequately manned active duty fighting force is absolutely critical to our national security. Our men and women serving on active duty installations and in warzones around the world deserve the full and complete commitment of our nation and its financial resources.

Throughout our history we have grown our military to respond to our needs during armed conflict and then when those conflicts come to conclusion, we’ve taken aggressive and sometime drastic steps to rollback the cost of a larger force. Many times we’ve destroyed readiness in the process, failed to modernize our force and broken our commitment to our men and women in uniform by eliminating the resources they need to be properly trained. It is not in our national interest to go back to being the hollow force of the 1970s and early 1980s.

The nation has heavily invested in the Guard during the war effort and it would be a mistake on many levels to let our readiness and preparedness slip away. Our troops are highly trained and better equipped than they’ve ever been.  

In this extremely difficult economic period, it doesn’t make sense to do anything that would reduce the effectiveness of the force we’ve already achieved, especially when the Guard is so cost effective.  The past decade has shown that the Department of Defense can rely heavily on the reserves and National Guard and it can continue to now.  Early conflict requirements can be met by active duty forces - with the Guard joining the fray, especially ground forces, a short time later.

Beside the federal mission, National Guard units in every state and territory are routinely called upon to respond to the emergency needs of their fellow citizens.  The domestic response capabilities of our Guard units shouldn’t be diminished or discounted.  Oklahomans know first-hand how important it is to have a fully capable, properly equipped and professional force to assist first-responders after natural and even man-made disasters.

It is in the mutual interest of both the active Army and the Army National Guard to work together to find solutions that make sense for the long-term stability, readiness and effectiveness of our force. It won’t be easy for either side, but we must approach this from a win-win perspective. In the same way we worked so effectively together in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should put all the options on the table and figure out how we can have the most effective military with the dollars we have available. It may take some out of the box thinking, but I know we can get it done.

The Guard knows it’s not immune from cuts, but it’s time we recognize the tremendous cost savings the National Guard provides while being a valuable component of our overall national security. Doing so will allow us to continue to field a capable force that meets our country’s needs while getting the most from the taxpayer dollar. Just because our most senior military officials seem more comfortable with a large standing garrison-based force, doesn’t mean it’s the best solution.

It’s important that we have an honest debate about the force mix that protects our nation, allows us to assert our military influence around the world where we must and at the same time doesn’t break the treasury. For more than a decade we have shown that we can maintain a highly trained and ready force in the Guard. To reduce the Army National Guard would be a mistake without carefully analyzing our national security needs and the fiscal advantages the Guard provides.

My fellow citizens, this is really not a debate about whether we need a strong military. Far from it, we obviously do. But, we must decide how we can maintain our defense capabilities that meet our needs with the resources we have available. And the Guard is undoubtedly an important part of that solution.

MAJ. GEN. MYLES L. DEERING is the adjutant general for Oklahoma. He wrote this piece as an open letter to Oklahomans.

1
Text Only
Opinion
  • St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Why poverty across the world matters to Americans

    A child starving in South Sudan should matter to Americans. That was the message delivered last week by Nancy Lindborg, whose job at the U.S. Agency for International Development is to lead a federal bureau spreading democracy and humanitarian assistance across the world.
    That world has reached a critical danger zone, with three high-level crises combining military conflict with humanitarian catastrophes affecting millions of innocents in Syria, the South Sudan and the Central African Republic.
    But back to that child.

    April 18, 2014

  • Government leadership complicit in overfilling prisons

    One of the thorniest problems facing any society is the question of what to do with transgressors. Obviously, the more complicated a culture becomes, the more factors come into play in trying to figure out what to do with those who choose not to “play by the rules.”

    April 18, 2014

  • My best days are ones normal people take for granted

    It is a weekend for working around the house. My fiancee, Erin, and I have the baby’s room to paint and some IKEA furniture to assemble. I roll out of bed early — 10:30 — and get into my wheelchair. Erin is already making coffee in the kitchen.
    “I started the first wall,” she says. “I love that gray.” Erin never bugs me about sleeping late. For a few months after I was injured in the Boston Marathon bombings, I often slept 15 hours a day. The doctors said my body needed to heal. It must still be healing because I hardly ever see 8 a.m. anymore.

    April 18, 2014

  • Instead of mothballing Navy ships, give them to our allies

    A bitter debate has raged in the Pentagon for several months about the wisdom of taking the nuclear aircraft carrier George Washington out of service to save money. The Washington, at 24 years old a relatively young vessel, is due for a costly refit, a routine procedure that all of the 11 large carriers in service undergo regularly.

    April 18, 2014

  • The pessimist’s guide to grizzly bears and Earth Day

    This coming Friday, to “celebrate Earth Day,” the Walt Disney Co. will release one of those cutesy, fun-for-all-ages, nature documentaries. “Bears” is about grizzly bears.
    The trailer says, “From DisneyNature comes a story that all parents share. About the love, the joy, the struggle and the strength it takes to raise a family.”
    Talk about your misguided “Hollywood values.” I previously have acknowledged a morbid, unreasonable fear of grizzly bears, stemming from a youth misspent reading grisly grizzly-attack articles in Readers Digest. This fear is only morbid and unreasonable because I live about 1,500 miles from the nearest wild grizzly bear. Still. ...

    April 16, 2014

  • Digging out of the CIA-Senate quagmire

    Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., voted to declassify parts of its report on the CIA’s rendition, detention and interrogation program. The White House, the CIA and the Senate still have to negotiate which portions of the report will be redacted before it is made public. But this is an important step in resolving the ugly dispute that has erupted between the intelligence committee and the intelligence agency.
    The dispute presents two very serious questions. Was the program consistent with American values and did it produce valuable intelligence? And is effective congressional oversight of secret activities possible in our democracy?

    April 15, 2014

  • Los Angeles Times: Congress extend jobless benefits again

    How’s this for irony: Having allowed federal unemployment benefits to run out in December, some lawmakers are balking at a bill to renew them retroactively because it might be hard to figure out who should receive them. Congress made this task far harder than it should have been, but the technical challenges aren’t insurmountable. Lawmakers should restore the benefits now and leave them in place until the unemployment rate reaches a more reasonable level.

    April 14, 2014

  • Many nations invested in Israel

    Former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yoram Ettinger recently spoke to a gathering at the Chabad Center for Jewish Life and Learning in Oklahoma City. The event began with a presentation by Rabbi Ovadia Goldman, who told the attendee that the  upcoming Jewish holiday of Passover was an occasion for them to embrace the children of God, which is all of humanity.

    April 14, 2014

  • Coming soon: More ways to get to know your doctor

    Last week, the federal government released a massive database capable of providing patients with much more information about their doctors.
    The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the government agency that runs Medicare, is posting on its website detailed information about how many visits and procedures individual health professionals billed the program for in 2012, and how much they were paid.
    This new trove of data, which covers 880,000 health professionals, adds to a growing body of information available to patients who don’t want to leave choosing a doctor to chance. But to put that information to good use, consumers need to be aware of what is available, what’s missing and how to interpret it.

    April 14, 2014

  • HEY HINK: Hateful bullies attempt to muffle free speech

    Hopefully we agree it should be a fundamental right to voice criticism of any religion you wish. And you should have the right to sing the praises of any religion you choose. If criticism of religion is unjust, feel free to make your best argument to prove it. If criticism is just, don’t be afraid to acknowledge and embrace it. If songs of praise are merited, feel free to join in. If not, feel free to ignore them. But no American should participate in curbing free speech just because expression of religious views makes someone uncomfortable.

    April 11, 2014

Poll

Do you agree with a state budget proposal that takes some funds away from road and bridge projects to ramp up education funding by $29.85 million per year until schools are receiving $600 million more a year than they are now? In years in which 1 percent revenue growth does not occur in the general fund, the transfer would not take place.

Agree
Disagree
Undecided
     View Results