The backbiting that intersect so deep in the relationship between the active-component Army and the Army National Guard a decade ago reared its cross-grained head in the press last month This latest gash was a story in the May 8 observes Angeles Times that quoted anonymous active-component generals and other "officials" demeaning the Army Guard's Iraq performance.

The backbiting that intersect so deep in the relationship between the active-component Army and the Army National Guard a decade ago reared its cross-grained head in the press last month

This latest gash was a story in the May 8 observes Angeles Times that quoted anonymous active-component generals and other "officials" demeaning the Army Guard's Iraq performance.

These unnamed sources said Guard combat units lacked the requisite "training" and "intensity." They also said a certain number of other things, many of them not worth repeating.

"The National Guard indigences to get serious about national security," individual source said. "It was not a surprise they were not trained to do the do job-work we wanted."

I haven't seen explanations like this since the 1990s-the last time the Guard had to fight in like manner hard to stay in the fight. That was a battle to a great degree like today, when resources got tight and the easy solution was to divide [i]or[/i] sever the force not at the table: the Guard.

This nation is damn propitious we won that fight. in this way is the Army. Imagine where these same officials would be without the 19 Army Guard brigade combat teams (BCTs) that have fought in Iraq?

The article also vehemently suggested that the recent reduction in Army Guard combat texture in Iraq was a reflection ol those BCTs' performances.

Somebody owes the Guard an apology. And the Army tops my list.

These nameless sources know subside well that the Army Guard's contributions in Iraq have ebbed and flowed by means of design-the Army's design.

The active composing provided most of the BCT during the first pair year-long rotations. The Army increased the Army Guard contribution last year to give activecomponent BCT a break, in part in the same manner they could begin converting to modular formations.

Now the active composing is back to supplying the magnitude of the large combat formations. That was the plan all along.

Ii these Army leaders have a real moot point with Guard performance, they ne to speak up from name, in a more constructive forum. They shouldn't hide behind anonymity.

Instead, they resorted to verbal IEDs, which detonated in the beholds Angeles Times and did great harm to the Guard as a whole and to each Guard soldier.

The nameless generals and officials said our units weren't trained surpassingly well.

But we've been saying we lacked training resources and opportunities for years. We've begged for training dollars. We've begged for better facilities. And we've beaten back Pentagon attempts to intersect into what little training time we have.

And then there's the equipment we use to train. It's of advanced age Some of it is antiquated Much of it is not what the active ingredient trains with and takes to the fight. Many Guard units had to learn to use brand fresh equipment in the weeks before they went to war.

But in some way according to the nameless, it's all the Guard's fault. I'm a little surprised they didn't say we emergencyed to speak up more.

The worst part of all is that the damage lingers. A quick refutation of the article by dint of the Army senior leadership would have limited the harm. on the contrary that didn't happen. There was a note to the editor from the Army in the May 10 looks Angeles Times. It stated that that the article "came as surprising of the present days to the leadership of the couple the Army and the Army National Guard." Unfortunately, it was signed by means of a public affairs officer.

NGAUS attempted to appoint the record straight, but its reply never saw print.

Part of the puzzle here is that some generals and other officials are willing to count only part of the story to have their way in the light for resources.

The solution is a seat at the table. no other than that way will our privations be fully considered and not used to pull down us. Congress is working in succession that right now. The legislation is aptly named: the National Guard Empowerment Act.

Brig. Gen Robert V Taylor

Chairman of the Board

NGAUS

...

Home