What are your thoughts on the (4) Recommendations For The Future Of The Total Army?

2015-10-10T11:26:54-04:00

What are your thoughts on the (4) Recommendations For The Future Of The Total Army?

Here’s how the Regular Army, National Guard, and Reserve can work better to maintain U.S. land power dominance.

RP Members (active and veterans) do agree or disagree?

http://taskandpurpose.com/4-recommendations-for-the-future-of-the-total-army/

After nearly two years of bitter skirmishes between the three components of the U.S. Army — Active, National Guard, and Reserve — a congressionally mandated commission of retired Army leaders and Department of Defense officials will study the current force structure of America’s land force and make recommendations on its future composition. Though the National Commission on the Future of the Army was formed as a result of sparring between the three Army components and their interest groups, it presents an opportunity to create an Army capable of meeting the complex security threats our nation faces today and into the 21st century. With the Islamic State still controlling large swaths of Iraq and Syria, renewed uncertainty in Afghanistan and Russia’s perpetuation of “frozen conflicts” along its western border, the need for a decisive land force capable of meeting conventional, asymmetric and hybrid threats is as critical as ever. So how can the Regular Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve work better to achieving that end? Here are four recommendations for the National Commission on the Future of the Army to consider.

4 Recommendations For The Future Of The Total Army

Here’s how the Regular Army, National Guard, and Reserve can work better to maintain U.S. land power dominance.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 10 at 2015 11:28 AM

2015-10-10T11:28:16-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs These four concepts may be useful but I doubt they are sufficient.
1. Give the Total Force “teeth.” [General concept which if fully resourced could be sufficient]
2. Keep Apache helicopters in the National Guard and Reserve. [very specific
3. Provide a continuum of service across the components. [This is a violation of the law which ensures that we could not go to war without Congressional actions calling up the reserve component service support assets required to support a war after 30, 60 or 90 days]
4. Revisit multi-component unit structure. [Multi-component force structure could work well in periods of stability. Unfortunately when reserve component units are called up more frequently and when they are used as other units such as FA units becoming Infantry, convoy security, etc. without sufficient training or resources or both]

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Oct 10 at 2015 11:36 AM

2015-10-10T11:36:53-04:00

Correct me if I am wrong COL Mikel J. Burroughs, but isn't that article just the authors opinions? LTC Stephen F. brings up a very important point regarding "Providing a continuum of service across the components".

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 11:46 AM

2015-10-10T11:46:47-04:00

This may be more aimed at politicians...
1. Realize the budget cannot be cut, while the cost of overhead, training, acquiring modern equipment systems and personnel... is increasing.
2. Due to the restructuring and force drawdown, realize that it is now impossible to deploy the active army without engaging the reserves and national guard.
3. Realize our TOTAL ARMY is made up of ALL VOLUNTEER PERSONNEL. As such, this means the Army needs to provide competitive pay/compensation packages to attract the best we can get.
4. Do not neglect the ever changing scope of electronic operations.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 12:13 PM

2015-10-10T12:13:04-04:00

The Air Force started some of this a few years back. I have several active duty friends assigned to Air National Guard bases and I have met reservists on AD tours with AD units.

I think it's a bad idea to take the Apache out of the National Guard inventory totally. It's good to have the back up of the Guardsmen and Reservists to augment the AD folks in my opinion.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Oct 10 at 2015 12:20 PM

2015-10-10T12:20:10-04:00

We need to improve our doctrinal approach to fighting insurgencies. We are built for conventional war.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 12:53 PM

2015-10-10T12:53:28-04:00

More joint training with Active duty and reserve components along with national guard

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 10 at 2015 3:50 PM

2015-10-10T15:50:35-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs, thanks for asking this question. I have far too many opinions about the current status of our Armed Forces, the U.S. Army and he Warrant Officer Cohort in general. Too many opinions to post on a RP thread.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Oct 11 at 2015 10:33 AM

2015-10-11T10:33:44-04:00

I think the philosophy of relying on Guard and Reserve forces is severely flawed. It showed its weaknesses during OIF and OEF, and we should never go back to that setup again...

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Oct 14 at 2015 2:49 PM

2015-10-14T14:49:18-04:00

Sp4 Byron Skinner
First thing scrap the whole USArmy. We have a fighting force designed to fight WW II, this won;t happen again, to expensive. In Syria Russia took 100 Btr 82's and they are all now combat losses, the Russian Army only had 300 before Syria. We no longer are facing enemies who are sending in thousands of troops against us, we are fighting groups of a dozen fighters. See Quantrall and Andersen 1861-1865 Missouri. We don't need heavy armor we need more unmanned drones and to stretch out the battle field to a 100km or more. Use troops only for mop up and occupying. Let troops have two-three primary MOS's with men/women with 120 IQ's as enlisted they have the abilities. Pay Enlisted and Jr. Officers more, at least twice as much as now.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2015 9:54 PM

2015-10-14T21:54:10-04:00

COL Mikel Burroughs, I like them all, but especially the last two. Now, we do see a limited version of these already, but still very small percentage like say 2% I'm guessing. There are AC billets in the echelons above corps level within rah AR and vice versa as well as in recruiting there are Reserve billets. There are also exercises where Reserve support assets are utilized such as NTC and JRTC. However, these are at the federal level. With the NG there are state versus federal dollars to consider.

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Oct 21 at 2015 10:59 AM

2015-10-21T10:59:56-04:00

1. Revamp the personnel system using many of Don Vandergriff's recommendations ("Path to Victory")
2. Modify the procurement system so R&D is not only spent on the visions of engineers and inventors, but with the input of experienced veteran soldiers, especially NCOs, as well.
3. End the establishment of de facto protected classes (ie senior officers, females, some racial minorities, LBGT), starting with an elimination of EO (IG is sufficient) and much of the wasteful training and "appreciation" time allotments that go with it. IOW, treat individuals as such (see #1).
4. Address the "Women in Combat" issue with candor, metrics, and free and open debate rather than top-down political correctness.

Response by LTC Robert McKenna made Oct 21 at 2015 1:45 PM

2015-10-21T13:45:03-04:00

1. Done. I don't think most would disagree with this in principle. The fact is we can't do operations without the RC.

2. Moving the Apache to AC is unfortunately the price the service (both components) has to pay for failure to complete the Comanche. We don't get anything extra by keeping the AH in the reserve, as someone said there is no magic available to the RC personnel system that the active component doesn't have). I can show where the RC has operationally used UH-60 and other helo's for defense support to civil authorities missions, I can't show where it used AH's.

3. Hell yes!! Long overdue, but it requires a new mindset within both the AC and RC and changes in law.

4. Yes, with reservations. By all means match reserve forces to the active component formations, but we need to take a different approach to training, support, and operations. Americans' don't live and work the same way today that they did 30-50 years ago, perhaps we need to move away from the 1 weekend a month and two weeks in the summer (often more) to a differing construct that brings personnel and units together less often, but for longer more robust training periods (thing 4 days every two months, or 1 week per quarter).

Response by SFC William Farrell made Oct 21 at 2015 11:46 PM

2015-10-21T23:46:06-04:00

I personally think the active component and Commanders need to have a little more faith in the ability of Reserve and Guard soldiers COL Mikel J. Burroughs. Provided a unit is well trained, they should be up to the task. Oftentimes its the bickering between active and reserve forces Commanders over turf and budgets that get in the way.

Response by SGT John Howard made Oct 23 at 2015 1:40 AM

2015-10-23T01:40:30-04:00

First, and most important, get rid of the toy guns (the cute little plastic guns that fire a modified .22-caliber bullet). Big American Wars - Spanish American, WWI, WWII, Korea where won with big guns .30-caliber or NATO 7.62mm. Develop a gun similar to the AK47, big bullet, rugged but lighter than the M-14. Bring back the M-1911 .45-cal. pistol - 9mm bullets are good for target practice. Retire the Humvee, bring back the Jeep. Why do the troops go into battle with 80-pounds of equipment? Bring that crap up later. WHERE THE HELL IS THE ARTILLERY?

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jan 11 at 2016 9:10 PM

2016-01-11T21:10:42-05:00

I don't think that any military planning will be successful without first having an Administration that provide clears and stable mission statements. It seems that we have seen whatever structure was devised for the military (all branches) fall apart as the politicians bounced from one diplomatic strategy to another. The Army in particular can't simply realign its force structure every two weeks or whenever the President "changes" his mind and "hopes" for the best. If I were President, I'd acknowledge that we are engaged in a war on terror and provide the regular Army with two missions. One, deploy highly mobile specialized units to engage insurgencies. Two, train and lead reserve forces that are structured to fight a more conventional conflict, deploying the reserve only for those purposes. How to accomplish all that? Provide the military with the budget they need and let military experts figure it out.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jan 13 at 2016 8:57 PM

2016-01-13T20:57:44-05:00

I'm not a Soldier, but on paper these seem like great recommendations, especially #3. Make it easier for Soldiers to transfer between active duty, reserves, and Guard.