Nation's governors rally around the guard

The Army's plan to have the Army National Guard bear the bulk of the force structure cuts called for in the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) ran into a roadblock recently when the nation's governors voiced strong opposition to provisions in the QDR that called for the elimination of 38,000 Army Guard positions. The governors objected to the latest attempt by the active component to cure the Army's fiscal woes at the sole expense of the Army National Guard.

Originally intended to be a thorough review of America's post-Cold War security needs that addressed all of the elements of the National Military Strategy, the QDR became a tool for the Department of the Army to shift the majority of the proposed troop cuts onto the backs of the Army National Guard.

Despite the lack of any Army National Guard representation, active component leaders offered prolific assurances during the QDR process that they were aware of the critical role the Army National Guard plays in both its federal and state missions. These same officials said that they were also aware of the Guard community's efforts to identify areas where the Army Guard could save the Department of Defense the money it needed to pursue its weapon modernization objectives.

Rumors of the latest active component effort to attack the Army Guard became a reality during the May 4-5 Adjutants General Association of the United States (AGAUS) Conference in Oklahoma City. During that conference, GEN Ronald H. Griffith, vice-chief of staff of the Army, announced, prior to the QDR's official release, that the Army was proposing troop strength reductions of 38,000 from the Army Guard. According to the plan, active component reductions would only be reduced by 15,000 troops and the Army Reserve by 7,000.

When the nation's governors heard from their respective adjutants general about this latest threat to the National Guard, twothirds of them drafted and signed a joint National Governors Association (NGA) letter to President Bill Clinton.

Many of the governors expressed strong opposition to the portions of the QDR that called for further reductions in the Army Guard. "We believe the Army National Guard must bear its fair share of reductions in structure and strength," the governors said. However, the proposals that have come out of the QDR are too severe and represent more than the Guard's fair contribution to the goal of a balanced budget."

The letter also highlighted the cost-saving potential in the Guard, "The governors believe that there is a compelling economic advantage for maintaining the Army National Guard at a sufficient level."

The letter went on to address the critical role the Guard plays during local emergencies and how the proposed cuts could jeopardize the Army National Guard's ability to respond to such emergencies.

Finally, the governors pointed out the constitutional role of the National Guard. "Historically, our nation has always relied on the National Guard as a mobilization base. This is the backbone of our nation...It is a reflection of the long tradition of civilian control and symbolizes the views and the genius of our constitutional principle that the nation's interests would be best served if we did not have to place total reliance for our security upon a large standing Army."

According to the NGA's spokesman Dr Nolan Jones, the joint governors letter had come together very quickly "The governors understand what the Guard is about and have an appreciation of what Guard members do for their communities."

In addition to the NGA letter more than half of the governors emphasized their concern with this particular issue and sent individual letters to the president. North Dakota Governor Edward T Schaefer said in his letter, "The current proposals that have been generated by the active component without any consultation or considerations by the Guard leadership are totally unacceptable. It would seem that they are more concemed with their own existence than that of the future security needs of state and nation. The QDR has not allowed the Total Army to be all that it can be..."

According to NGAUS President, MG Richard C. Alexander, the governors' opposition to the proposed cuts to the Army Guard should not have come as a surprise to the secretary of defense or active component leaders. "Cutting the Army National Guard will harm our state emergencyresponse capability, a factor not considered during the QDR process. The governors are going to have less manpower and machines at their disposal during future natural disasters. Lives, property and whole communities have been saved this year alone by the soldiers the Pentagon wants to cut,"General Alexander said.

The overwhelming response of a majority of the governors did not fall on deaf ears. On May 15, prior to the QDR's official release, Defense Secretary William Cohen instructed National Guard, Army Reserve and active component leaders to gather away from the

Pentagon and work out a solution. This "Off-site," conducted from June 2-4, marked the first time during the QDR process that all three components of the Total Army, Guard, Reserve and active, had gathered together to discuss what was best for the Total Army.

Among the objectives SecCohen tasked Army leaders with was that, "The 15 enhanced Army National Guard brigades are to be retained, properly trained and resourced and that the Army would continue to implement the ARNG division redesign plan."

The talks, described by the Department of the Army as, "amicable, candid and tough," resulted in all three components agreeing to force structure cuts spaced out between now and the year 2000 and other measures designed to provide the Army with the funds it needs to pursue equipment modernization.

The National Guard again stepped forward and agreed to accept the majority of the cuts. However, the number of reductions went from 38,000 to 17,000 during the next three years. The Army will look at further overall reductions to the reserve component in fiscal year 2001 only after it has conducted a thorough Total Army analysis with input from the adjutants general.

According to General Alexander, these talks assured that not a single National Guard member would receive a "pink-ship" as a result of the reductions.

The NGA and the NGAUS applauded the results of the off-site.

General Alexander thanked the (Governors, continued from page 15) governors for their efforts on the Guard's behalf, "We thank the nation's governors, our commandersin-chief in peacetime, for bringing this issue to the consciousness of the White House and the Pentagon," General Alexander said.

While the Army Guard has been able to avert the draconian cuts suggested by the QDR, the NGAUS and its members must remain vigilant. The National Defense Panel report is due in December and there are indications that the Department of the Army still wants to reduce the Army Guard's troop strength.

No matter what happens, this latest round of budget battles has clearly demonstrated the governors commitment to their Guard units. According to Jones, the Guard can count on the governors. "The governors will not just stand around and let the Guard be cut to death; they are very vigilant about the National Guard," Jones said.

Dear Mr President:

As a former governor, you know that the Army National Guard protects American lives on a daily basis. With this in mind, as a serving governor, I am alarmed that the recommendations coming from the Quadrennial Defense Review (ODR) target the Army Guard for force reductions. This proposal strikes much deeper than it appears. It endangers the very defense and emergency response force currently configured to respond most effectively to the myriad of internal threats pressing our nation.

Specifically, it targets the Army Guard that is first to respond to threats caused by natural disasters and tragedies like the TWA Flight 800 crash. It targets the Army Guard that responds to the ever present domestic threats such as crime, the proliferation of illegal drugs, declining societal values, decreasing education standards and the loss of sense of community. It targets the Army Guard that is well-poised to respond to emerging transnational threats such as terrorism and international crime that are crossing our borders.

Daily, the Army Guard attacks drugs and crime by providing aid to law enforcement, and diligently works in support of counterdrug efforts. The Army Guard proactively works with our youth, promoting drug avoidance themes and instilling the values of patriotism, self-less service and volunteerism.

Critics say that the Army Guard is not relevant. From my perspective, the Army Guard is most relevant. The Army Guard, America's hometown force for good, is already engaged-and has the potential to operate even more effectively-countering these societal ills and threats impacting Americans not in years to come, but now.

No other force is better configured by purpose, design, culture and tradition to perform those diverse missions than the Army Guard. As a former state commander-in-chief, you have first-hand experience with the flexibility, versatility and utility that are so uniquely Army National Guard attributes. Additionally, under current defense Policy the Army has experienced a 300-percent increase in operational tempo since 1989. However, given this reality, the QDR portends a decrease in the Army, the principle resource and primary force engaged in current operations within the national military strategy. Ironically, it appears that as the threat continues to redefine itself, our ability to meet that threat is diminishing.

Simultaneously, the Army Guard continues to make a relevant, but under-utilized contribution to the Defense Department's overall capability to answer foreign threats. Indeed, a compelling argument may be made that America's defense planners need to employ the Army Guard more effectively to meet the perils of the ever changing security threats. Effective use of the Army National Guard would relieve the increased demands on the active component, while maximizing the use of the Total Force.

I strongly believe that the cutbacks targeting the Army Guard, our citizen soldiers, will seriously erode the nation's response capability. It will unequivocally degrade our ability to provide local emergency-response service, and to respond to emergency transnational threats infiltrating our borders.

You have indicated that our central defense goals are to enhance security, bolster the economy and promote democracy abroad. I submit to you that by proactively utilizing the Army National Guard, we are enhancing our response across the broad spectrum of threats, both foreign and domestic.

Mr. President, the issue before you is not what the cost of the ODR proposals will be to the Army National Guard. It is rather, what the ultimate cost to the American people will be if the nation's most robust and versatile emergency-response force is not maintained at levels to respond to our communities changing needs.

Gov. George E.Pataki, New York

Copyright National Guard Association of the United States Jul 1997
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved