National Guard and Reserves problem reflects only on...

I wonder just how many Lite Colonels and other similarly ranked individuals along the way would ever really accept the responsibility for their own failings and the impact those failings of leadership has on the people in their units?

Everything is the fault of Bush according to some people. It's quite ridiculous how they live their daily lives blaming one person for every single thing.

Why doesn't Bush do something about all this snow that's falling? Doesn't he realize how much money this is costing people?

The only blame I lay on Bush, is him not realizing: Gee, there is something wrong with the NG/NG training (like you said). Maybe I could do something, or have someone do something about it.

That's it.

Let me guess- A certain Clueless Klink?  See, I dont even have to read his stuff to recognize it elsewhere!

Let me guess- A certain Clueless Klink? See, I dont even have to read his stuff to recognize it elsewhere!

Well said. Talk about uninformed. terpfan1980 you need to take a trip to Walter Reed and talk to some of those commanders you insult.

"Having been in the military in the past, specifically in the reserves, in having relatives that are still serving in the National Guard, I know from which I write."
Well ya know, I have to call B.S. on that staement. Your ignorance is pervasive throughout your post. Have you ever been in one of those leadership positions? Even an NCO? What are your credentials and experience for how the budget you cite is used and portioned out? One little clue; do you think fuel costs are free for the military? Do you have clue one as to how much a single piece of "required" (by Army standards) costs?
The more I read and reread your post, the angrier I get. Sounds like sour grapes from someone with an ax to grind.
You want to know one of the main reasons why Guard and Reserve units aren't up to readiness standards? Because so much of their equipment is sitting over in the desert. It's there because mother Army won't pay to ship it back, in case it's needed there. Or worse yet, not even repair it. Remember those stories about units welding their own armor plating on vehicles? Those were Guard and Reserve units that the Army wouldn't assist. And "WHY" wouldn't the Army help? Because a certain unnamed president wouldn't listen to his advisors when they told him about shortages Army wide after some serious "down sizing" from a previous administration.
Don't get me started on inadeguate training. Whom do you think pays for training of Guard and Reserve units at the NTC? And what sort of priority do you think Guard and Reserve units have to train there in the first place with a hot war going on?
"trumped up names like "The Army War College"; this one really shows your ignorance, especially for someone claiming first hand experience. This is a necessary prerequisite for field and flag grade officers to lead units in combat! It's a DOD requirement. It's required of all branches of the service at their respective "War Colleges". And you know why? We figured out pretty quick, way back in the Civil War, that untrained commanders got a lot of people killed!
You want to excuse Bush and call B.S. on those pointing out the facts? Remember the old saying "You can't have your cake and eat it too"? Well if you want to have a world class Army, you need to pay the piper son. The days of "Johnny go get your gun" are long gone. The good soldiers anf their leaders in the Guard and Reserve have bled on every single battlefield this country has asked them to go to, without complaint. They do miraculous things with the little bit they're given. The problem IS in the senior leadership of the Army and the administration. It's their attitude that the Guard and Reserve aren't professional, just "weekend warriors" and not necessary to support. But then they have the unmitigated gall to ask them to do a job they won't equip and finance. And you want to get out of joint when someone in the press finally adds up 2+2 and actually gets 4? Give us a break! The problem needs to be addressed for what it is; a breakdown at the top.

Ok, i'll sound off here as one who has been on pretty much all sides of this situation. I was in the National Guard before the standards were raised.

I started my military career in Signal Company, 19th Special Forces Group (Airborne) in the Utah National Guard. As you can well imagine, that unit was not lacking in much when it came to training and equimpment. We used to break National Guard units up into two groups (Hard Charging and "Beer & Pizza"). Literally, the beer and pizza units were nothing more than guys in uniform getting together to party away one weekend a month.

Then I joined went Actived Duty Army. On Active Duty I heard a lot of crap talk about the National Guard. I had been there, so I knew how much of it was true and how much was just talking crap from people who had no idea. After the Ground War of Desert Storm was over, my team redeployed back to Log Base Charlie in Saudi Arabia, but me and my Tactical Satelite Radio was loaned to a National Guard team. While they were typically weak in their bearing (I was the only one there called by rank instead of first name), they did their jobs well and put up with desert living as well as anyone.

During the Mid 90s, Prs. Clinton decided that part of his plan to "Balance" the budget would include gutting the Active Duty military. As part of the plan, the standard for the National Guard was raised.

According to the plan the National Guard took on more of a front line role in national defense. Designated units (Known as "Enhanced Brigades") would get more up to date equipment and money for training. That way, if there is a war, the National Guard members could be deployed alongside active duty units. Less money would have to be spent on Active Duty components but there would be the manpower available when needed.

I also got caught up in the drawdown of active duty troops... which means I found myself back in the National Guard. This time I was the Communications Section Asst Chief in a Combat Support Hospital. As the asst chief, my responsibility was training the troops in the signal section. Coming from Airborne Units at Fort Bragg, I held those signal troops to the same standard I was used to. Because I'm a slow learner, it took me about 6 months to realize that I was not being reasonable. One weekend a month isn't enough time to maintian the same standard as living it daily.

Learning from them (and my experience with the National Guard team in Iraq), I had to prioritize. I had to decide what was really important for my troops to maintain a high standard in and what I could let slide.

What I never let slide was teaching them "the days of the "Beer and Pizza Unit" are over. If you are still in the National Guard when the baloon goes up again... you WILL be going... I was right. I've been in the National Guards of 3 states, and all of the units I've served with have been (or are now in) Iraq or Afphganistan.

I took that experience when I moved to Idaho and joined an Artillery unit. The troops were more hard charging than at the hospital unit (combat arms troops usually are). We trained hard and had a lot of fun on those weekends. Our training was truly tested when we did a rotation at the National Training Center. We were one of the rare National Guard units that actually defeated the OPFOR... and we did it twice. Of course, we had our butts handed to us in the other 6 battles, but that is to be expected (and we learned a lot from the experience).

Ok, so I'm rambling on with my memories now. The point is, the National Guard can't possibly maintain the same standards as the Active Duty components. The "gap" is supposed to be made up for in the 2-3 months of active training a National Guard unit goes through before they find themselves "in country". This helps, but also hurts... too many National Guardsmen (and units) slack off on weekend drills, expecting that pre-deployment training to suffice.

Terp, I agree that the lack of readiness in the National Guard units is the responsibility of the unit commanders and NCOs.. Not the president. To say it's Prs Bush's fault would be as ignorant as blaming a corporate CEO when there aren't enough desks in your department for everyone who needs one. Saying "well, he should know" is meaningless... why should he know about a problem that is 4 or 5 echelons below his responsibility?

The real problem is, the National Guard has been put in a situation it was never meant to deal with. When we have national guard units that have had more rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan than many of their Active Duty counterparts... that is a problem. 75% of our Artillery and over 50% of our Infantry is National Guard or Reserves. That was not done by mistake... that was done by design.

Sorry this reply was so long... but it had to be said.

Ted A. Bingham
SGT, Wisconsin Army National Guard (RET)

Well ya know, I have to call B.S. on that staement. Your ignorance is pervasive throughout your post. Have you ever been in one of those leadership positions? Even an NCO?

Your ignorance is showing through.  In answer to "even an NCO"? - yes.

I've worked at too many places to count, but one of which was an area that saw a lot of U.S. Army money.  I can tell you for a fact that the most important thing there was keeping the commandant happy.  Never mind that there were leaky roofs, drafty walls, or other problems.  Have to have all of the best for the big boss.  And for his secretary.  And for his assistant.  All civilians by the way.

The money spent on keeping the big boss in the best office, with the best (and mostly unused) "toys" and "tools" was obscene.  Just absolute proof that the stories of spending hundreds of dollars to buy hammers and toilet seats weren't fabrications.

I've also dealt with the full-birds, the lite Colonels, the Majors, the Captains, and even directly with generals with more than one star.  Some were smart people, some were completely clueless about their military job.  They saw it as part time work, and though some took it as something very important and worthy of more than just a passing thought,  most were just there to collect a paycheck and work towards yet another tax-payer funded retirement.

We're talking about the "Brownies" of the world.  The type of people that screwed up horribly in the Army Corps of Engineers, in FEMA, and other places.

We're also talking about people that couldn't figure out which end of the weapon to point where.  Where and/or how to load a weapon.  Where and/or how to break down the standard firearm.  No clue how to verify that a grenade even had the pin still in it.

Again, some people are good, some better, and some absolutely suck at the job of soldier.   Ted says it above and it hasn't changed:

too many National Guardsmen (and units) slack off on weekend drills, expecting that pre-deployment training to suffice.

Exactly.  Too many people treat the weekend as play time.  They get to see their reserve/guard friends.  They use the government paid for telephones, computers, internet, copiers, etc., and accomplish a lot of nothing.  If they actually are held to task and actually do try to train they get dirty looks from the people that don't want to put forth the effort.

Who is responsible?  Again, the local commanders.  Those people are charged with keeping up troop readiness, troop morale, etc.  Most don't care at all.  As long as there isn't a problem getting their pay for their drill weekends things are fine.  They gotta have that money to help pay for the Lexus, or for the big screen TV they wanted to buy.  Civilian things and posessions that are more important than making sure that they and their troops are really ready if they get the call.

That is the b.s. and it is what it is.  Any one that spends a weekend poking around a reserve/guard unit would see just that.  If The Washington Post really wants to do an article on troop readiness they need not go very far to start checking for problems in units in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, New Jersey, etc.  And if they actually paid attention to what was going on in those local units, rather than buying the buck passing and b.s. from many of the local c.o.'s they'd see the problem isn't coming from the White House on down, it's coming from the local levels.

The condition of the Guard is totally at the feet of the Commander-in-chief.

First, the Guard and Reserve has been overburdened because of Iraq. The number of deployments, the destruction of their equipment is because of a war that we did not need to fight. A war that was fought by ignoring the military doctrine by not sending the troops needed to prevent the Civil Conflict that has overtaken Iraq. It is because the President did NOTHING to increase the size of the active military even though he acknowledged the active Army and Marines were too small in 2000. He did NOTHING to correct that problem and then sent the military to a war that was unjustified and unneeded. He has not requested the funding to replace the Guard and Reserve equipment destroyed in the Iraq war. He is the reason 88% of the National Guard is unable to perform their mission.

The Guard is first a resource of the Governors to help in natural disasters and if there is a serious outbreak of lawlessness. It was not designed for repeated and long duration combat missions. The equipment of the Guard and Reserve was always of a lower preparedness then the Active Component and when Bush invaded Iraq and sent this older equipment into extended combat it was destroyed. He has not requested the funding to replace that equipment and now both the guard and reserve are in real trouble. The Chief of the Reserve as well as the head of the Guard have told congress of their untenable position. The Chief of Staff of the Army refused to sign the 2008 Budget Request before Bush sent it to Congress because he does not believe if properly funds the Army.

I spent 26 Years in the Army Reserve and for 1 1/2 years I served on active duty with officers from the Guard. I know haw they operate and the condition of the Guard, Reserve and the Land Active forces are because of the Bush war in Iraq and the Bush request, or lack of requesting the needed resources, that are responsible for the dangerous condition of our Army, Marines, Reserve and Guard. Only the President has the power and authority to insure that the resources are requested. If Bush had requested increases in the active Manpower levels and the funding and Congress refused to provide those resources, then it would by on the plate of congress. The truth is Bush did not request an increase in the Active military or the money to replace the Guard and Reserve's equipment destroyed in the Iraq war.

Terp, looks like you caught the troll!

If Bush is not responsible for all the things you claim, we should amend the Constitution and do away with the office of President. By your reckoning he has no responsibility for anything—the military, law enforcement, security, fiscal operations etc. and thus his position is unneeded!

I think if any single man deserves credit or responsibility for the status of armed forces both reserve and active duty it is President Bush. For it was President Bush who was president on 9/11/01. It was President Bush who recognized we were fighting a new war. It was president Bush who pitched an administration of "accountability" during his first presidential campaign, and it was President Bush and the Republican party that has largely held the cards of political capital during his tenure.

It has been his decision to not remove Donald Rumsfeld earlier from his posting during the two terms President Bush has been in office. It has also been he, President Bush, who has stated he would be making all decisions regarding commander in chief decisions, regardless of congressional insight, opinion, or sway one way or the other, and indeed he has been doing just that.

While I agree the concept of a reserve army is great during peacetime and when the reserves and state national guards are called into service to perform jobs and services to the active duty forces beyond both the scope, training, and length of commitments, only an insane individual would not expect there to be problems. The simple fact is the military is over extended, because the size of the ground force required for this mission we are currently embarked on in Iraq is insufficient. Beyond that, when you don't have the labor needed you have to extend the length of time served required by the labor you do have. In this case the soldier commitments, 9-12-15-18 month commitments overseas.

Yes this is a war, and yes war is hell. There is one man responsible for the deployment of the forces in Iraq, which have over burdened the military, and that man is George W. Bush. He has claimed and he does deserve credit and responsibility for the situation.

In fairness, this mission in Iraq, was supposed to be approximately an 18 month mission.

While you may be right that a lot of the problems in the military are the result of the people not performing their duty to the level necessary, it has been the military that has asked for more troops to be recruited, better equipment, better training, and the right training. It certainly hasn't helped that Donald Rumsfeld, has said that anyone who wanted to see a new course in Iraq, or look for alternatives to the current situation an aid to terrorists. Nor was it helpful that the President continued to support Rumsfeld through the prison scandal in Iraq when he should have been held "accountable" right then and there and the job turned over to someone more competent and capable.

The terrorists and foreign armies are going to do what they will regardless of our strength and abilities. The current administration has been in shuffle the deck mode since the last election if not before in November. The military will reflect the civilian leadership, and if that leadership is wavering or disorganized, you can expect that to trickle down in any organization to other levels.

In fairness, this mission in Iraq, was supposed to be approximately an 18 month mission.

I am curious where you got that number.

Once again Col Gene proves that he would rather lie through his teeth with a personal attack on the president than admit the truth that he knows.

 

I wonder if he sat around saying, "it ain't my fault" when he was a colonel, it seems that's all he is capable of saying now.

 

Poor lying waste of a pension. 

The most important issue is to restore the Active Ground Military, The Army reserve and the Army National Guard to an effective status. That will require more manpower fast. It will require a major investment in new and rebuilt equipment. There is no mechanism in place or suggested by Bush to accomplish this Task. I do not believe we will be able to increase the active force rapidly enough to relieve pressure from the Active Force nor will we be able to return the Guard and Reserve force to inactive status in the near future. The Surge makes the pressure greater not less on all our ground force components.

The president’s 2008 Budget does not contain the resources needed to solve the needs of the military and to increase the force levels in Iraq. What we are seeing is a President who insists on continuing tax cuts when the defense needs of this country require large increases in resources. In every other War we increased taxes to help pay the added cost of War. Bush did just the opposite. He cut tax revenue and added it all to the deficit. Now he is faced with an even greater funding need for the military to pay for both the added manpower and to replace most of the equipment used by our ground forces! He has dug himself an enormous hole and he keeps digging the hole deeper. He is not too swift!

I'm still amazed of how someone can be so obsessed wtih Bush. 

I'm still amazed of how someone can be so obsessed wtih Bush.

Yea, will he die in 09?  His life will be over.

Col Gene, you suggest a lot of spending for a guy who says that Prs. Bush already spends too much.  In your blog you have praised Prs. Clinton for balancing the budget... the problems you now place squarely on Prs Bush's shoulders is the direct result of your hero's lies about that "balanced" budget.  You can't have it both ways fool.

"I am curious where you got that number."

An eighteen month operation. Sure.

Look at the statements made prewar. Greeted as liberators, we'll stand Iraq up and then leave, we don't want to be occupiers we are liberators. Not only that, but look at the pre-war and first 6 month lack of preparedness. Soldiers on the ground saying "we didn't wargame for this" How about the prison scandal? Where you didn't necessarily have bad troops working for you, but troops unequipped to deal with the social reality of working in close quarters with foreigners and had few if any limits on how to deal with them. Also look for the lack of orders from command on how treat them. It took until after the war to get some laws written about treatment of detainees. It took until after the war to get a field manual written about basic human decency treatment.

Had they been thinking they were going to get into the cesspool of an operation of massive occupation combined with border security, a job we can't even do effectively on the homefront, I cite illegal immigration from Mexico, and 9/11/01, as key facts in that debate, well they may have thought twice about going to war so soon. They also may have thought to collect a few more allies and wait out the political situation as well as Saddam Hussein wasn't a real danger.

If you look at other areas where the administration has taken intelligence and asked that it be "sexed up" or tweaked to meet conditions of what is actually happening, statements made by the President, that show his apparent understanding of the conflict in which he has brought this country, are far off from both the opinion of generals, civilians, Iraqis, and well pretty much everybody but D. Cheny and that anybody who disagreed with the president was asked to depart the cabinet.

I'd have to say that it looks like they thought this "liberation" was going to go off as successfully as the first gulf war. I'm not saying they didn't do what was right or what they thought was right. I'm not saying they didn't have enough answers, or that the answers they had were wrong, I'm not saying that I didn't agree with the President at the time before the war given the information, most of which has turned out to be bogus, was invalid.

What I am saying is, he bears more responsibility then any single person, for the outcomes, the decision, the history, the guilt, the image of this country worldwide, and the not only for Iraq but other situations which tragically have not been concluded successfully. The Hurricane Katrina recovery/rebuilding effort, notice I'm not saying anything about the recovery effort, but on and on.

He is a man of character, and of emotion, but not one of deep intelligence, unless he has me fooled, but also one who takes risks, whether or not we should have taken risks as a nation is for history to decide, nobody will be able to argue with history as history will have more facts then any of us do.

Dr Guy

First, my Blog site is BUSH Truth. So much of the spin that is produced by Bush and his misguided supporters distorts the impact of this man. If all the harm Bush he created would end on January 20, 2009 it would be easier to just be patient and wait. The truth is that the harm Bush has brought to our country will continue long after January 20, 2009. Future Presidents and Congresses will be faced with fixing the many of the problems GWB either created or made worse during his 8 years in office. Never in my life has a President caused so much turmoil, distrust, hate and death. Clinton's lies were disgraceful. However his lies did not result in the death or injury to our people. The lies of GWB have caused the death and Injury of Americans, prolonged suffering after Katrina, and the creation of looming fiscal cruses that will impact all Americans. Bush has not resolved or even partially solved ANY of the issues that faced him on January 20 2001. In fact every one of those issues has gotten worse during in tenure in office. In addition he has created new problems for our country like the increased debt, the Iraq war and the hate and distrust of our country in almost EVERY country in the world. The people he has appointed were selected because of what they did to help his get elected and have proven they are unable to perform the important functions they were intended to perform. The political payoff's and influence of money and special interests has NERVER been so great. We have set policies that benefit the wealthy and big business and ignored the vast majority of Americans. I can not think of a single major issue facing this country that GWB has successfully dealt with over the past 6 years. He makes presidents like Hoover look GOOD.

GWB is a brash, stubborn, ill informed man who is the product of privilege. He was a drunk up to the age of 40. He has accomplished almost nothing of value for America. He came to office with NO life experiences of any worth. He was not a scholar. He was not successful in business or the military. He had no foreign policy or diplomatic experience. You could list the accomplishments of GWB on a very small scrap of paper. He had the influence of his Father and his father’s contacts. The results of his LACK of experience and accomplishments prior to coming to the Presidency are reflected in the total failure of this man as the leader of our country. Anyone who can look at our country both domestically and in world affairs and continue to support GWB must ignore what this man has done. No one could objectively look at what GWB has done and say he has been a success. Even the wealthy that have had a temporary windfall from his tax and fiscal policies will suffer in the future from what Bush have done to the fiscal problems we face. GWB has set the stage for major conflicts in the future both within the U.S. and thought out the world. The HARM Bush has created will last a long time into the future and adversely impact the future of ALL Americans in the years to come!!!

Why do I continue to document the failures of Bush? Because I care about this country and want to pass on a nation to my children and grandchildren that is better not worse then I found it. That will not happen and a large part of the reason for this is because of GWB!

That is most insane thing  have read in a while.  You are a textbook gloom and doom democrat who NEVER takes an objective look at anything.  Your blog has produced more lies and false accusations than has EVER been proven to come from Bush.

IslandDog

Bush lied about the danger Saddam presented to this country. He refused to allow experienced military leaders to make military decisions like the troop levels required. Those choices have caused MOST of the dead and injured Americans.

The response of Bush just after and today in the Gulf if a perfect example of how little he really cares about this country. He gave a great speech 10 days after the storm and if you go back 18 months later, MOST of the homes are still piles of rubble that look just like they did 10 days after the storm.

Bush took a balanced budget and turned it into a major deficit every year he was in power. He has added $3 Trillion to the national debt, significantly increased the interest we must pay every year on that increased debt and has no plan to balance the budget or repay the huge debt he has helped create. He LIES about the direction of the debt and LIES about the amount of the debt. How the President can get away with saying the debt in 2006 was $248 Billion and the Treasury reported that the debt was in fact $ 574 Billion is unbelievable.

You may not like my post, “The lies of GWB have caused the death and Injury of Americans, prolonged suffering after Katrina, and the creation of looming fiscal cruses that will impact all Americans". However that statement is true.

j

There was no lie col.  We have established this many times and you keep continuing on ignoring it.  Most democrats, most intelligence agencies believed Saddam posed a significant danger, that is a fact which has been shown to you countless times.



That is not the blame for Bush.  It's not the responsiblity of Bush or the federal government to build peoples houses.  Once again this is something you have been proven wrong about, but you continue to ignore it like the others.  You act like Bush is supposed to get a hammer and start rebuilding himself.  NOTHING should be re-built with federal dollars in tat area because it's below sea level and it's boudn to happen again.  The real blame for Katrina is.......Katrina and the people who chose not to evacuate. 



Once again....read the rebuttals to your nonsense.  You might learn somehting.




Your post is the only verificable lie.  As I said, you are a typical gloom and doom democrat who wants everyone to think America is poor and everybody is a victim and needs some type of government assistance.  You never present the other side of an arguement, jus whatever weekly talking point is brought up by the DNC and dailykos.  It's pathetic.

Islanddog

Most Democrats believed the lies Bush and Cheney told. They were scared to death by spector of nuclear attack by Saddam who Bush and Cheney knew did not have nuclear weapons in 2003. It was not the Intelligence that was wrong it was that Bush and Cheney ignored the intelligence that said Saddam had no nuclear capability!

Bush was warned by the most experienced foreign policy experts that invading Iraq would most likely result in our military being caught in a quagmire. They warned that even though Saddam was not liked invading a Moslem country by the U.S. would cause resentment in the Moslem world and we would be viewed as invaders. He was warned we could unleash the sectarian violence that existed among the factions in Iraq. Those warnings that Bush ignored have ALL come true. Powell and Baker told Bush you could not control Iraq without a large military force. We would not have the dead and injured if we had not invaded Iraq. To say that is untrue is ridiculous. How would our troops been killed and injured if we had not invaded Iraq? After making the choice to Invade Iraq, had we sent in troop levels that could have CONTROLLED the sectarian violence we would not have had as many dead and injured. It is the Shea and Sunnis that are killing the vast majority of our troops. That is because we did not stop that violence from getting started when Saddam fell. Every senior military leader has said we did not send nearly enough troops into Iraq in 2003. That choice is clearly at the door steps of the White House!