WP: Army to Slow Growth and Cut 6 National Guard Combat Brigades

[DeepModem Mom]

Army to Slow Growth and Cut 6 National Guard Combat Brigades
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 19, 2006; Page A03


The Army announced yesterday that it will cut six National Guard combat brigades -- or up to 24,000 infantry and other combat troops -- as part of an effort to ease budgetary pressures and shift manpower into homeland defense missions.

In addition to scaling back the guard's combat brigades to 28 from 34, the active-duty Army will add one fewer combat brigade than it had planned, ending up with 42 instead of 43, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey told a Pentagon news briefing yesterday.

As a result, the Army in coming years will grow to 70 instead of the anticipated 77 active-duty and National Guard combat brigades to respond to overseas and domestic contingencies, Harvey said. In 2003, the Army had 67 combat brigades, Army officials said.

"This force structure we think is appropriate to the threat," Harvey said, explaining that the change resulted from a broad review of Pentagon strategy and resources that will be made public next month with the new defense budget.

The changes suggest that budgetary pressures are exerting limits on the expensive manpower increases that the Army initiated in recent years in its struggle to meet demands in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also reflect recruiting difficulties, as well as a greater National Guard emphasis on homeland missions in the wake of Hurricane Katrina....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011802098.html

[Mithras61]

1. Of course, this doesn't have anything to do with...

the fact that the Army & Nat'l Guard keep missing recruiting targets, I'm certain. :sarcasm:

[MetsMatt]

2. Guard Strength

Yes, you're right on that one, as you'd see if you bothered to read the whole article.

"The six National Guard combat brigades -- 3,500-to-4,000-troop infantry and armor units at the core of the Army's war-fighting force -- will be replaced by brigades made up of engineers, military police, civil affairs soldiers, and other support troops "very appropriate for homeland defense missions," Harvey said."

The key phrase is "combat brigades." Having fewer combat and more support brigades in the guard makes sense. If you want troops to do disaster relief at home MPs and Engineers will be better equipped and trained to do so than tank crewman and infantrymen.

This sort of thing is why we Dems don't get taken seriously when military affairs come up. Instead of debating things like the concept of pre-emptive war, what we think is a proper use of military power, or our role in the Middle East people sieze on things like recruiting numbers, yet selectively ignore the fact that units deployed in Iraq consistently beat the goals they have for voluntary re-enlistment. Or the fact that even though the Army missed its recruiting goal by 7k, that target was 8k greater than in 2004. (And ignore the aforementioned point that re-enlistments were up, thus making up for an unknown portion of that 7k.)

Try to find facts for yor conclusions.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

3. condescending much?

jeez. :freak:

[pinto]

4. One key missing piece of info is where will the units be *deployed*...

Replacing National Guard combat brigades with engineers, MP's, civil affairs soldiers and other support troops is all fine and good. The comment that they are more appropriate for homeland defense missions says nothing to where they will be stationed.

I read it that the replacements will replace troops in Iraq...and will be stationed in Iraq.

It's a bait and switch press release.

[MetsMatt]

7. stationing

Guard brigades are stationed at home, thoough they are liable to deploy overseas. (hence the Guard having combat units.) However as the active Army has expanded the number of NG units deployed has dropped. It will also take a couple years to raise/convert the new units.

[pinto]

8. OK, but where are the NG brigades deployed, right now, and when they

are replaced, where will those replacements be deployed.

I see there's a difference between "stationed" and "deployed". But I'm wondering about real time movement of American personnel, not paper allocations.

The article is about budget realignments and personnel adjustments. I just don't see this speaking to the troop levels in Iraq. Maybe it wasn't meant to.

[Bonescrat]

5. A problem with that...

"selectively ignore the fact that units deployed in Iraq consistently beat the goals they have for voluntary re-enlistment."

Either they re-enlist with a large monetary bonus or they are stop lossed and get nothing. They have no choice either way so they take the money...

Unfortunately they can't run...

[MetsMatt]

6. stop loss

Stop loss and re-enlistment are different. ANyone offered a large bonus has the choice not to re-enlist. Stop loss is commonly used for speclists (such as Arab linguists or intel types) or people in a unit that's about to deploy but who's enlistment would end while overseas.

[Debau2005]

9. My family member would disagree.

He is still in due to Stop Loss. He is not some high end intel or language guy. He spent 14 months in Iraq, and would get out if allowed. He is now home, waiting until he is recalled, as he knows this is a certainty.