DoD Ignoring history
The Military Times reports that the Defense Department is preparing to send a report to Congress that was two years in the writing. According to Military Times the report touts Reserve Forces as more cost effective than a large active duty fighting force;
According to a draft copy of the report obtained by Military Times, the Pentagon analysis concludes that Guard and Reserve troops not only are cheaper when in drilling status but also when fully mobilized, in part because their overall compensation is lower when taking into account noncash benefits such as retirement accrual and health care.
Moreover, the overall costs for outfitting units with reservists are lower because part-time troops do not tap many military perks such as family housing, DoD schools, installation-based family support and the moving stipends that active-duty troops get every few years when they are reassigned, according to the draft report.
Yeah, it’s as if Task Force Smith, Kaserine Pass and the First Battle of Bull Run never happened. I have nothing against the Reserves, but even they’ll admit their training is lacking compared to the active duty force.
During Desert Storm, reservist combat units were called up in case war went on longer than it did and in the months during the train up, none of the reserve units, as far as I know met the standard required before they were certified for combat. There was a buttload of reservists who went AWOL at Fort Hood during their training. I’m sure with the current crop that wouldn’t happen. I have more confidence in reservists today than I did the reservists of my days – but so much has changed since then. And this is a return to those old days.
It appears that the only thing the Defense Department is defending these days are their jobs in the Pentagon. They’re certainly not defending this nation in any recognizable form;
The Pentagon disavowed the draft copy obtained by Military Times, dated April 26, 2013.
“The draft report was released prematurely and there are some inaccuracies; the department does not stand by it,” said DoD spokeswoman Lt. Col. Elizabeth Robbins. “We cannot comment on the report prior to the final version being completed and sent to Congress.”
But a Pentagon official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the data appear finalized even if the language that fleshes out the 34-page report may undergo further revisions. Congress passed a law in 2011 requiring DoD to draw up the analysis, but it remains unclear when an official version will be finalized and released publicly.
Remember when they were talking about drawing down the active force before Desert Storm, and some units had to be reconstituted in the midst of their deactivation to respond to Saddam Hussein, but at least they had a large, trained active force to deploy and the only reservists were support units. How are we going to respond to threats in 2016?
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Big Army, Military issues
Well if your experience with Reservists, Guard is based on one unit(48th Bde)* in 1991 then yeah you might think they all are the same. But since those 20+ years ago there has been changes to those forces. My old Infantry Bn from the NYARNG (1/69INF) since 9-11 has:
over half the Bn on 13 months active duty at USMA.
in 2002 sent to Ft Knox to test methods of Tank Infantry cooperation in a MOUT environment with Live ammo explosives
Sent to Iraq 2004-2005 19 KIA 78 WIA
Upon return convert to Light Infantry
Sent units to Cobra Gold, Orient Sheild, Sent the Snipers to train in South Africa with the SANDF
Sent soldiers to Ranger school and they Graduated
back to Knox for 3 week MOUT training, Sent 1/2 the bn to OEF 2007-2008 (TF Phoenix & PRT’s). Again sent 1/2 the bn to OEF and Kuwait again 2011-2012
*Funny enough I was an OPFOR augmentee at Irwin when the 48th came through and we heard about their AWOL I later saw the 48th in Baghdad in mid 2005.
Yah, and some of those reservists that came to Ft. Hood while I was in Desert Storm stole my class A’s and dress shoes from where it was all stored too…
As one of those horrible Guardsmen at Ft Hood, we set the Ft Hood Bradley Table X gunnery record. Clearly we didn’t know what we were doing…
As for the rest, that is a long discussion and I doubt you would just accept my word for it.
http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=30410
In regards to any comments I made about reservists, I also said, and you apparently missed it, that reservists and guard troops are different than they were 20 years ago. I’m sure you’ll all admit that a force which trains everyday is better than a force that trains two weeks every year. If you can’t admit that, then I don’t why we’re having this discussion. I said nothing disparaging about reservists and guardsmen. If you read it that way, you need to hone your fucking reading skills.
OK, let me give you two sides of it.
I was in an RTS-M when Desert Shield (then Desert Storm)happened. We were sent to Ft. Stewart to train up elements of the 48th Bde. They truly did not know their stuff. I listened to a Plt Sgt tell his people not to worry about the Bradley training, as they would never see one in the field. I about fell over. I took him aside and asked him if he had ever heard of a Combined Task Force? (2 years prior I had left Ft. Hood in support of the Tiger Brigade) He had no clue what I was talking about.
Fast forward 5 years. The NG units I saw came in, grabbed their equipment and hit the tank trail to train hard. The lesson was learned in Desert Storm that round out units had to have good training and good leaders.
The only way to become proficient at raking pine needles and painting rocks is on AD. When you work 40+ hours a week in a career, you just dont have the time to learn the important skill sets that give CSM’s boners.
If the “Draft” report were to be adopted, want to take any bets on how many O6 and above slots will be lost? 0?
Damn… Struck a nerve with the part timers, huh?
Lets not turn this into a Regular Army vs. NG or Reserves fight.
We are all warriors who have gone to combat in some role, are their NG or Reserve units that are 8TFU? Yes, but there are must as many RA units that are pretty bad as well. I didnt rake pine needles or paint rocks after AIT in my RA unit, but I sure as hell did train and work my ass off in an EMS shop. Does that mean I am better than the tampons…err I mean Guard and Reserve guys? Nope, one team one fight.
This report just sounds like another excuse to paper-shuffle costs from the Fed to the states. To maintain well-trained troops – be they AD, Guard or NGs – the total costs of personnel, time, pay & bennies, and material will be the same, no matter who’s footing the bill.
Another nail in the coffin. More dismantling to a hollow military.
“I have nothing against the Reserves, but even they’ll admit their training is lacking compared to the active duty force. “
If they can’t admit that they’re not being honest.
Seems to me that the civilians who are running things seem to think that since the military has less than 1% of the population it should get less than 1% of the budget….to that end they are doing whatever they can to thin the active duty herd.
Peacetime democracies are notoriously short sighted when it comes to their own defense and the cost of that defense.
“Yeah, it’s as if Task Force Smith, Kaserine Pass and the First Battle of Bull Run never happened. I have nothing against the Reserves, but even they’ll admit their training is lacking compared to the active duty force.”
TF Smith. 1-21IN, 24 ID, regular army. Poorly trained, through no fault of their own, but not RC.
Kaserine Pass. 1AD, II Corps, 9ID, 26RCT, strangely enough, poorly led through no fault of their own, but not RC.
First Bull Run, too many to enumerate, but pretty much Volunteers, not militia.
Now how is it the fault of the Guard and Reserve that these things happened? How is ensuring we don’t depend on the RC going to prevent this sort of RCless disaster?
There are issues with overreliance on the RC, but none of them would have caused or prevented any of the examples above. Perhaps something needs to be honed.
Where did I say anything about the fucking “fault” of any-goddamn-body? You people are so fucking sensitive about the AR-RA bullshit that you’re missing the whole fucking point and, yeah, it pisses me off that you want to defend this stupid bullshit based on your loyalty to your branch. Task Force Smith, Kasserine Pass and every other first contact battle were disasters because the troops were unprepared – That was my fucking point. Stop reading shit I didn’t write, FFS.
If you truly think that an Army made of largely reservists is able to defend this country as well as a standing Army, you’re a fucking moron. There, was that clear enough for you?
This is a discussion where Air and Army Guard really, really need to be kept separate. Because they are that different – they were during Desert Storm and although it has improved, it is still that way.
From the Air side, exactly the opposite was true. The Air Guard was fully trained and able to fly what might generically called tactical or contingency operations from the get go. It is all we did.
When we got to Desert Shield, we set up airlift, comingled with some active duty folks, and could not figure out why there were nearly continuous training flights scheduled. It took a while, but we discovered that the active side was not qualified to fly the mission! Most had never flown anything but bus driver kinds of missions since leaving flight school, so had to be requalled on everything. Meanwhile, the Guard crews, and all of us support types, were fully qualified and mission ready before we left CONUS. (Because we were always fully qualified and mission ready.)
After 9-11, guess who had to lead the way for mostly the same reasons? Yep, the Guard because the active side of the house simply did not have enough crews ready to do it.
My personal experience is only with airlift, but it is my understanding that this phenomena exists elsewhere in the fleet as well.
Am happy to take anyone’s word for what happens in the Army and the ARNG because I simply do not know, except for some anecdotal stories which tend to support what Jonn said.
I got into the 48th Brigade just after Desert Storm. Guys told me what a goat cluster the mobilization had been and that a lot of heads had rolled afterward. During my time there (93-99), I saw good leadership (a lot of DS vets) and hard, focused training). Granted I was in the Cav Troop (used to be 348th then changed to 108th) which was its own separate world so it may have been different elsewhere. My understanding is that they did well in Iraq.
The doctrine at the time called for us to be activated and be ready for deployment within 90 days of call up. It was the same in the FL Army Guard (53rd Brigade). The Coast Guard Reserve was different. They were running active missions even prior to 2001. One reason I left the Army to go to the Coast Guard was to do deployments. This was all before 9/11. In the USCGR, we were supposed to deploy within 96 hrs of callup. That was a PSU so again it was a completely separate world from the rest of the Coast Guard.
I wouldn’t want to go to war with reserves. The training just doesn’t match that of active duty and if it’s me on the ground with a rifle I would want individuals that did it more than one weekend a month. That’s just me though. Going to war I personally want the best advantage possible not something that might save some bureaucrat a couple of dollars some time in the future.
Oh boy, this is a big can of worms. However…I agree with Jonn @5. I was active duty Army almost 27 years and retired in 1993. Back then the reserve forces were not trained or equipped to active standards. Fast forward to October 2001 when my son’s Ohio Guard Infantry battalion was activated stateside for a year and they got up to speed. Since then they have deployed to Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In Iraq they were attached to the 3rd ID and in Afghanistan to the 101st. I don’t think anyone could tell the difference between them and an active Infantry battalion.
BUT…If we were to cut the active force and rely solely on the reserves to defend this country their level of readiness will steadily decline unless we stay at war forever and keep them deployed, in which case they would be active forces and cost the same. WTF? The f*cking bean counters in Washington are always trying to do it cheaper. It’s not about money, it’s about security.
I remember when Army Chief of Staff Sullivan said “No more Task Force Smiths”. He is gone and the current leadership either doesn’t remember Task Force Smith or doesn’t give a sh*t.
If you don’t know about Task Force Smith you may wish to read this:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA381834
Cost effective? That’s what they’re worried about?
Cost effective would be to stop swallowing overpriced equipment that funds R&D in companies like Boeing and General Dynamics? There’s still plenty of waste in that department.
And how about cutting the number of government bureaucracies and bureaucrats that occupy them? That would save a bodacious lot of cash. Why do we need FEMA when we have the Red Cross?
I have this awful idea that pops up every now and then that some day, I’ll get the mail and find myself with a ‘report to the nearest military facility’ letter, and go there only to find myself in the company of a bunch of WWII and Korean War vets, and anyone else who didn’t serve a full six years. Why? Because it’s more cost effective to drag us old farts out of the closet and put us back to work, because we’re all on Social Security, so our pay and bennies could be cut.
I know: it’s laughable, but I’ve heard of stranger things.
@16 Jonn grab a beer my friend and let it go. People always get defensive when they think their little piece of the world is being called out. Either they will re read and see what was meant or they will keep sand in their vagina and argue the point.
Either way does you no good to get your blood pressure up over stupid shit.
There’s something else. The Dept. of Dumbasses in the Pentagon will do this because it’s what they are told to do – find a way to cut costs. Any corporate lobbyist will smell the blood in the water and defend his/her own turf, which is equipment/weapons/you name it, because those things are a one-shot, one-time expense. Never mind that ammo is expendable, it isn’t seen that way.
The Navy can have shiny new ships to drive with all sorts of hi-tech toys, but they’re useless if people don’t know how to run them properly and/or don’t have correct nav charts. We’ve already seen this with the grounding and subsequent destruction of the minesweeper, USS Vanguard.
The Army can have shiny new toys, too, but they’re just junk if no one is properly trained on them. Likewise, you can’t do maneuvers with people who think maneuvers are something you shovel out of a barn, can you?
I can go on, but starting a turf war over this is as silly as reducing force numbers and letting proper training slide. And you’d better believe it will slide if this goes into effect.
To those that have misunderstood Jonn, he is not denigrating anyone’s service or dedication. This is not an AD vs. non-active argument. It is a National Security argument.
The point is that the Nation needs an Army ready to go on Day One. That means an Active Duty Army. It means you don’t rely on a 45 day mobilization and trainup period to get an infantry unit (Bn/Bde/or/Div) called up and ready to fight an enemy that is rolling across the battlefield on Day 1.
The point is that the National Guard and Reserves should not replace the Active Duty roles and responsibility. “Peacetime operations” should not require the reserve element to mobilize every 5 years. Just because it’s cheaper to increase annual training from 2 weeks to 7 weeks, does not mean that’s the best plan, fiscally, or morally. (And that is the long stated plan of the Admin to use the “cheaper” forces.)
The Reserve forces are a key component of the National Defense plan, and they bring their own strengths to the table, but they are RESERVES, not first response.
The proposed plan is screwing Active Duty as well as Reserve Components. That is the point (Jonn’s point), not that Reserves are poorly trained, or lack dedication. This military is already a hollow force, and it’s only getting worse. It is already overtaxed and the plan is to make that worse. As much as believe in Military Service, I don’t know that I could recommend it in this point in time.
I told you I was psychic, Jonn. This just proves it.
Want to have a discussion about the hollowing of the Army? Well and good, and timely and important. Wasn’t the discussion started though. Been over three times this war, plus disaster relief missions in CONUS in the last ten years, belonged to more than one AC unit and yes, I’m damned well going to bring up the fact that we do some missions a hell of a lot better than AC when somebody acts like we’re fucking worthless. It simply isn’t true historically, or now, and it detracts from the point the original less than eloquent person wanted to make.
Which is in fact worth pointing out, that the present government thinks we (Total Force) are a waste of money which could be used to buy votes.
So, speaking as an old NCO who doesn’t appreciate the ignorant attacking me, why don’t we fold this and resume fire on those who are actually at fault? Or is that too dumb for you?
Did the world get less dangerous when I wasn’t looking? No? And in the meanwhile, our government is busily dismantling our military, top to bottom.
I am both amazed and appalled at the level of idiocy that seems to be growing by leaps and bounds every single day.
They’re sowing the wind. We, the American people, will be forced to reap that whirlwind.
Another bad idea from the obama administration. I remember the Reservist attached to our unit during Desert Shield/Storm. His time was spent 10% working and 90% whining. Other Reservists were overweight, under-trained and had a lousy attitude. I’m sure that there are some motivated Reservists but as a whole, they cannot be substituted for Active Duty Army.
As far as I am concerned, this country needs the active duty, reserve, and guard forces.
Maybe I am being too narrow minded, but I think doing a full four year hitch on active duty should be a requirement for service in the reserve and guard forces.
Doing the full hitch makes a person more diciplined and they will generally have a greater respect for value of what they do.
The common factor is “time”.
Currently the Guard and Reserve is trained and funded on a level commensurate with attaining and maintaining readiness.
Once funding creep and experienced folks move on it will be a “redo” again.
BTW.
Been on both sides of the fence.
Almost an even split time wise.
The AD folks bring the everyday tools and mindset.
The Reserve and Guard bring depth of experience and a unit cohesion that is impressive (for good or evil depending on command climate).
In the EN world a lot of them practice their MOS on the civilian side so are not only a “T” but travel the leading edge of new innovation.
Well, as Jonn pointed out, it isn’t about reserves vs. full-time active duty personnel.
It’s about gutting the active duty personnel altogether and relying on the reserves, the weekend warriors as it were, to do the full-time job in an emergency that is done by people who are thoroughly prepped for an emergency.
If Russia’s defense minister has said, in plain words, that Russia needs to bump up its military on the order of one million plus, and Norkland has a well-equipped and fully active military (it’s the only place those people can anything to eat) and is engaging in firing off missilies into the Sea of Japan, then the Pentagon’s recommendation for dropping the number of full-time active duty personnel for this country is a massive and very stupid mistake.
This is not a plan to increase readiness training in the reserves. It’s a plan to gut the military and our national defense the same way you gut a trout.
Yes, this is a discussion about hollowing out the force. More specifically, it is a discussion about the justification of using doing so on the cheap, by increasing annual training to 7 weeks, doubling the number of drill days, and mobilizing reserve components one year in five, during peacetime.
For the butthurt reservists/guardsmen in the crowd, think about how that’s going to effect your ability to get a civilian job. If the potential employer knows you’ll be gone for 2-3 months a year, plus 1 year in five, do you really think he’s going to hire you? If he’s smart on the law, he’ll find some other reason to hire someone else. To the potential business owners in the reserve components, do you think you can build a management team in 4 years to fill your absence? Do you think there is ANY law that can force a customer to come back?
No, Jonn did not specifically mention the overall National Security problems of a hollowed “Active Duty” force. He didn’t because he’s already said that a hundred times. This is a supporting argument. It is about the fact that this Admin is ready to throw Guard and Reserve under the bus, so they can cut Active Duty, so they can justify it with doing so cheaper.
Jonn did specifically note that today’s Reserve Component is far more experienced than what we had in 91. And he is absolutely correct. 9/11 did give the Reserve Components a renewed focus, and two wars gave it experience, but that does not mean that we should misuse and abuse those Troops that balance a civilian career, with their military readiness. And I doubt anyone here wants to trust a Doctor to perform a quadruple bypass or brain surgery that has only “practiced medicine” once a week since he graduated Med School, or wait 6 weeks after a stroke/heart attack for the Doctor to arrive for the surgery. That is what the Admin is asking Our Nation to do in the case of a future attack.
So, I saw the story in the current edition of Army Times with the charts showing the difference in what is spent between an active E-7, a mobilized reserve E-7 and a drilling E-7 which showed that the active E-7 is more expensive.
Other charts showed how reserve units are less expensive than regulars, even figuring in mobilization expenses. That all made sense, but just a few weeks ago there were stories about how big Army was off-ramping reserve units designated for mobilization and replacing them with regulars to “save money”.
So I’m wondering when big Army will get its story straight.
Oh-and BTW I’ll dispute that, for at least some units, troops that “train every day are better than those who train one weekend a month and two weeks a year”. NG tank units regularly score high on their tank tables because a Guard tank crew will be together for years, likely longer than a regular Army crew, given the nature of the Guard versus the regulars.
Further, the Guard units don’t do as much “dog and pony” as the regulars and spend many drill weekends shooting their tank tables. I don’t know how to measure quality regarding Guard/Reserve vs. Regular units, but in Iraq it seemed to me that reservists had certain advantages vis-a-vis COIN given that the reservists were generally older and less likely to be aggressive with the civilian population.
John, I was RA, Reserve and Guard. I deployed 3 times as Guard, and what you say is true – they will not have the same ability as RA. Some of that comes from the time spent training. A lot of it comes from the RA dislike of anything to do with the Guard. I deployed with a certain RA IN Division in 2004 in Mosul and was treated like shit – fast forward to 2012 in Afghanistan and lo and behold the same group, different personnel but the same attitudes. I agree with your premise, but your delivery was a little rough. Some of us lost friends doing the exact same job that RA did – I may be overly prickly about that.
This is simply an Army of Cheap.
Reading the report above, several questions immediately come to mind should this influence policy. As someone who was never in uniform, I have no feel for the answers.
1) What percent of the Reserves were never active duty in the first place?
2) What percent of active duty decide to join the reserves?
Complaints about current Reserve readiness aside, where would tomorrow’s Reservists come from were active duty strength significantly reduced? I don’t think the legions of unemployed liberal arts majors will quite be lining up to enlist come the next war.
Reserve component and active duty are definitely two different animals with strengths and weaknesses. In a straight force on force fight, active duty will almost always kick our asses. There are exceptions but we’re dealing with the rule when policy is planned. But, the Guard and Reserves bring a breadth of experience to the fight that Active troops often don’t. Our civilian jobs often make us more self sustaining when you put a company out in a COP on the fuzzy end of the supply chain. We also tend to be older which usually (not always but we’re talking the rule not the exceptions) gives us a more mature and level attitude when dealing with locals and securing a broad area.
I base this on 7 career deployments, 5 with the Guard. I’m not arrogant enough to think my infantry brigade can take on an active unit out of the gate. We need a few months to get fully up to standards and get the equipment that Big Army shorts us during training into our units and trained on. But when we get out there and the commanders play to our strengths, we will often outperform Active troops on many levels.
I believe that’s part of a balanced force.
Couple things to consider:
The 48th was in NTC longer than any unit before 1991, and by the time the remains were extracted from NTC, the 48th had experienced a longer period of simulated combat than was actually experienced by the Regulars in Operation Just Cause and Desert Storm. The training command violated its own rules (re-train before re-test), and this action was viewed as a deliberate screw by the Regulars by many. Does that excuse the 48th from failing to meet the mark on the first go? No.
Regular Army soldiers during OEF and OIF and JTHOA, unlike National Guard and Reserve units, were unskilled in law enforcement, the construction trades, the basics of keeping cities running after the established order was destroyed. Plus the Regulars thought it cool to show their ass whenever to whomever.
Instead of employing reserve forces in their civilian KSA, the Army thought it cost-effective in the long run to turn Redlegs into MPs.
Bubba may be simple, but unlike the Regulars, Bubba knows how to keep the lights on, water running, and roads maintained in conquered territory.
As an active-duty 11B, I’ll throw in my two-cents. The 101st and other 18th Airborne Corps units have division ready forces that are on standby for deployment anywhere in the world within 18 hours, unless something has changed due to the deployment cycle over the past ten years. This is a capability that no Reserve force (and few other active units) could possibly match. When we weren’t conducting unit-level training, we’d usually be given some form of training at the fireteam and squad levels. Working forty to sixty hours a week, we’d almost alway be doing something that made us more proficient at our jobs. About the only senseless things I remember were layouts (which in reflection were useful in their own way as they ensured we paid attention to detail) and police calls. When 3-187 went into Iraq in 2003, we Joes all knew our jobs as well as those of our team and squad leaders. We’d spent countless hours conducting battle drills and honing basic Soldier skills in the rear, and were confident that we’d overcome any obstacles placed before us. With very little train-up for the invasion (above and beyond that which we had been conducting) we were able to meet all the objectives we were given–from MOUT operations in Baghdad to nation building in Northern Iraq. We took few casualties during the invasion phase, and even found time for more advanced training later in the deployment (gotta love having a former RI as a PSG). Prior to enlisting, I was a mechanic for a few years. I have little doubt that a Reserve Component unit filled with personnel who are employed in a civilian equivalent to their MOS could very well be more proficient than their active counterparts. Though the equipment itself may be different, someone who fixes, say, air conditioners for a living as a civilian will likely be much more capable than someone who does the same job on active duty. Sometimes we (active Soldiers) perform work outside of our MOS (staff, special duties, etc), and I have talked to enough mechanics in the… Read more »
Hollow force, here we come again!!
@39, Other Active unit have been on the 18 hour deployment cycle. In 2007 the 172nd SBCT was put on it. We had our Strykers staged at Eilson Airforce base ready to roll onto the planes at a moments notice. It was a shock to a lot of the younger Soldiers to be on a 2 hour recal, but after spending 5 years in the 101st it was old hat to me.
Correction to #41, the 172nd had reflagged to 1/25 SBCT at that time.
@26–Another bad idea from the obama administration.
Have they ever had a good one?
Jonn,
Hope my comment wasn’t what set you off. I’d never argue that the Reserve components can do the job alone. I was commenting only on the 48th brigade fiasco in Desert Storm (and everyone who was in the unit at the time told me it was a complete fiasco) and my experience that the GA Guard at least cleaned house afterward and turned the brigade around. My other point was that at the time, we were supposed to deploy within 90 days of callup so even if we were activated, it’s still 3 months before we’re available to deploy. The 48th was mechanized as well and we all know how quick a heavy bridage can deploy (sarcasm).
One of the important issues with writers is that they see the words in their heads, while others see the words which came out of their fingers. They then get defensive when somebody responds to what showed up instead of what was intended. This does not make it better, but it is understandable.
Bwahahaha, is this a joke? I just retired with my twilight tour being I&I at a reserve unit. During a mobilization they make more money than their AD counterparts. With only 39 training days in a year, with most of that spent doing the same mandatory classes and training the AD component does, it takes months into a mobilization before they are proficient.
Only have non-combat REMF AD under my belt, I probably don’t have dog in this fight: but it seems to me the military needs a balance of available AD, ready reserve, and long-lead time reserve to be able to handle the various kinds of situations they will meet. Seems over the last 20 years successive administrations have over-emphasized the latter two components as fiscally cheaper than the former, while leaning too much on ‘toys’ and too little on personnel (excess purchasing of C17s and M1s come to mind.)
Woah woah woah there people! I’ll have you know the NG follows the exact Army doctrine when giving SHARP/Suicide/PTS/etc… briefings as you get in AD. Sure that means we spend a SIGNIFICANTLY less amount of time doing anything related to general soldiering or any MOS specific training, but shit, at least we can watch power points with the best of them!