Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Stupid Things in the NDAA You Probably Missed
This is so incredibly dumb.
The National Guard Bureau’s top officer is now a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A provision in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law Dec. 31 by President Obama, adds the Guard leader to the nation’s highest military advisory group.
As of Tuesday, the biography of the current chief of the Guard, Air Force Gen. Craig McKinley, was on the Joint Chiefs website, alongside bios for the other military service chiefs. ...
Before the authorization act was passed and signed into law, the Joint Chiefs was made up of the four service chiefs — the Army chief of staff, Air Force chief of staff, chief of naval operations and Marine Corps commandant — and a chairman and vice chairman appointed by the president.
During the Nov. 10 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the six four-star generals voiced opposition to the proposal, saying it would create needless confusion and reduce their authority.
“There is no compelling military need for this change,” Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said at the time.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta also opposed the measure, telling reporters in October that membership on the Joint Chiefs should “be reserved for those who have direct command and direct budgets that deal with the military.”
Take it away, Jim Joyner:
So, the entire Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense opposed this move and yet it was made anyway? Why? The article doesn’t say but, presumably, it’s because the Guard has an enormous amount of clout in Congress and because sympathy for the institution is at an all-time high after a decade of more-or-less continuous deployment.
But the opposition from the rest of the military establishment is perfectly reasonable, not simple turf protection.
Simply put: Either the Guard is a state militia that’s only part of the United States Military when called to national service–in which case it has no business on the Joint Staff–or it’s a part of the Total Force and therefore already represented on the Joint Staff by the Chiefs of Staff of the Army and Air Force. (There is no Navy or Marine Guard.)
What Jeff is trying to say is that the National Guard was already on the joint chiefs of staff. When the Guard is activited under Title X authority, it is represented on the joint chiefs by the Army and Air Force chiefs of staff. At all other times, the National Guard belongs to state governors.
I have all the respect in the world for the men and women of the National Guard, but this is bad defense policy. It creates needless bureaucracy and confusion. And it makes one wonder how well the U.S. Congress in particular understands the legal roles and responsibilities of the U.S. military and its constituent organizations.
However it does create one
However it does create one more check and balance, in this case against a standing Regular Army, which the Founders rightly feared. It's also not the dumbest thing in terms of keeping the Guard in the Budget War that's already under way, and Operationally speaking it may prove wise. We have a NORTHCOM for a reason, and we may be headed into more trouble at home - God knows what but certainly our Civilian leadership has set the stage for it fiscally, politically and monetarily.
Among the reasons given by the Legislators who pushed in were letting the President know the state of readiness of the Guard, also it's increasing importance to our Defense and high Operational Tempo the last decade.
From the aspects of readiness, the monies that pay for readiness, readiness reporting, operationally, coordinating disaster response, also Federalism (in the founding sense) and another check and balance for Liberty it's not dumb. It may be wrong, but it's not senseless or just pandering. 71 Senators co-sponsored it. Perhaps they are looking at it from a different view than Command and Control. **
Note that Patrick Leahy was a co-author of the legislation, I strongly disagree with the man on many things but he *may* be looking at this from a Jeffersonian viewpoint - if we're going to have permanent Armies and permanent war, and the military has the right to detain American citizens per the same NDAA , then we'll need another check for Liberty.
It will create more bureaucracy and confusion you have that right. That's what more GO echelons do.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=86FFBFE4-DA85-4...
*may* - Leahy states no such thing on his page, I am speculating.
** from a Command and Control inefficiency aspect the entire CJCS structure and much of the Pentagon should go away, the NCA [President and SECDEF] can deal directly with the Major Regional Commands, in this case NORTHCOM.
So now all the AC folks have
So now all the AC folks have their collective panties in a bunch because the unwanted redheaded step-child component now has a seat at the big kid's table in the Tank. Seems like the Army cannot wait to kick the Guardsman to the curb and get back to being a “real” Army again. Desert Storm style! Where the Guard isn't needed.
Anyone who's been on the AC side of programmatics knows the Guard, and Reserves, are often soft targets for offsets to be used as bill payers. Now, with a seat at the table, the CSA, CSAF, and the Chairman will have a harder time pulling a budgetary fast one at the expense of the Guard. Next there will probably be an Army and an Air Guard lieutenant general on the 3 Star Programmers. The horror!
True, the Guard is not a separate service (but is in practice a separate component) and yes, in theory the CSA and CSAF speak for their respective Guard components. In theory. By the same theory the CNO spoke for the Navy AND the Marines when the JCS was formed in 1947. The CMC was to be consulted on matters concerning the Corps, but was not a regular member. But as the Marines found, that wasn't always how it worked out in the Tank. So after 30 years the CMC got a seat. Now Amos disagrees with another under-represented compnent coming on board. The irony. Probably sees some USMC Osprey resources being diverted to those weekend warriors. Are they even soldiers?
The Chairman is still the principal military adviser to the Secretary of Defense, the Homeland Security Council, the National Security Council and to the President. Now he will be more informed about Guard matters and how they fit within the total force. Why is that a bad thing? It might seem ill advised, but it is far from being stupid.
Then again it is easy to pontificate and snipe from the safety of a position which requires one not to be responsible for one's punditry, as James Joyner (and others) do. If one would not be all parochial and really look I am sure one could find some very costly stupidity in the NDAA, items far more expensive than another Aeron in the tank.
Folks might just remember that the over 630 Soldiers and Airman gave thier lives while Guardsman, their sacrifice deserves a voice on the JCS.
Stupid things?....Are you
Stupid things?....Are you going list other "things"? How about your "cut and paste" writing style? That might be the first thing stupid thing about your article. Now put my snotty attitude aside, do you think the Army, Air Force, Navy, or Marines would ever allow a Guardsmen or Reservist be a service chief?....you and everyone else in the active services would answer "No $%^&ing way", hence a "non-stupid" reason to make sure the National Guard has a seat at the table.
I served in the AC, the RC,
I served in the AC, the RC, and now am back to the AC. I've deployed to combat as both a reserve and active duty officer. I have TREMENDOUS respect for the Guard and Reserve and in fact think it is much harder to be a good Guardsman/Reservist than an AC service member. That said, this is political pandering disguised as policy and is a horrible turn of events.
Now the USAF and USA have an effective second GOFOs to oppose the USN and USMC, we have an added level of bureaucracy in an already bloated constellation of defense executives, and we've granted service like status to an organization that, by mandate, is either a) under the state level governments or b) already under the authority of the service chiefs during time of federalization. Unless the (mis)intent is to continue the destructive practice of looking to the NG and Reserve as a programmed TPFDD filler and not let them maintain the capacity and capability to fulfill their actual charters within their states, this is completely inexplicable. If it is, it is an incredible example of bad policy and weak leadership.
We also need a senior
We also need a senior enlisted advisor for the National Guard, to ensure that all National Guard armories have well-manicured lawns and to ensure that guardsmen continue wearing their reflective belts in their civilian jobs.
Now that it has been
Now that it has been announced that Mr Prez is going to fix the US military spending problem by maybe sizing down to a one war solution, looks like we might get more out of the Guard.
Question is, will the Prez cut the CIA military budget?
How about the ramped up diplomatic army in Iraq?
Word games, this one likes them. It is pretty easy to met your promises when you present all solutions at once, where is all that hope and change. Still looks the same to me, broke and broken.
More bureaucracy, how can you tell? US just added a new branch, consumer affairs.
lol
Why are the Marines on it?
Why are the Marines on it? They are already represented by the Navy!
Why was Hap Arnold on the first JCS? The Army Air Forces were already represented by the Army!
Big Toe - the NG has been
Big Toe - the NG has been filler/parts&equipment store for a decade. Maybe the intent is to scale that back by giving yesterday's people/parts store and today/tommorrow deploying unit a voice to make the raiding known. Otherwise the AC will to save itself hollow the F*$#!! out of the NG/RC as part of Joint Force 2020 - I can't wait to see the JF 2020 new uniform BTW. Will it be programmed for wardrobe malfunction as well?
Having served in both the
Having served in both the active army and Army National Guard; the Chief of the National Guard Bureau does not belong on the Joint Chiefs. He has no Title 10 powers, he is not a force generator. This completely undermines why we have the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Unfortunately the National Guard Association, which makes the AUSA, Navy League etc pale in comparison to its Political lobbing ability.
BUCK MCKEON is the PUNK
BUCK MCKEON is the PUNK REPUBLICAN who proposed the DETAINEE SECURITY ACT which scrapped THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THIS COWARDLY PUSS WANTED TO PULL SOMETHING REAL CHICKENSH-T THEN SKULK OFF INTO RETIREMENT.
Her company, COUNTRYWIDE, was part of the $700 BILLION BAILOUT. S/he has a vested interest in putting us in prison if we try to investigate her involvment in THE LARGEST RIPOFF OF ANY PEOPLE IN HISTORY. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE DETAINEE SECURITY ACT IS FOR. They'll MAKE US DISAPPEAR if we try to bring the government (i.e. the "jewish" bankers who control our government) to justice for their TREASON.
Anybody who's familiar with the NAZIFICATION OF GERMANY can see it's now happening in AMERICA. If you're not familiar, read THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH.
REAL CHRISTIANS and REAL AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES need to bombard this DISGRACEFUL HOMO with emails and faxes (Fax: 661-274-8744). Also, we need to get some pictures of this guy being SODOMIZED BY THE "JEWS" who (mis)run America. To be published worldwide. PATRIOTS, DO YOUR DUTY. http://mckeon.house.gov/
Add your comment