National Guard on the Joint Chiefs!?!?!

[dragoon500ly]

Just when you think that nothing more silly can come out of "Wonderland on the Potomac"...

Two West Virginia Democrats, Sen John Rockefeller and Rep Nick Rahall, have introduced the "Guardians of Freedom Act of 2010". The purpose of GOFA is to give the National Guard a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff in order to "overcome decades of underfunding". The National Guard Association is supporting this bill stating "they have earned the permanent seat at the table."

Two years ago, Congress approved the elevation of the National Guard Bureau chief to four-star rank as well as being officially considered to be an advisor to the Secretary of Defense.


I mean no disrepect to any members of the National Guard, but the Guard has never been considered to be an independent service. There is no need whatsoever to promote a National Guard Chief of Staff. This is nothing more than politics as usual in a city known for losing its grasp on reality.

The simple repair to decades of underfunding is for Congress to allow additional funding on the next defense spending bill.

Wait, did I just accuse Congress of not adequately funding something essential....silly me! Its more important to divert that money to build a six lane highway in somebody's district that doesn't go anywhere; or maybe build a four lane highway bridge to a remote island with a couple of hundred people living on it; or maybe spend six million dollars to study the reproductive habits of the North American Spotted, Sprial-Horn Earthworm!

Politicans!!!!

[natehale1971]

Ever notice how stupidity like this happens when people go to DC and think that they can run the world better than the people who are actually on location?

[pmulcahy11b]

It's like Joe Haldeman said in The Forever War: You know an army's getting old when it gets top-heavy with officers.

But then again, considering the amount of our defense is National Guard, putting a three-star in charge of all National Guard forces might be legitimate.

[Adm.Lee]

A seat at the DoD table, I can see. Not the JCS. The former plans and prepares for war, the latter executes it, and the Guard(s) have no relation to that function.

IMO, anyway.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

A seat at the DoD table, I can see. Not the JCS. The former plans and prepares for war, the latter executes it, and the Guard(s) have no relation to that function.

IMO, anyway.

Misread the original post. They don't belong at the JCS any more than, for example, the XVIII Airborne Corps commander belongs at the JCS.

[Snake Eyes]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Ever notice how stupidity like this happens when people go to DC and think that they can run the world better than the people who are actually on location?

Is that anything like how every other E-4 thinks he knows better than the Pentagon's civilian leadership how to run the military?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Snake Eyes

Is that anything like how every other E-4 thinks he knows better than the Pentagon's civilian leadership how to run the military?

It's true more often than you think...

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Snake Eyes

Is that anything like how every other E-4 thinks he knows better than the Pentagon's civilian leadership how to run the military?

There are many times, that the Civilians put in charge at the Pentagon just DO NOT LISTEN to the military advisers, because they think they know everything. One such official during the Clinton Years was always talking down to the people on their staff because they felt they were so much more highly educated. Turned out one of the O4s on the staff had several doctorates, and had been a member of several groups like Mensa.

The Head of the National Guard (both Army and Air) should have a seat at the JCOS table... but ONLY during a time of war. Just like the Commandant of the Coast Guard has a seat at the table.

Hell, i've been saying for years that the US should have a land-based military branch similar to the Coast Guard... Either called US Border Guard or US Territorial Guard.

[Snake Eyes]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

There are many times, that the Civilians put in charge at the Pentagon just DO NOT LISTEN to the military advisers, because they think they know everything.

Sure ... but compare that to the flipside, where the military brass occasionally has to be reminded who is really in charge of policy - McClellan, MacArthur, McChrystal, et al.

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Hell, i've been saying for years that the US should have a land-based military branch similar to the Coast Guard... Either called US Border Guard or US Territorial Guard.

Probably not a bad idea.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Snake Eyes

Sure ... but compare that to the flipside, where the military brass occasionally has to be reminded who is really in charge of policy - McClellan, MacArthur, McChrystal, et al.

Oh, good point!
I wonder if it's a prerequisite to have "Mc" or "Mac" to be a "difficult" General...