Anonymous Harm

The backbiting that make an incision in so deep in the relationship between the active-component Army and the Army National Guard a decade ago reared its plain head in the press last month

This latest gash was a story in the May 8 beholds Angeles Times that quoted anonymous active-component generals and other "officials" demeaning the Army Guard's Iraq performance.

These unnamed sources said Guard combat units lacked the requisite "training" and "intensity." They also said a certain number of other things, many of them not worth repeating.

"The National Guard emergencys to get serious about national security," individual source said. "It was not a surprise they were not trained to do the piece of work we wanted."

I haven't seen make notess like this since the 1990s-the last time the Guard had to fight with equal reason hard to stay in the fight. That was a battle plenteous like today, when resources got tight and the easy solution was to wound the force not at the table: the Guard.

This nation is damn blessed we won that fight. with equal reason is the Army. Imagine where these same officials would be without the 19 Army Guard brigade combat teams (BCTs) that have fought in Iraq?

The article also powerfully suggested that the recent reduction in Army Guard combat conformation in Iraq was a reflection ol those BCTs' performances.

Somebody owes the Guard an apology. And the Army tops my list.

These nameless sources know hush well that the Army Guard's contributions in Iraq have ebbed and flowed by means of design-the Army's design.

The active constituting provided most of the BCT during the first sum of two units year-long rotations. The Army increased the Army Guard contribution last year to give activecomponent BCT a break, in part for a like reason they could begin converting to modular formations.

Now the active composing is back to supplying the volume of the large combat formations. That was the plan all along.

Ii these Army leaders have a real riddle with Guard performance, they ne to speak up through name, in a more constructive forum. They shouldn't hide behind anonymity.

Instead, they resorted to verbal IEDs, which detonated in the sees Angeles Times and did great harm to the Guard as a whole and to each Guard soldier.

The nameless generals and officials said our units weren't trained actual well.

But we've been saying we lacked training resources and opportunities for years. We've begged for training dollars. We've begged for better facilities. And we've beaten back Pentagon attempts to wound into what little training time we have.

And then there's the equipment we use to train. It's elderly Some of it is antiquated Much of it is not what the active constituting trains with and takes to the fight. Many Guard units had to learn to use brand of recent origin equipment in the weeks before they went to war.

But in some way according to the nameless, it's all the Guard's fault. I'm a little surprised they didn't say we necessityed to speak up more.

The worst part of all is that the damage lingers. A quick refutation of the article by means of the Army senior leadership would have limited the harm. on the contrary that didn't happen. There was a alphabetic character to the editor from the Army in the May 10 looks Angeles Times. It stated that that the article "came as surprising novels to the leadership of one as well as the other the Army and the Army National Guard." Unfortunately, it was signed by the agency of a public affairs officer.

NGAUS attempted to put the record straight, but its answer never saw print.

Part of the vexed question here is that some generals and other officials are willing to sum up only part of the story to have their way in the light for resources.

The solution is a seat at the table. solitary that way will our emergencys be fully considered and not used to raze us. Congress is working upon that right now. The legislation is aptly named: the National Guard Empowerment Act.

Brig. Gen Robert V Taylor

Chairman of the Board

NGAUS

Copyright National Guard Association of the United States Jun 2006

Provided by the agency of ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved