Ongoing QDR deliberations possess grave implications for the Army National Guard

Contrary to the desire of many federal lawmakers and our nation's governors, it appears the Army and Defense Department are once again poised to recommend cuts to the Army National Guard's endstrength.

The Army's recommendation for more Guard cuts is expected the middle of this month and it could signal the beginning of another unnecessary battle to preserve the National Guard.

For the past few months, Guard and Reserve officials, congressional leaders and governors have worked with Pentagon officials to fairly and sensibly shape the an-ned forces of the future. The Defense Department's recommendation to implement cuts in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR, served as the starting point. Conceived with minimal National Guard representation, cuts contained in the QDR still meet with our stiffest opposition.

Defense Secretary William Cohen, in a recent letter to the NGAUS executive director, retired Maj. Gen. Richard AIexander, characterized recommendations in the QDR as a mandate.

"As you know, the congressionally directed Quadrennial Defense Review mandated a reduction of 45,000 personnel in the Army's Reserve Components," Cohen wrote.

Subsequent to the QDR recommendations, Congress voted for decreases in three consecutive defense authorization acts. The Army Guard trimmed 17,000 of the 38,000 troops the QDR recommended cutting. However, the QDR document itself was not a congressional mandate. We are now assisting members of Congress as they review the balance; it is their job to determine the size of the military

While Cohen may have inadvertently characterized the QDR as a mandate, his choice of words adds an element of creditability to a recent story contained in the publication, "Inside the Pentagon."

The Nov. 11 article, "Hamre Assures Critics That Cuts to Army Guard, Reserve Are Not Final," quotes an unnamed defense official saying Hamre merely met with Guard officials to "mollify" them. "He gave them a couple of head fakes," the source contends, "so they think they're still in the fight. But the fiscal year 2001 budget will likely go to the president with the Army Guard and Reserve cuts intact.

"We tell them no decision will be made without taking their sage advice into account ... But the reality is that the cuts are already taken, as was suggested in Cohen's Oct. 21 letter: 'the only remaining question is when and in what forum the all-out fight over force reductions will take place."'

The official may not represent the Defense Department leadership, but the remarks serve to perpetuate the Army and Guard rift.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., has written his own letter, joining many defense industry analysts, legislators, former military leaders, governors and military associations who have emphatically opposed additional reserve component cuts. In light of comments by Army Secretary Louis Caldera and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseld on the Army's need for additional soldiers, it is difficult to understand why the Defense Department would even consider a substantial personnel reduction, in any Army component.

Caldera and Shinseki know how much the Army National Guard supports increased worldwide operations. They know the Guard has participated in three Presidential Selected Reserve Call-ups. They know the QDR never envisioned the current increase in operational missions, and they approved the deployments of three Army Guard division command elements for rotations in Bosnia.

The Army has placed an increased reliance on the Guard for overseas operations and the country relies heavily on it for domestic crises. This is not the time to recommend cutting the most cost-effective military resource we have. it is easy to lose sight that we have already lost 100,000 positions in the Army Guard and closed hundreds of armories nationwide. In cutting more positions and asking our members to shoulder a greater load, we continue to degrade our ability to support our state and federal missions

If the call comes, we must be prepared to do everything we can to ensure any proposed cuts are averted. We must be ready to communicate with our elected officials. The Army and DOD must end their sustained attack on our strength to pay for modernization.

If there is still time, I genuinely hope we can reach across the table and come to a mutually rewarding conclusion to this precarious situation. I hope Cohen and all Defense Department officials will consider the overwhelming support the military and Army Guard have for the cessation of QDR-- imposed force reductions.

If the battle has already begun, I hope all of you will take up the mantle and help prevent a terrible mistake. I'm hopeful we can avoid a crisis in these deliberations. But we cannot ignore the signals the DOD is sending our way.

Copyright National Guard Association of the United States Dec 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved