Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
National Guard Seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • National Guard Seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    Do you think this should happen?

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/1...hiefs-100411w/

    Support grows in Congress for Guard seat on JCS




    By Rick Maze - Staff writer
    Posted : Tuesday Oct 4, 2011 17:05:17 EDT
    <form id="hidden"><input id="headline" value="Support grows in Congress for Guard seat on JCS" type="hidden"><input id="body" value="You have been sent an online news article as a courtesy of www.armytimes.com. To view the contents go to:" type="hidden"><input id="url" value="http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/10/military-national-guard-empowerment-joint-chiefs-100411w/" type="hidden"></form>
    Sixty-one senators — more than enough to overcome any parliamentary roadblock — are now cosponsors of legislation that would give the National Guard a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    For all its political clout, however, the co-sponsorship of the newest version of the National Guard Empowerment Act doesn’t mean much unless the bill comes to the Senate floor for a vote.
    A vote could happen if the Senate ever takes up the 2012 defense authorization bill, which passed the Senate Armed Services Committee in June. But Senate leaders have not scheduled any time for that bill to be considered, so the support for the Guard measure remains mostly symbolic for the moment.
    Under Senate rules, it takes a majority to pass a bill or amendment, but it would take 60 votes to overcome a filibuster if someone tries to delay a vote. The 61 cosponsors are enough to stop a filibuster.
    The House included similar language in its version of the defense bill approved in May, meaning the strong support in the Senate would be enough to make this elevation of status likely to be part of any final defense bill sent to President Obama.
    Although the Defense Department opposes creating another seat on the Joint Chiefs for the National Guard, Obama endorsed the idea during his 2008 presidential campaign, giving the Guard community hope it would be approved over objections from senior Pentagon officials.
    The bill, S 1025, is called the National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2011.
    Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., cochairmen of the Senate National Guard Caucus, are chief sponsors of the bill. In a statement, Leahy said the Guard has become a “front line, 21st-century force” that is “trapped in a 20th-century Pentagon bureaucracy.”
    Graham, a current member of the Air Force Reserve, said: “We need to ensure the Guard and reserves have a seat at the table when the important decisions affecting our national security are made.”
    The National Guard Association of the United States has been pushing for years for the change, arguing the Guard is left out of critical policy and budget discussions and also lacks direct access to the president, defense secretary and homeland security secretary.
    “Without the Guard at the table, our nation’s civilian leaders don’t have unfiltered information on Guard capabilities and cost-effectiveness, nor do they have direct access to the Guard’s domestic-response expertise.” said retired Maj. Gen. Gus Hargett Jr., the former Tennessee adjutant general who is now president of NGAUS.
    “Twenty years ago, this might not have been that important,” Hargett said. “Right now, it’s critical.”

  • #2
    Re: National Guard Seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    Originally posted by fmcityslicker View Post
    Do you think this should happen?

    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/1...hiefs-100411w/

    Support grows in Congress for Guard seat on JCS




    By Rick Maze - Staff writer
    Posted : Tuesday Oct 4, 2011 17:05:17 EDT
    <form id="hidden"><input id="headline" value="Support grows in Congress for Guard seat on JCS" type="hidden"><input id="body" value="You have been sent an online news article as a courtesy of www.armytimes.com. To view the contents go to:" type="hidden"><input id="url" value="http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/10/military-national-guard-empowerment-joint-chiefs-100411w/" type="hidden"></form>
    Sixty-one senators — more than enough to overcome any parliamentary roadblock — are now cosponsors of legislation that would give the National Guard a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    For all its political clout, however, the co-sponsorship of the newest version of the National Guard Empowerment Act doesn’t mean much unless the bill comes to the Senate floor for a vote.
    A vote could happen if the Senate ever takes up the 2012 defense authorization bill, which passed the Senate Armed Services Committee in June. But Senate leaders have not scheduled any time for that bill to be considered, so the support for the Guard measure remains mostly symbolic for the moment.
    Under Senate rules, it takes a majority to pass a bill or amendment, but it would take 60 votes to overcome a filibuster if someone tries to delay a vote. The 61 cosponsors are enough to stop a filibuster.
    The House included similar language in its version of the defense bill approved in May, meaning the strong support in the Senate would be enough to make this elevation of status likely to be part of any final defense bill sent to President Obama.
    Although the Defense Department opposes creating another seat on the Joint Chiefs for the National Guard, Obama endorsed the idea during his 2008 presidential campaign, giving the Guard community hope it would be approved over objections from senior Pentagon officials.
    The bill, S 1025, is called the National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2011.
    Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., cochairmen of the Senate National Guard Caucus, are chief sponsors of the bill. In a statement, Leahy said the Guard has become a “front line, 21st-century force” that is “trapped in a 20th-century Pentagon bureaucracy.”
    Graham, a current member of the Air Force Reserve, said: “We need to ensure the Guard and reserves have a seat at the table when the important decisions affecting our national security are made.”
    The National Guard Association of the United States has been pushing for years for the change, arguing the Guard is left out of critical policy and budget discussions and also lacks direct access to the president, defense secretary and homeland security secretary.
    “Without the Guard at the table, our nation’s civilian leaders don’t have unfiltered information on Guard capabilities and cost-effectiveness, nor do they have direct access to the Guard’s domestic-response expertise.” said retired Maj. Gen. Gus Hargett Jr., the former Tennessee adjutant general who is now president of NGAUS.
    “Twenty years ago, this might not have been that important,” Hargett said. “Right now, it’s critical.”
    Maybe, but why not give a seat to every reserve component then?

    Considering the Chief of Staff is not in the chain of command, and is just essentially an advisor, I do not see much use for this. Considering the stateside mission of the Guard.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: National Guard Seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff

      The other reserve components aren't listed in the Constitution, so it isn't a fair comparison. The Guard is the successor to the state militias.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: National Guard Seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff

        Originally posted by matthew.ritchie View Post
        The other reserve components aren't listed in the Constitution, so it isn't a fair comparison. The Guard is the successor to the state militias.
        Yes sir, but but when the Guard is Title 10, we fall under the Active Army Chain of Command and they have a Chief of Staff, and when we are under state control, the President and and all those O-10's up there are not calling the shots for us, which is where I don't see how that benefits us. I guess it couldn't hurt, but I just don't see the point.

        Then again, I didn't go to staff college, and this is way above my paygrade.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: National Guard Seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff

          I don't know exactly what the JCS does, but one thing I do know is when Big Army wants to give the National Guard equipment, whether or not we want it or have room for it, we will get it. Someone, up high, has to make that decision or get the ball rolling.

          For instance (and this is in no way true................................)

          The National Guard will be forced to get around 1500 MRAPs. Why? We can't drive them on the streets. They take up too much space in the MP. MATES is full already.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: National Guard Seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff

            Originally posted by ParalegalNCO1 View Post
            ... I don't see how that benefits us. I guess it couldn't hurt, but I just don't see the point.

            Then again, I didn't go to staff college, and this is way above my paygrade.
            You may not have gone to staff college, but you have reasonable questions that deserve answers.

            If this were an ideal world, the active component service chiefs would look after their reserve components with the same diligence and care that they do their active components, because they would care for the Total Force. In reality, that's not the case. When budget cuts come, the service chiefs see the reserve components as competitors for resources, and not partners for national defense. A seat on the JCS is part of Congress' way of forcing the service chiefs to play fair(er). So, while I agree that a seat on the JCS is an inelegant solution, in a way the active component service chiefs brought this upon themselves.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: National Guard Seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff

              Personally, I think it is an excellent idea; especially with the current and expected OPTEMPO of the Air and Army NG. Call it what you want; a figurehead or a possibly redundant voice but at least with this Chief; he can speak for all the TAGs and may get things moving faster plus a whole lot of other bennies.

              Anyway, they been talking about a Chief Warrant Officer of the Army for ages and that has not come into fruition so let us see what happens.

              Comment

              Working...
              X