[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S731-S732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        A STRONG NATIONAL GUARD

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, over the last month I've traveled to 
every county in South Carolina. And one of the things that I heard from 
people was that they want America to keep a strong National Guard.
  As a veteran, I know that a strong National Guard is vital to 
national security. Time and again, National Guard troops proved 
themselves to be as competent--if not more so--as regular troops in the 
active military. Air National Guard troops from South Carolina 
routinely are rated among the best in the service. They flew countless 
missions in the Persian Gulf War and flew them with skill, accuracy and 
expertise. Army National Guard troops from South Carolina proved 
themselves to be ready to mobilize and fight almost at the drop of a 
hat.
  Mr. President, a strong National Guard also makes common sense. In 
these days where dollars are stretched thin, we can get three qualified 
and highly trained guardsmen for the cost of one active-duty soldier. 
Perhaps more importantly, however, having a strong Guard builds 
community support for the military. Think about it--the men and women 
who serve in the National Guard work in towns and counties every day 
across the country. They work in stores, construction sites, mills, 
factories and offices. And they set the example of public service for 
everyone. When their units are called up, their co-workers all turn out 
to support their efforts.
  Mr. President, a couple of weeks ago when I was in Laurens, South 
Carolina, Rich Browne, the local newspaper editor, and I discussed the 
value of a strong Guard. His comments in a recent column are to-the-
point. I hope every Senator would read this wise column and resist 
efforts to reduce the size of our National Guard units.
  Mr. President, I ask that Rich Browne's column from the January 4 
edition of the Laurens County Advertiser be reprinted in the 
Congressional Record.
  The column follows:


                      Avoiding military adventures

          [From the Laurens County Advertiser by Rich Browne]

       This should be an interesting year for the U.S. military.
       With the active duty services once again calling on 
     reserves to support the efforts to police the peace in 
     Bosnia, according to news reports, the Department of Defense 
     once again is leading a charge to reduce the role of National 
     Guard units in preparing for the defense of the nation.
       Well, the truth be known, the Department of the Army would 
     like for all the combat arms units in the National Guard to 
     just go away--they are a threat to the active Army's jobs. I 
     saw this first-hand in Desert Storm 

[[Page S732]]
     and despite the Pentagon's contention that it would save the military a 
     billion dollars per year to shift the focus of reserve units 
     from fighting units to support units, the Army wants to deny 
     that it would be cheaper and more effective to reduce the 
     active component even further while increasing the number of 
     troops in the reserve components.
       However, don't look for this to happen and I'll tell you 
     why.
       First, it drastically would cut the number of active duty 
     staff officer positions at the Pentagon and they are the ones 
     who are drawing up the plans to downsize the military. No 
     one, and I mean no one, is willingly going to say ``Eliminate 
     me and destroy my career,'' when an option can be made to 
     eliminate someone else's job (even if they do it at less than 
     half the cost).
       Second, it is a matter of control. Because of its dual 
     state-federal role, the National Guard is not totally under 
     the control of federal army, something senior staff members 
     resent and dream up ways to eliminate. Even though, again 
     speaking from personal experience, Guard and reserve units 
     often meet or exceed the standards set for active duty units, 
     despite the fact they don't practice at the job 270 days a 
     year.
       Third, it limits the options of the executive branch to use 
     the military in questionable operations. Note that the hue 
     and cry about the use of U.S. forces in the Balkans and 
     places like Somalia and Haiti are muted when the troops used 
     are professional, full-time volunteers when compared to the 
     times when the political leadership has to bite the bullet to 
     tap into every village and hamlet to send forces in harm's 
     way.
       The civilian and military leadership in the Pentagon knows 
     these things full well and, hence, would rather keep their 
     jobs and control of careers, while keeping open the options 
     for ticket-punching operations that are so vital to career 
     progression.
       The argument is that the combat units in the National Guard 
     won't go to war and are ill-prepared to fight if they are 
     sent, which--to borrow a phrase from retired Gen. H. Norman 
     ``Stormin' Norman'' Schwarzkopf--is just so much bovine 
     scatology.
       When the Arm went to war in the Persian Gulf, its units 
     were no more prepared than many National Guard units. Most 
     used the months preceding the ground attack to ``train up'' 
     in the desert and bring their troops up to the needed 
     ``combat readiness.''
       The three National Guard armored brigades that were 
     mobilized during Desert Storm where held in the U.S. not so 
     much because their training was not up to snuff but because 
     if they had gone to the desert and acquitted themselves well 
     . . . well, it would have disproved the myth that reserve 
     soldiers can't perform up to the same standards as active 
     duty soldiers.
       Imagine what Congress and the budget cutters would have 
     thought then. Gee, for 40 cents on the dollar, we can field a 
     capable force that doesn't need all the full-time auxiliary 
     services like housing, medical care and other benefits that 
     we have to give the active duty force. We might be able to 
     get a lot more bang for our buck.
       Lay aside those arguments, and the arguments about all the 
     support and benefits to national defense that come from a 
     truly citizen army, and there is one vital reason why the 
     political leadership in Washington and the Pentagon should 
     not be allowed to reduce the Army to just professional 
     soldiers: It removes the political cost on military 
     adventures overseas.
       If the civilian leadership has to go to every hamlet and 
     village to draw men (and now women) to carry rifles and man 
     tanks and artillery pieces, then it has to be able to justify 
     the mission to the American people. This can be a tough sell 
     and can be avoided if it is just a matter of sending in the 
     professionals that have slipped under the radar of the folks 
     back home. Hey, they volunteered for the job and it goes with 
     the territory.
       But don't look for that argument to be made. Even though we 
     learned that lesson in Vietnam, when we didn't have large 
     scale mobilizations of the reserve components and paid the 
     price in 58,000 lives, we have forgotten it again. Gone, now, 
     is the leadership that created the ``Total Force'', the Army 
     that was built so that the civilian leadership couldn't 
     commit U.S. forces in substantial numbers without paying the 
     political price of getting the American people on board.
       The new leadership wants to be able to go anywhere, anytime 
     and not worry about support back home. It saves their 
     careers.

                          ____________________