Guard May Be OK With Heavy Brigade Plan

[USMCRET6391]

InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Jen DiMascio | May 09, 2006

The director of the Army National Guard sees merit in a service proposal to take heavy combat power out of some Guard brigades.

“I think there might be some goodness in a transition from heavy to light in a couple of instances, and at the end of the day, the adjutants general have committed, along with the Army, to get the best possible force structure for the nation,” Lt. Gen. Clyde Vaughn told Inside the Army in a recent interview.

The Army made waves in January when it announced a proposal to reduce the size of its National Guard force from 350,000 to 333,000 soldiers. The move was decided as part of a secretive Quadrennial Defense Review process, and the Guard's leadership felt blindsided when it was announced.

“It was just a total ambush,” Maj. Gen. Stanhope Spears, the adjutant general for South Carolina, recently told ITA. After months of news reports on the possibility of a Guard cut, adjutants general officially earned about the decision at a late January meeting with Army Secretary Francis Harvey.

The TAGs tapped their extensive lobbying resources to bring about a change. TAGs, who lead the guard in 54 states and territories, as well as the District of Columbia, drew on the political might of state governors and members of Congress. In the end the Army agreed to fund the Guard for 350,000 soldiers if enough can be supported through reprogramming actions.

Congress continues to come to the Guard's aid. The House Armed Services Committee last week approved $318 million in procurement dollars to support an end strength of 350,000, according to a statement on the fiscal year 2007 defense authorization bill by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), the committee chairman. Also included in the bill is language that would elevate the chief of the National Guard Bureau to a four-star rank.

Within the Army, the details of the QDR-recommended proposal to alter the Guard's force structure remain in play.

The initial proposal recommended cutting from the Guard six heavy brigade combat teams -- which contain Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and a slew of other equipment. When the Army agreed to fund the overall number of troops, leaders proposed changing those six heavy brigade combat teams into combat support and combat service support units that have been in high demand during the war in Iraq.

The Army has said it wants to focus on building fully manned, fully equipped units. The HBCTs -- the largest of the Army's brigades -- are therefore the most difficult to fully man and equip. And as the Army tries to “pure-fleet” its heavy brigades with the newest types of Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, HBCTs carry a hefty price tag.

A number of state National Guards have HBCTs, including Idaho, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington. Their adjutants general oppose efforts to change them.

Reducing combat power in the Guard makes little sense strategically, the president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States said in testimony presented May 3 to the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve -- a panel established to make legislative proposals to Congress regarding the changing role of the Guard.

“At the very same time the Army is seeking to reduce combat structure in the National Guard, it is calling for more combat structure in the form of security forces,” wrote Maj. Gen. Roger Lempke in his testimony. “National Guard CS and CSS units are being tasked to cross train into infantry skill sets in order to meet future needs in Iraq.”

According to Spears, the adjutant general for South Carolina, heavy combat units carry a unique, emotional appeal.

Soldiers “like driving and riding in tanks -- shooting tanks. They like riding in the old M113 and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle,” Spears told ITA. But, more importantly, an HBCT brings in dollars, and that's why the states are hanging on.

“You lose people, you lose the dollars and the funding. It's the same problem with us and the other states that they're looking at,” Spears said.

From the perspective of the states, an HBCT is better equipped than a combat support unit. One Guard official said an HBCT is like a Cadillac, while a combat support brigade compares to a Volkswagen.

For example, Lempke offered some details on how they differ. An HBCT has more than 90 trucks, 300 humvees, communications equipment and embedded medical, maintenance and security forces. Combat support brigades may lack those additional embedded forces. “Whereas a CSB provides pieces of what is needed for homeland security missions, a BCT provides the full range of needs,” he said.

Spears is confident South Carolina will keep its heavy brigade, officials said. The HBCT in South comprises about 3,000 soldiers -- nearly a third of the state's total force.

“Well, we've got our fingers crossed, and we feel good, because both of our senators have said they're not going to be any changes in South Carolina -- and don't forget, the Army reports to Congress, the Army just doesn't do what they want to do,” Spears said. “So far, our delegation both from the House and from the Senate are supporting us 100 percent.”

South Carolina's heavy brigade combat team recently deployed to conduct airport security around the nation, and it is on deck to deploy again. It sent its equipment overseas, which has been replaced with the latest equipment, including the most up-to-date heavy vehicles -- M1A2 System Enhancement Package tanks and the Bradley A3 variant, Spears said.

Pennsylvania, where two heavy brigade combat teams and a Stryker BCT are located, is more vulnerable to a cut, service and industry sources said.

Maj. Gen. Jessica Wright, Pennsylvania's adjutant general, said the loss of an HBCT could mean a reduction of about 1,585 soldiers. She and the state's Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, have vowed to fight a cut.

“They have initially said to us that if they take an HBCT, they will replace it with a CS, CSS brigade. Those are phenomenal soldiers in those support brigades, and I don't negate what they do,” Wright told ITA in an interview. Still, she added, “we in Pennsylvania truly do not want CS or CSS; I cannot make that more clear. We want to remain combat.”

Remaining combat would mean modernizing Pennsylvania's HBCTs, which use older-model tanks and Bradleys.

“We need to modernize just like the Army needs to modernize and get down to those two variations of tanks,” Wright said.

Four HBCTs, rather than the original six, are likely to be altered, according to Vaughn, the director of the Army National Guard.

“I would foresee where it really would make some good sense for a couple of states. They would be very much interested in moving from a heavy configuration in a BCT to a light configuration. That's certainly not all of them, and I don't know what number that is,” Vaughn said the April 21 interview.

“The reason the states were really concerned about this BCT business [is that] in the Army's modularization package, that BCT has a tremendous capability, and because they put a lot of the direct support piece in that structure. Well, you say, ‘I'm going to transition that out into support brigades.' It's already got all the support in it. You have to scratch your head and look at that pretty close -- you know, ‘How do we make that transition and what does it really look like?'” he said. “All I can tell you is we really now I think are engaged in it in the right way to come up with the right solutions at the end of the day.”