GWB and the Air Guard

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 11:52:25 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 00:47:14 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .
One must also make very clear distinctions between AirNG and ArmyNG.
While the Army NG became almost notorious during the conflict, the
AirNG was flying a lot of airplanes in a lot of missions and
maintaining operational readiness.

What is your beef with the ARNG side of the house? You might want to
brush
up a bit regarding the record of the seven thousand plus *ARNG* troops
who
deployed to Vietnam. There was one artillery unit from the KYARNG that
lost
*eighteen* (IIRC) men in one day's fighting when the firebase it was
assigned to came under NVA ground attack--I'd suggest you be careful
about
pointing out any such "clear distinctions" if you ever end up traveliing
through the Bluegrass State. My question to you would be, why did you
feel
it was necessary to try and defame the ARNG in an effort to make the ANG
look better? IMO, both organizations accomplished the missions they were
given in that conflict.

I don't have beef with the Army Guard, but since it was a period that
I lived through and am very familiar with, I'll point out that the
Army Guard required six months of active training, followed by four
years Ready Reserve service. It was a haven for folks with low lottery
numbers or before the lottery with a high probability of selection
such as those with expiring deferments as they graduated from college.

First, if you check your facts I think you will find that the obligation was
for a total of six years, active duty and RR combined. Second, that "haven"
provided more personnel to Vietnam than the ANG, and a whale of a lot of AC
Vietnam vets returned to serve in that "haven" as well.

I think you need to relax a bit. The fact is that the great majority
of ARNG units during the Vietnam war were a sanctuary for folks who
didn't want to get drafted into the active duty Army. The large
proportion were minimally trained back-fill units.

It was official policy during the Johnson administration that Reserve
and Guard units were not called up. The budgeting priority was to
equip active duty forces and that meant large numbers of NG and
Reserve units (all components) were under-equipped or fitted with
obsolete or obsolescent equipment.

There is no doubt that Guard and Reserve personnel were called up, the
proportion of Army Guard and Reserve personnel that were called or
were even vulnerable was exceptionally low.


The Army Guard accepted people even when they had received a draft
notification.

I believe the other services did as well.

That is true. No disagreement there.

The training requirements were exceptionally low and the
maintenance of accurate drill records for lower rank, unskilled
members was virtually non-existant in many units.

Really? And this compared to the record keeping in the ANG exactly how...?

It compares to the difference between rated aircrew (remember the
discussion has been about GWB's service) and basic trainee grads, most
of whom didn't even complete combat arms qualification. Their units
were low priority and the poorly equipped.


This is not said in any sense to demean the service of the few Army
Guard units that were activated and served with honor.

Gee, I guess they just chose the "honorable ones" huh? The others lacking in
that quality, by your description?

Don't go looking between the lines or under rocks for insult. There is
none intended. The sentence says that few Army Guard units got the
call. It does not state or imply that those who didn't get activated
were any less honorable nor does it suggest that not all that were
called were honorable.

And, it should
be noted, that the Army Guard and Reserve units today have a much
higher standard of readiness and a much more rigorous drill/training
schedule including a lot of activations and NTC deployments.

Yeah, and none of them got activated for Korea, Berlin, etc., either, right?

What's that smell....red herring?

Didn't say that. Didn't imply that. Doesn't relate to what we were
talking about.


By contrast, the flying ANG units contained large numbers of full-time
specialists,

Ahh! The old, "you gotta be full time to be a real specialist" or to have a
good unit bit, huh? Ed, I have service time in the active component, the
reserve components as a part-timer, and one reserve component as a
full-timer, and from where I sit your argument does not carry much water.

I simply stated that since flying ANG units were often tasked with
active Air Defense Command missions, they did have lots of full-timers
and lots of training opportunity. ARNG units, with poor equipment,
parts of combat support units, and low priority did not have a lot of
full-timers, didn't have a lot of training opportunity, and didn't
maintain a high state of readiness.

had operational air defense responsibilities and
conducted much more frequent operations. The F-100 ANG units did a lot
of SEA deployments.

Ever heard of Nike Hercules? care to guess who was running most of that
system at the same time you claim the ARNG was just not up to the exalted
level of the ANG?

Yes, I've heard of Nike Hercules. When I was growing up in Chicago,
the lakefront hosted a large number of Nike Ajax installations manned
by Reserve units. Where were all of these Hercules units in '66-'73?
How many states had them? I'm not sure it relates to the large number
of ARNG personnel that had low levels of mission tasking. But, I'm
available to be convinced.


An interesting editorial in this AM's Denver Post by Bob Ewegen who
points out that if GWB were trying to "dodge the draft" his choice of
an obligation with two years of intensive training, a clear linkage to
deployed elements flying the same aircraft and a total of nearly five
years of continuous service, he made a poor choice. He could more
easily have done six months of basic in a ARNG unit and gone home.

So now you are claiming that the amount of active duty training is related
to ones level of honorable service? Gee, what about all of those *enlisted*
ANG troops who went to basic and AFOS school and then went back home?

We are still talking about GWB's service. Another herring on the
table.

Did you go to the link and read the article? It is balanced and
addresses both Bush and Kerry's service. It makes some good points and
suggests the issue shouldn't be "mine is bigger than yours" but what
the candidates bring to the country for leadership potential.

You were doing pretty good in these arguments...right up until you had to
bite into the old, "Well, the ANG is of course oh-so-much more professional,
and of course occupied by more dedicated and honorable men, than the ARNG"
crap.

Brooks

I didn't say that, so don't interpret. I said that during the period
of the '60s and up until the end of the war, the ARNG suffered from a
lack of funding and mission in a lot of states. It was, as a matter of
policy, not going to be deployed to the war.

Don't seek to be offended. If I wish to do so, you won't have to dig
deep to find the insults. They'll be right up top.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8