If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ARI
Anybody on this NG have an opinion on the Navy's new ARI (Active Reserve
Integration) program? Just curious to know what the armchair quarterbacks think. --Woody |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
My spin is that, like a lot of good ideas, the execution of this program
is what's going to matter. I haven't seen a lot of the nitty-gritty yet, but it seems reasonable. Zero-based reviews of reserve support are a good idea, but if anyone in the reviewer's position has an axe to grind (or wants to lay hands on reserve $$ or hardware), then this will be a great opportunity to lay waste to the RC. Is there fat in the reserve component? You bet. Is there "muscle" that makes sense to keep in the reserves? Yep. Is there a need for restructuring and re-orienting? Yes. Can we manage this review logically, rationally, and efficiently? Remains to be seen. Take CAG-20, a subject near to my heart (and yours as well, Woody). Does it make sense to have a reserve air wing? IMHO, yes. Depending on what your own perspective is, though, if you were in charge of the zero-based review of CNARF support, you could structure your analytical approach to drive the results towards any answer you want - and if you're skillful, no one would ever be the wiser. That's one of the real challenges in defense analysis these days: being truly objective, and not merely arriving at the answer your gut tells you it should be. -Jim C. Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote: Anybody on this NG have an opinion on the Navy's new ARI (Active Reserve Integration) program? Just curious to know what the armchair quarterbacks think. --Woody |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|