National Guard, national guard and iraq, U.S. Military, US preparedness
National Guard, national guard and iraq, U.S. Military, US preparedness

Report: Military Not Ready for US Attack

LOLITA C. BALDOR | January 31, 2008 09:19 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

stumbleupon :Report: Military Not Ready for US Attack   digg: Report: Military Not Ready for US Attack   reddit: Report: Military Not Ready for US Attack   del.icio.us: Report: Military Not Ready for US Attack

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military isn't ready for a catastrophic attack on the country, and National Guard forces don't have the equipment or training they need for the job, according to a report.

Even fewer Army National Guard units are combat-ready today than were nearly a year ago when the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves determined that 88 percent of the units were not prepared for the fight, the panel says in a new report released Thursday.

The independent commission is charged by Congress to recommend changes in law and policy concerning the Guard and Reserves.

The commission's 400-page report concludes that the nation "does not have sufficient trained, ready forces available" to respond to a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons incident, "an appalling gap that places the nation and its citizens at greater risk."

"Right now we don't have the forces we need, we don't have them trained, we don't have the equipment," commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Even though there is a lot going on in this area, we need to do a lot more. ... There's a lot of things in the pipeline, but in the world we live in _ you're either ready or you're not."

In response, Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, chief of U.S. Northern command, said the Pentagon is putting together a specialized military team that would be designed to respond to such catastrophic events.

"The capability for the Defense Department to respond to a chemical, biological event exists now," Renuart told the AP. "It, today, is not as robust as we would like because of the demand on the forces that we've placed across the country. ... I can do it today. It would be harder on the (military) services, but I could respond."

Over the next year, Renuart said, specific active duty, Guard and Reserve units will be trained, equipped and assigned to a three-tiered response force totaling about 4,000 troops. There would be a few hundred first responders, who would be followed by a second wave of about 1,200 troops that would include medical and logistics forces.

The third wave, with the remainder of that initial 4,000 troops, would include aircraft units, engineers, and other support forces, depending on the type of incident.

Punaro, a retired Marine Corps major general, had sharp criticism for Northern Command, saying that commanders there have made little progress developing detailed response plans for attacks against the homeland.

"NorthCom has got to get religion in this area," said Punaro. He said the military needs to avoid "pickup game" type responses, such as the much-criticized federal reaction to Hurricane Katrina, and put in place the kind of detailed plans that exist for virtually any international crisis.

He also underscored the commission's main finding: the Pentagon must move toward making the National Guard and Reserves an integral part of the U.S. military.

The panel, in its No. 1 recommendation, said the Defense Department must use the nation's citizen soldiers to create an operational force that would be fully trained, equipped and ready to defend the nation, respond to crises and supplement the active duty troops in combat.

Pointing to the continued strain on the military, as it fights wars on two fronts, the panel said the U.S. has "no reasonable alternative" other than to continue to rely heavily on the reserves to supplement the active duty forces both at home and abroad.

Using reserves as a permanent, ready force, the commission argued, is a much more cost effective way to supplement the military since they are about 70 percent cheaper than active duty troops.

Asked how much it would cost to implement the panel's recommendations, Punaro said it will take billions to fully equip the Guard. The commission is going to ask the Congressional Budget Office to do a cost analysis, he said.

While noting that equipment for the reserves has increased in recent years, the report details a shortfall of about $48 billion for equipment as of 2007. And in a detailed map, it shows that in more than half the states, Army Guard units have less than 50 percent of the equipment they need.

Overall, the panel made 95 separate recommendations, including many personnel, pay, benefits, promotional and other policy changes. The majority, commission members said Thursday, could be implemented immediately or in quick fashion after congressional action. But other more substantive overhauls, Punaro said, could take years.

In perhaps its most controversial recommendation, the panel again said that the nation's governors should be given the authority to direct active-duty troops responding to an emergency in their states. That recommendation, when it first surfaced last year, was rebuffed by the military and quickly rejected by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

"I believe we're going to wear him down," said Punaro.

Renuart, however, said he believes it is unlikely that Gates will reverse himself. Renuart said he's talked to a number of state leaders on the matter, and most don't want full command of active duty troops _ to include their care, feeding, discipline and logistics demands. Instead, he said, governors want to know that in a crisis, their needs will be met.

___

On the Net:

Commission on the National Guard and Reserve's report: http://www.cngr.gov/Final%20Report/CNGR%20Final%20Report.pdf

Comments for this post are now closed


 
 

Comments
270
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
- Crowhaul See Profile I'm a Fan of Crowhaul permalink




If the US is ever attacked & occupied, you'll see us become the very "insurgents" we're trying so desperately to kill in Iraq....


    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:39 PM on 02/01/2008
- RedRooster See Profile I'm a Fan of RedRooster permalink

There is NO shortage of money for the military or for our national guard. The American taxpayers have been more than generous. The fault lies with our failed commander in chief who has foolishly over-extended our forces.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 PM on 02/01/2008
- MikeMidCity See Profile I'm a Fan of MikeMidCity permalink

Does this underscore the size of the blunder of the vote to give Bush the soul power to declare war?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 02/01/2008
- kevinabt See Profile I'm a Fan of kevinabt permalink

The only attack on US soil that is plausible is the people of this country attacking the government. I'm glad the military is ill prepared to respond to that. Seriously, what military power would even contemplate attacking the continental US?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 PM on 02/01/2008
- Macready See Profile I'm a Fan of Macready permalink

this report is no surprise . . . the chimp and the big dick have used them to get oil contracts . . .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 AM on 02/01/2008
- ResidentChimp See Profile I'm a Fan of ResidentChimp permalink

This report should get the surrender monkeys excited. Like the bear stock brocker who constantly predicts a crash, the prognosticators should be right eventually. The bar would pretty low for the surrender monkeys, but I have to think that even they would say it would have to be a lot worse than 911. Other than WMD's, which the surrender monkeys don't believe in, it would be impossible to for terrorists to launch a catastrophic attack against America. That leaves Russia or China. China's not likely to kill the golden goose just yet and Russia would have to reckon with nuclear retaliation. Not very likely. In the end, this is just another political attack, to undermone our duly elected government and make peole think that a Democrat couldn't be any worse than a Republican when it comes to national security.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 AM on 02/01/2008
- MadMoll See Profile I'm a Fan of MadMoll permalink

Now we know why we have Blackwater. Our military is broken. and Bush has no Will to rectify it - after all, he has his own militia. Bush Warlord of America

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:27 AM on 02/01/2008
- watchingthings See Profile I'm a Fan of watchingthings permalink

.........and if the Republican party should successfuly elect the next President...there will be no more army [boots] left. How they plan on starting more wars is ludicrous that they should even talk about it. The Republicans are all chickenshit assholes who like to attack countries. Not one of them wants to fight in wars of their own making. The United States of America itself will be destroyed if there is another Republican elected as President this term. Same goes for Hillary Clinton, she always was republican...only changed to impress Bill Clinton. She need not have done it...Bill only believes in money.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:27 AM on 02/01/2008
- watchingthings See Profile I'm a Fan of watchingthings permalink

I guess they can't respond to a domestic strike....all the troops are far away, in different countries...most half way around the world in bush's pet war. The war that makes him the war President...as he himself claims.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:18 AM on 02/01/2008
- Grammie See Profile I'm a Fan of Grammie permalink

Come on guys. This just another fear mongering lie to force the sheeple to void their bladder and huddle quaking in a pool of their own urine.

There is no threat so it is immaterial that there is not an adequate defense against an imaginary threat.

Logical, ne c'est pas?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:43 PM on 01/31/2008
- Rog49Thomas See Profile I'm a Fan of Rog49Thomas permalink

The logic is pretty clear.

We're fighting them over there since we're not ready to fight them here.

Makes perfect sense to me.

In a position of strength like this it is as John McCain pointed out not a bad idea to start a few more foreign wars to further improve our national security.

If we could start say three more wars (total = four) each for 100 years minimum, I'll bet that would have a really significant effect on our security.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:39 PM on 01/31/2008
- RedRooster See Profile I'm a Fan of RedRooster permalink

It doesn't matter if the attack is from a mad man or from mother nature.

The fact remains that George W Bush, in what he has done and in what he has FAILED to do, has "broken" our military and weakened our national defense!

Republicans=unfit for national leadership.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 PM on 01/31/2008
- DietrichMoody See Profile I'm a Fan of DietrichMoody permalink

Soooo, Let us have another Militaristic Administration, like McCain, etc. to get us ready??

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 PM on 01/31/2008
- wmbear See Profile I'm a Fan of wmbear permalink

Could that possibly be because...

THEY'RE ALL IN IRAQ????!!!!....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 PM on 01/31/2008
- mrcontinental See Profile I'm a Fan of mrcontinental permalink

That may be true but don't forget about that "well regulated militia" they spoke of in the 2nd amendment. We'll be fine and NO ONE is that stupid.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:24 PM on 01/31/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in