It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Forced to shrink, Army National Guard gets pickier

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Forced to shrink, Army National Guard gets pickier


news.yahoo.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Suffer from a bad case of acne? That could disqualify you from joining the Army National Guard. Too many speeding tickets? In today's slimmer, smarter Guard, that could keep you out, too.

Under pressure from the Pentagon to trim its ranks, the Guard has been quietly phasing in new restrictions that make it harder to enlist.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
This is something I have been hearing about. Quite frankly its disturbing. Guard bonuses are gone, the max enlistment age has been lowered, and hundreds of millions of funds will be cut in the new fiscal year.

The National Guard is intentionally being reduced. I have to ask why. If anything it should be increased, considering past disasters and potential future messes. The National Guard at its core represents real people. It also serves as the "well regulated militia" that we need for emergencies.

This is also coming on the heels of the federal government trying to pull power from Governors over the Guard units. What is the agenda here? Whatever it is, it stinks.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I'm not honestly convinced that a "slimmer, smarter" Guard, as it stands, is gonna be that much more effective. All that amounts to is fewer Guardsmen. Seriously, I worked with one of these unit's at MOUT town on Camp Lejeune as OPFOR and basically showing the guys how to patrol and fight in an urban environment. When it comes to fighting, I'm surprised a lot of them even knew which way to point their rifles. And if they spent a little more time in the mud, those bright ACUs wouldn't be such huge targets. I'm not even lying; some of those guys and gals (especially the officers) were so old and out of shape, I wouldn't trust them in a firefight if my life depended on it. And most of the younger guys have no idea WHAT the hell they're doing. It's like someone grabbed a kid off the street, put them in ACUs and armor, handed them a gun, and said, "Get to it." The Guard NEEDS to shape up, and this could be a step in the right direction.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Griever0311
 


There are some units out there that need some help. Cutting funding is not the way to fix that. Enforcing regulations and standards would fix that and there are good units that do just that.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
With all the money going to car trade in's and an "Iffy" at best controversial health care, the United States will be lucky to have a Military at all..

Semper



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Oh, my bad, I should have been more spedific with that one; forgot to address the funding issue. I totally agree with you there, loss of funding never benefits a military unit, or much else for that matter. Increasing exclusivity DOES; that'll reduce your need for some funding cuts right there. A thinner herd of vastly more capable personnel, I believe, is infinitely preferable to the Zerg-rushable masses. But I guess that's a choice policy-makers have to sweat; when you're looking at a force as large as our Army, not every soldier's going to be top-of-the-line.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


I heard that. You know it's bad when grenades start getting rationed in a combat zone.

[edit on 2009/9/2 by Griever0311]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 




Ever considered that

might be a good thing ?



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Vaast
reply to post by semperfortis
 
Ever considered that

might be a good thing ?




Military budgets overall have not declined though, apparently just the national guard...which is the "militia" so to speak...that protects states against the Federal government if that ever needs to be. The Republic/Federation is crumbling and we are becoming more centralized. I wouldn't be surprised if they get rid of the national guard completely within the next 200 years and replace it with just the Army and Reserves...the National guard represents their states FIRST...not the Federal government. That's what is disturbing about this to me...

[edit on 3-9-2009 by yellowcard]



new topics




 
6

log in

join