How does the Reservist system work in the USA ?

[Doomtrain]

*Originally posted by Rashak Mani *
**So in a sense every US action of any reasonable size is impossible without reservists ? **

Right, which was the idea. The military brass figured that since Reservists come from all walks of life and from all over the country, it would be harder for the civilian leadership to get involved in another Vietnam, since the soldiers in Vietnam were mainly regular military and draftees. You’re more inclined to pay attention to the war if Uncle Bob gets sent rather than the poor kid down the block.

[pilot141]

*Originally posted by GMRyujin *
**The military brass figured that since Reservists come from all walks of life and from all over the country, it would be harder for the civilian leadership to get involved in another Vietnam, since the soldiers in Vietnam were mainly regular military and draftees. You’re more inclined to pay attention to the war if Uncle Bob gets sent rather than the poor kid down the block. **

This may be true (I don’t know), but the main reason the military relies so much on Reservists now is money. With two rounds of BRAC (Base Re-alignment And Closure) Commissions in the 90s and another one coming up, the active duty military has lost a huge number of fixed, active duty bases stateside. To maintain the most warfighting capability possible, the military shifted a lot of responsibility to the inactive forces.

Shifting a responsibility to the Reserves/Guard allows you to:

1. Only pay a few people full-time (the required admin and leadership folks).

2. Everyone else only gets paid when they show up.

3. Only the full-timers get healthcare benefits.

4. Reservists start drawing retirement at age 60, instead of after 20 years of service like active duty.

These all add up to HUGE savings, and you get to keep the same warfighting capability when it’s required. Of course you have to pay everyone the same when they are activated, but it’s a lot cheaper than having a huge standing army that you maintain for 10 years but use only one.

[Monty]

GMR: Your assertion above appears to be that the “military brass” run the country. That’s just bunk. The US is run by civilians.

[Monty]

GMR: Your assertion above appears to be that the “military brass” run the country. That’s just bunk. The US is run by civilians.

[Monty]

GMR: Your assertion above appears to be that the “military brass” run the country. That’s just bunk. The US is run by civilians.

[Monty]

Drat. My apologies for the triple post.

[Rashak_Mani]

Well if they ran the country they wouldnt be saving money by closing bases would they ? Four posts with the apology too… hehe

The part about including reserves always is true… remember reading some comment on it. So in a sense its a system made to stimulate “correct” protests against any war engaged in ?

[JRDelirious]

Well, technically speaking, if it is a democratic country, the system should by design have a way to be responsive to how the people are feeling.

In any case, on the practical side it’s much more a question of a (civilian, political) decision to cut costs, as pilot141 said. On the “philosophical” side, it was returning to the tradition of a small standing force, reliant upon a “citizens’ army” for large-scale mobilization. The founders of the USA felt that was the reasonable system for a free republic, while large standing (and mostly conscript) armies were viewed as dangerous to liberty. It was also considered dangerous if the military became isolated into a “warrior caste”, a social class of their own, separate from society at large.

[Doomtrain]

No, the military brass run the military. Some cites for my assertions:

The restructuring of the Army that placed crucial support functions in Reserve units, without the support of which the combat units or the regular Army would not be able to fight effectively, began just as the war was ending. This was designed to make impossible what Lyndon Johnson had done in 1965: sending the Army to war without a mobilization of the Reserves.

From here:
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsw84.htm

It actually appears to be part of what’s called the “Abrams Doctrine”:

Sorley wrote that Abrams “appeared determined to ensure that never again would a president be able to send the Army to war without the reserves maintained for such a contingency. The vehicle for doing this was a revised force structure that integrated reserve and active forces elements so closely as to make the reserves virtually inextricable from the whole.”

From here:
http://www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/lessonslost303.asp

The role of the reserve components has changed dramatically, the general said. In Vietnam, the military only called up 3,000 reservists. In the aftermath, however, Army Gen. Creighton W. Abrams enunciated the Abrams Doctrine which essentially said, ‘You’re not going to go to war again without calling up the spirit of the American people and you do that by calling up the National Guard and Reserve.’

From here:
http://www.esgr.org/employers/news.asp?c=newsROA.html

He explained that the Army Reserve had not been used in Vietnam as the Army had planned for it to be used in a major conflict, other than a very small call-up in 1968. After the war, leaders like Army Chief of Staff Gen. Creighton Abrams and Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird worked to make sure the Reserves would not be left behind again.

“The Abrams Doctrine was simple and elegant,” Plewes said. “What Abrams and Laird did was to transfer essential capabilities to the Reserve Components. These capabilities were ones that the Army would need to wage and sustain itself in war. This way, never again would the Army be able to go to war without calling up the Guard and Reserve.”

From here:
http://www.army.mil/usar/news/2002/03march/carroa2002.html

Position.—America is best defended through a partnership between the government, the military and the people. The Naval Reserve Association supports the continued recognition of the Abrams Doctrine, which holds that with a volunteer force,
we should never go to war without the involvement of the Guard and Reserve, because they bring the national will of the people to the fight.

From here:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27aug20031230/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/appropriations/pdf/108hrg/1910411.pdf

Now, today it makes more sense monetarily, but since he wanted to know about the Reservist system, I figured this would be a big, interesting point of history.

[Monty]

Still wrong. The military is run ultimately by the civilians. My cite is the Constitution of the United States of America. Let me know if you need a copy.

[Spavined_Gelding]

Monty, you may point to the Constitution all you want, but the fact remains that in Vietnam the Army got sucked into a war it did not want to fight the way it was required to fight. General Abrams and Secretary Laird worked a profound restructure of the standing army and the reserve component. The result is what we have today, a relatively cheap army with maneuver units in the active army and the support and combat support forces in the reserve component. The civilian leaders bought it because promised a cheaper army. It was, however, an army that could not sustain a major operation without mobilizing reserve units. The political fact is that significant reserve forces cannot be kept on active duty without substantial popular political support for the mission the reserve was mobilized to accomplish. The present system is cheap (er) but requires a civilian leader pay a political price, or have nearly overwhelming popular support, for a major and prolonged combat operations.

[Monty]

Spavined: WTF are you ranting on about?

[Doomtrain]

Thank you, Spavined. Yes, the President/SecDef are nominally in charge of the U.S. military (with the exception of the National Guard, who I believe are under the governor of each state until federalized, but I’m not sure), but to pretend they alone set policy is ludicrous. Witness Rumsfeld’s troubles with trying to force the Army to change to a lighter, faster force.

[Doomtrain]

Thank you, Spavined. Yes, the President/SecDef are nominally in charge of the U.S. military (with the exception of the National Guard, who I believe are under the governor of each state until federalized, but I’m not sure), but to pretend they alone set policy is ludicrous. Witness Rumsfeld’s troubles with trying to force the Army to change to a lighter, faster force. The brass may ultimately have to defer to them, but they can put up one hell of a fight along the way.

[Noone_Special]

*Originally posted by JRDelirious *
**In any case, on the practical side it’s much more a question of a (civilian, political) decision to cut costs, as pilot141 said. On the “philosophical” side, it was returning to the tradition of a small standing force, reliant upon a “citizens’ army” for large-scale mobilization. The founders of the USA felt that was the reasonable system for a free republic, while large standing (and mostly conscript) armies were viewed as dangerous to liberty. It was also considered dangerous if the military became isolated into a “warrior caste”, a social class of their own, separate from society at large. **

All true, plus it works… Witness the Israeli army (which is what I know about enough to talk about), that is based on a sizeable standing army (near-universal draft, which, philosophically, is kind of the same as a “citizens’ army”) during “normal” times (normal for us, YMMV), but depends on reservists for any really extensive action, like all-out wars.
Seems to be working, so far…

[Rashak_Mani]

I wouldnt compare to Israel that is heavily citizen… except for specialized tanks, planes, etc…

Israel has another mindset… the army and the country are extremely integrated into each other.

I agree with what Spavined and GMRyujin said… it certainly means that any war engaged in will have MORE political costs, than if a only regular army (no reserves) was engaged in fighting. I hadnt noticed this aspect… I thought it was pure cutting costs and being an “expandable” army. Naturally they must have some indegenous capacity… but surely a limited one in the areas that reservists predominate.

[Noone_Special]

*Originally posted by Rashak Mani *
I wouldnt compare to Israel that is heavily citizen… except for specialized tanks, planes, etc…

Um, no… reservists everywhere - frontline fighter jets (e.g.) included

**Israel has another mindset… the army and the country are extremely integrated into each other.
**

Which is exactly the “ideal” some Americans here have been aiming at (see JRDelirious’s post above) - a country whose armed forces are so part and parcel of it, it won’t be going to fight any wars deemed superfluous by the citizenry… So I don’t see where the minsets are so different.

Dan Abarbanel

[Broomstick]

From my viewpoint, the mindset difference between the US and Isreal is that Isreal is and has been under seige for decades and the US is not.