The National Guard gets its first four-star general in a looong time
The Pentagon these days is on a four-star bonanza. Last week, the Army named its first female four-star Army general, Ann Dunwoody, in an emotional ceremony that sparked hopes across the ranks that the military was finally turning another historic corner. Today, the military appointed its first four-star chief of the National Guard bureau in a long, long time, Gen. Craig R. McKinley. He replaces Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum.
So why is this a big deal? That the chief is now a four star is a bold statement about the growing role of the National Guard. In a way, the job of the National Guard is far more complicated than the other forces. After all, they are no longer tasked only with dealing with domestic emergencies and preparing for the off-chance they are called overseas. These days, they traverse both worlds. They have literally deployed to Iraq one month and returned to the United States the next to handle a natural disaster, most notably Hurricane Katrina.
Most agree the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could not have been fought without them. Indeed, these days, they are deployed to more than 40 countries.
And yet serving is not their full-time jobs. They have to balance the needs of their countries with their own domestic jobs. Before 9/11 the Guard could only be deployed one year active duty in five years; now they can be called up for 24 months in the same period.
The Guard is feeling the pinch of all those competing demands. Their equipment is worn out; their forces are exhausted; and they need to retrain to adapt to their new role.
Simply put, the demands on the Guard are unprecedented. So perhaps it’s no surprise that the new chief is a four star.
The real question becomes: What will the fourth star really bring to the Guard? Will they get more attention and resources? Will they be on equal footing with the other rank? During the campaign, vice president-elect Joe Biden said the National Guard should be part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which suggests that major changes are afoot.
It’s just another thing to watch for in the next administration.
J: Thanks so much for your comments. I think others suspected, like you, that this was in part theater. But then will the Guard let that stand? By that, I mean won't they make sure that fourth star has the pull it deserves? It seems to me if it was theater, it is a dangerous game because at some point that star will have to mean more. What do you think?
Posted by: Nancy Youssef | November 25, 2008 at 11:18 AM
"The real question becomes: What will the fourth star really bring to the Guard? Will they get more attention and resources? Will they be on equal footing with the other rank?"
Short answer - No. The NG was, is, and should remain a part of the Army and Air Force. That means "subordinate to", not equal to. It is not a separate service, was never intended to be a separate service.
The Guard leadership created their own crisis. They knew that if they accepted a primary responsibility for homeland security, they would miss out on all the hot and newest combat gear. SO they insist on retaining combat units that unfortunately take 90-120 days to train up and deploy.
Putting another 4-star into the Joint Chiefs will do nothing. He doesn't get any more funding, he gets outvoted 4-1, and while going to meetings must be fun, it doesn't enhance the Guard at all. This was pure theater.
Posted by: J. | November 20, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I "get" why the Chief, National Guard Bureau, position "needed" to be elevated -- so that 2-star Adjutants General could be made 3-stars. The deputy NORTHCOM commander is, I believe, required to be a Guard officer, and that's a 3-star billet. But I think the assumption that elevation in grade will translate to elevation in status is not tenable unless the Guard gets its own pot of gold. Until the NG can bring serious money to the table, they'll remain the summer-help, no matter how important they've been in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Posted by: ProfHollywood | November 18, 2008 at 07:48 AM
Yikes! I did indeed, Jeff. Thanks so much for catching that. I have made the correction.
Posted by: Nancy Youssef | November 18, 2008 at 03:45 AM
I think you meant that Ann Dunwoody was the first woman 4-Star correct? Thanks for all the great posts, the blog is great!
Posted by: Jeff | November 18, 2008 at 01:20 AM