Examining The Impact Of Equipment Shortages On The National Guard S Readiness For Homeland Security

The National Guard is an integral part of the military's operational force deployed around the world, and a first responder in case of a catastrophic disaster in the United States. The use of the Army National Guard has been evolving over the last decade, but for many of those years it has lacked modern equipment to conduct its federal and domestic missions. The September 11, 2001 attacks initiated the transformation of the Army National Guard for the 21st century. This paper explores the complexity of defining the National Guard's domestic and federal missions. Furthermore, it provides the background of equipment shortages found throughout the National Guard. The research reveals how the Army Force Generation model provides predictability for guardsmen about their potential deployment schedule; however, the model does not take into account the Army National Guard's domestic mission. The way forward for the Army National Guard to improve its execution of federal and domestic mission is the integration of dual-use equipment. This addition of dual-use equipment sets would increase the readiness posture of the Army National Guard. Finally, this paper provides recommendations on the future readiness of the Army National Guard to execute its dual missions. The National Guard's dual missions need to be refined clearly to articulate roles and responsibilities because there are several interpretations as what an Operational Force should be and how it should be resourced. In addition, the difficulty for the Army National Guard to delineate between Homeland Defense, Homeland Security, and support to Civil Authorities missions is complicated. Therefore, resourcing the Army National Guard to execute these missions will strengthen our nation's defenses at home and abroad.

The National Guard is an integral part of the military's operational force deployed around the world, and a first responder in case of a catastrophic disaster in the United States. The use of the Army National Guard has been evolving over the last decade, but for many of those years it has lacked modern equipment to conduct its federal and domestic missions. The September 11, 2001 attacks initiated the transformation of the Army National Guard for the 21st century. Over 255,000 National Guardsmen have deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan as part of the Operational Force in support of the Regular Army. The multiple deployments for each contingency have depleted and worn out the Army National Guard, especially its equipment. The shortage of equipment throughout the Army National Guard has impacted its abilities to respond to domestic missions. While the Army National Guard augments the Regular Army, nondeployed units continue to execute their domestic missions in Homeland Defense, Homeland Security, and Civil Support. The response to Hurricane Katrina sparked renewed debate over the National Guard's domestic and federal missions and its equipment shortages. Hurricane Katrina made it evident the past several years that the Army National Guard's response to domestic missions has been hampered by the lack of proper equipment and the condition of equipment it has on hand. This paper explores the complexity of defining the National Guard's domestic and federal missions. Furthermore, it provides the background of equipment shortages found throughout the National Guard. The research reveals how the Army Force Generation model provides predictability for guardsmen about their potential deployment schedule; however, the model does not take into account the Army National Guard's domestic mission. The way forward for the Army National Guard to improve its execution of federal and domestic mission is the integration of dual-use equipment. This addition of dual-use equipment sets would increase the readiness posture of the Army National Guard. Finally, this paper provides recommendations on the future readiness of the Army National Guard to execute its dual missions. The National Guard's dual missions need to be refined clearly to articulate roles and responsibilities because there are several interpretations as what an Operational Force should be and how it should be resourced. In addition, the difficulty for the Army National Guard to delineate between Homeland Defense, Homeland Security, and support to Civil Authorities missions is complicated. Therefore, resourcing the Army National Guard to execute these missions will strengthen our nation's defenses at home and abroad.

Ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have required the deployment of large numbers of Army National Guard and Army Reserve personnel. The Department of Defense (DOD) faces the unprecedented challenge of sustaining large-scale, long-duration operations with an all-volunteer military force. In addition, DOD's homeland defense missions have taken on higher priority, and National Guard forces have state responsibilities for homeland security activities as well as their traditional roles in responding to natural disasters. Over the past few years, GAO has examined the effects of ongoing military operations and domestic missions on the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. This statement, which draws on prior GAO work, focuses on (1) challenges in sustaining Army reserve component equipment and personnel readiness while supporting ongoing operations and (2) the extent to which the Army's planned transformation initiatives will alleviate equipment and personnel shortages and enhance readiness. The Army National Guard and Army Reserve have made significant contributions to ongoing military operations, but equipment shortages and personnel challenges have increased and, if left unattended, may hamper the reserves' preparedness for future overseas and domestic missions. To provide deployable units, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve have transferred large quantities of personnel and equipment to deploying units, an approach that has resulted in growing shortages in nondeployed units. Also, reserve units have left significant quantities of equipment overseas and DOD has not yet developed plans to replace it. The Army National Guard reports that its units have less than one-third of their required equipment, and the Army Reserve reports that its units have about half of the modern equipment they need to deploy. These shortages could also adversely affect reserve units' ability to perform homeland defense missions and provide support to civil authorities in the event of natural disasters or terrorist attacks. The Army also faces shortages of personnel trained in some high-demand skills. These readiness challenges have occurred because the Army reserve components' role has shifted from a strategic reserve force to an operational force that is being used on an ongoing basis. However, DOD has not fully reassessed its equipment, personnel, and training needs and developed a new model for the reserves appropriate to the new strategic environment. GAO has made recommendations that DOD conduct a comprehensive reassessment of equipment, personnel, training, and funding requirements given the reserve components' shift to an operational role, but DOD's progress to date in addressing them has been limited. Without a comprehensive reassessment of equipment and personnel policies, the Army's reserve components may not be well prepared to deal with future events at home or abroad. The Army has begun two transformational initiatives intended to enhance reserve units' ability to conduct 21st century operations and plans to spend over $24 billion for equipment over the next 5 years. These initiatives are significant, but the extent to which they will alleviate equipment and personnel challenges is unclear. The Army faces challenges in managing both