Reserve readiness

Having completed a Soldier Readiness preparation this weekend with about 200 other reservists waiting on activation, I disagree that the Reserves are not trained and ready for war. The example of the Reserve unit that refused to deliver fuel is on my mind.

Most of the reservists I have known as well as those this weekend had spent significant time on active duty. Half of the reservists this weekend had been deployed before in prior conflicts. Individual skills are not lacking (though PT was lacking for some of them). Many of the soldiers have civilian jobs that directly apply to their military specialist (such as truck driver, mechanic, police officer, logistics engineer, etc). The reserves also bring significant civilian experience to planning and decision making that active duty units lack, giving a broader expertise base to address new situations such as faced in Iraq. For example, in one meeting of eight officers, we had a Boeing aerospace engineer, attorney, thoracic ICU nurse, combat simulations expert, teacher, and a banker. The other two were full time reservists. All had at least 5 years active duty (and most more), but then had civilian experience that the nation building mission can use. Generally, similar active duty units would have had more military experience, but little real world experience that can be used to build Iraq.

Reserve equipment does tend to be older (and so are the soldiers), and abused. I think this is reasonable and not unexpected. Even in the active forces, different units have varying qualities and generations of equipment. We did not field the M1A2 tank to every division on the same day. It takes years for equipment fielding to be completed. When the Marine Corps (active) showed up in the First Gulf War with M60A3 tanks, the entire Army had already been through 2 rounds of fielding of the M1 series tanks (either M1, M1IP, M1A1, or M1A1DU). By that time, even much of the Army National Guard had M1 series tanks, yet the Active Duty Marines had 1970's technology. So, it is not simply the Reserves that are on the short end of the stick for equipment, and it is not a surprise that the active Army gets first pick.

Reserve units do have enough time to maintain basic military skills and small unit tactics, and we do practice combat resupply and combat route reconnaissance. It is not the same level as active duty, but every unit must train for and pass a validation before deployment (which is a fairly difficult task). Individual soldiers are mobilized quickly, but units typically have time to recertify unit level tasks before going in. The Washington National Guard Brigade had 3 months to perform this training and validation prior to deployment, and they have apparently acquitted themselves well in Iraq (now 6 months in country). What we do not have time to do is train higher level staffs competently. I believe Reserves are best used to augment and work for active duty units that do have competent higher staffs and assets for force protection.

Reservists are volunteers, are fully aware that they can expect to be mobilized for at least one year out of every five, and yet they stay and reenlist because they believe in the mission and their comrades. As in any organization, you can have a confluence of personalities and leadership that leads to melt down, as in the example where the Reservist unit did not perform the refuel mission, but it is not an indictment of the reserves. It merely shows how professional and able the rest of the Reserves and National Guard have been in these two conflicts.