Once upon a time (like 20 years ago) I served as a military planner doing military support for civil defense planning. That was with Fourth Army at Fort Sheridan, Illinois (both don't exist any more). It was where I was introduced to the complexities of civil-military interfacing.
A recent panel has reported that, "The Pentagon is not prepared to respond to a catastrophic chemical, biological or nuclear attack within the United States, placing Americans at risk, an independent panel reported to Congress on Thursday." The full Reuters story can be read at "Pentagon not ready for attack response in U.S."
From my personal experience I think we are asking our national guard and reserve forces to do too much. Even if you take the Iraq war out of the mix, these are part time folks who were designed to be a "reserve." You can put them on the front lines on the war on terrorism, but then they will no longer be citzen soldiers. They will have to be full timers working as a permanent full-up force stationed in the United States for missions here if we are to have the readiness levels that people expect.
What do you think?
Top
A recent panel has reported that, "The Pentagon is not prepared to respond to a catastrophic chemical, biological or nuclear attack within the United States, placing Americans at risk, an independent panel reported to Congress on Thursday." The full Reuters story can be read at "Pentagon not ready for attack response in U.S."
From my personal experience I think we are asking our national guard and reserve forces to do too much. Even if you take the Iraq war out of the mix, these are part time folks who were designed to be a "reserve." You can put them on the front lines on the war on terrorism, but then they will no longer be citzen soldiers. They will have to be full timers working as a permanent full-up force stationed in the United States for missions here if we are to have the readiness levels that people expect.
What do you think?
