GovernmentExecutive.com

Pressed to reduce future budgets beginning in fiscal 2007, the Army is poised to sacrifice three Army National Guard brigades to help prevent deep cuts to higher-priority items, including its flagship transformation and procurement program known as Future Combat Systems, according to sources.

Eliminating three brigades would reduce the Army's burgeoning personnel costs, but any troop cuts to the Army in general, and the National Guard in particular, are certain to generate stiff opposition on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers have repeatedly overridden the Pentagon by boosting the size of ground forces in recent years, especially with more troops serving multiple tours in hotspots like Iraq.

A final decision on department-wide cuts is expected before Christmas, the sources said.

Cutting Guard units is "like saying we're going to be closing the Washington Monument," said Jacques Gansler, the Pentagon acquisition chief during the Clinton administration. "Congress will put it back in."

One National Guard official said the cuts could affect 10,500 troops, resulting in a $154 million reduction in the military's annual payroll alone. But reducing the total number of units could "crush" communities and hamper the Guard's ability to respond to disasters, the official said.

Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, co-chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus, said Monday he found talks of cutting the Guard "troubling."

"If true, it's troubling that the White House would be forcing personnel cuts at a time when demands on the Guard are already heavier than ever before," Leahy said in a statement. "We're paying a premium to build Iraq's force, but the White House repeatedly tries to cut corners with our own National Guard."

With 60,000 Guard troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and another 50,000 mobilized to handle domestic hurricane relief and recovery efforts, the National Guard has become a sacred cow on Capitol Hill.

Indeed, members of Congress have been particularly worried about equipment and other funding shortfalls in the Guard this year, and have expressed concerns that high deployment rates could adversely affect recruitment and retention while also hindering the Guard's ability to respond to emergencies on U.S. soil.

Earlier this fall, Leahy and fellow National Guard Caucus co-chairman Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo., inserted a $1.3 billion amendment to the Senate's version of the fiscal 2006 Defense appropriations bill that would replenish the Guard's equipment stocks. Others have fought, with varying success, to increase healthcare and other benefits for Guard personnel.

Despite the consequences of the potential cuts to the state-run units, top state National Guard officials, who went toe-to-toe with the Pentagon this year during the base-closure process, were not informed of the possible brigade cuts. The Wall Street Journal first reported Monday that active and reserve forces of both the Army and Air Force might be cut to spare weapons programs from the budget ax.

After learning about the potential cuts, Maj. Gen. Roger Lempke, president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States and leader of Nebraska's National Guard forces, said eliminating Guard units "needs to be thought through long and hard." "It would be difficult to cut a National Guard brigade because it is much more difficult for us to restore them later if we had to," he said.

Scaling back National Guard units would require states to shut down armories, eliminating the physical presence of the Guard in some areas and possibly hindering future recruitment campaigns.

COMMENTS

• I'm sure defense contractors Boeing and SAIC will offer the 10,500 troops getting laid off a position working on their Future Combat Systems boondoggle. M Posted December 7, 2005 9:41 AM
• So we cut Guard troops for more high technology junk that was designed for the battlefield 20 years ago? Great, why are we wasting money advertising for more bodies to join the Guard then? Wouldn't it make more sense to cut the generals? Then again, I keep forgetting this is the government. Phil Posted December 6, 2005 7:13 PM
• Once again we screw communities and people for the benefit of a few. My comment to all of the generals and admirals who have long forgotten what it is like to be on the ground getting shot at is that you can have all the whizz-bang gadgets you want, but if you don’t have enough people to hold the ground, then they aren't worth squat. Gee how does that apply to our situation now? This country has a lot of hard-working sacrificing people in the Guard and Reserve. So what you are telling me is that you are going to slap them in the face, and tell them, “go home, we don't need you.” Or worse yet, tell them, “now that we are closing your Armory/Reserve Center you can drive 250 miles on your our dime and we are still going to call you up and let you get shot at, so we can spend another 1,000,000.00 on a paperclip that some general needs to fight a war we won in the 1990's with the Soviets. Spend the money on troops, families, and body armor -- not million-dollar electronic "nice but not necessary to haves." GovExec.com reader Posted December 7, 2005 7:05 PM