INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
C-SPAN’S “NEWSMAKERS”
Guest:
Major General Bill Etter, National Guard Bureau
Reporters:
Brian Bender, The Boston Globe
and Lisa Burgess, Stars and Stripes
Moderator: C-SPAN
TAPE DATE: Wednesday, May 21, 2008
AIR DATE/TIME:
SUNDAY, May 25, 2008 at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET
Please use with attribution to
C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers”….*
* NOTE: C-SPAN should appear in all-caps because it is an acronym for Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network
Please contact
John Cardarelli in C-SPAN's Media Relations Department at
202-626-8797
or jcardarelli@c-span.org for questions
© NCSC
Copyrighted material: use with attribution only
PEDRO
ECHEVARRIO, MODERATOR: Joining us on
Newsmakers is Major General Bill Etter of the National Guard Bureau. He’s the director of the Joint Staff. Welcome, sir.
MAJOR
GENERAL BILL ETTER, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU:
Thank you. Thank you for having
me here.
ECHEVARRIA: And our reporters who will be interviewing
him will be Brian Bender from The Boston Globe as their national defense
correspondent, and Lisa Burgess with Stars and Stripes as their Pentagon
reporter. Our thanks to you both for
joining us today. Brian Bender, you’ve
got the first question.
BRIAN
BENDER: Well, General, tomorrow is
Memorial Day and I thought maybe we could begin by talking about what the
National Guard is up to. The National
Guard is busier than ever both at home and abroad, and maybe you can give us a
sense for where the Guard is today, what its missions are and how it’s going.
ETTER: Well, that’s great. Well, it is Memorial Day tomorrow. And I’d first like to say it’s important to
acknowledge the sacrifice throughout all of history of the uniformed service
members. In many wars through many
periods of time people from America have stepped up and asked what our country
can do to protect freedom and many of them have then paid the ultimate
sacrifice and lost their lives. Others
have been severely injured. Families
have been separated. So I think it’s
important that this weekend that we remember the sacrifice, and it’s not just a
hamburger and hot dog cookout. That we
either shake a veteran’s hand, go to a parade, or even just privately
reflect. This is a Memorial Day and
there is a reason why it’s called that.
The
National Guard right now is extremely busy.
We currently number about 460,000 people. Of that, about 50,000 are overseas in the overseas fight from the
Army National Guard and about 6,500 from the Air National Guard. Those are primarily located in Afghanistan,
Iraq, the Horn of Africa, the Sinai (ph) and Kosovo.
At
home, we do a number of things. We’re
deployed along the southwest border.
We’re performing the Noble Eagle missions, the air defense of the United
States. About 90 percent of that is
done by the National Guard. We perform
a number of other missions for the governors when called out.
So
on a daily basis, we’re definitely busy – about 8,000 domestically and as I
mentioned, about 5,600 overseas.
LISA
BURGESS: My understanding is that this
is the largest call-up overseas of the National Guard since World War II. And it’s not going to slow down anytime
soon. I think there are eight Army
National Guard combat brigades in the 2009 rotation on the schedule for
Iraq. Is it appropriate for the
National Guard to be doing this much overseas?
Is it appropriate for them to have this type of commitment overseas
given their responsibilities in the homeland security arena?
ETTER: I believe it is because we can do both and
we have to do both. Right now, for this
nation the National Guard has transformed from a strategic reserve to an
operational reserve. From when you call
us to we’re always part of the overseas engagements. We fight side-by-side with the active duty components. In most cases, they don’t know who’s who
because we train to the same standards and have the same equipment
overseas.
Right
now, as we sit here today, this weekend, about 400,000 men and women of the
National Guard are available to governors as required. So this is something that we can do. And America really needs to do that because
to fight the global war on terrorism, the National Guard has to be a very large
partner in that battle.
BURGESS: But this is come at a significant cost in
terms of readiness. The National
Commission on the Guard and Reserve, when they came out with their report in
January, had said that there’s something like 88 percent of the National Guard
units are not ready to deploy to Iraq.
I believe that 70 percent of National Guard units are not fully equipped
at this point. Can you address that
issue and what’s being done to try to remedy that?
ETTER: Yes, I believe the numbers – they’re – those
are not numbers that I’m familiar with.
But I can tell you this; readiness is divided into three issues: people, equipment and training. I’m very confident that we have the best
people. We have really, really good Americans
that serve in the National Guard, as in all our armed forces. The training is the best it’s ever been.
The
equipment part is two parts. We had
some substantial challenges in equipment.
Because of the strong commitment from both the Congress and the
Department of Defense, our equipment is getting better. Last year was 52 percent. This year is 63 percent. It’s marching uphill. Now there was one problem, though, in the
sense that every once in a while you have to recapitalize this equipment. We have some significantly large and, quite
frankly, expensive items in the military that makes us as powerful as we are,
such as an F-16. However, you can’t
drive a car for 40 years. So we’re
going to have look into recapitalizing that and how to do that. So this will become more challenging if we
don’t invest in the equipment that we need.
But
from a people and training standpoint, I believe we’re in very good shape.
BENDER: Maybe on that point of readiness, hurricane
season starts here in a couple of weeks.
Can you talk about the lessons of Hurricane Katrina? And from a planning standpoint, what is the
National Guard doing to be prepared for that?
Do you feel that some of the states that perhaps will be most at-risk
from hurricanes have enough National Guard troops in the state as opposed to
overseas or on some other mission? Is
the Guard ready to deal with something like that?
ETTER: Well ...
BENDER: Better ready than it was maybe a few years
ago?
ETTER: Absolutely.
And let me give you some examples.
We spend quite a bit of time planning for the hurricane – hurricane
season officially starts on June first.
On the fifth of June, we start our first of bi-weekly calls with all the
hurricane states, the people that could be affected. For each of the states between Texas to Maine, we run every
single number to look at different categories of hurricanes and when a state
could handle it in-state or
when
they need to reach through a program called EMAC – the Emergency Assistance
Compact – or actually loan of equipment from active and reserve component
sources to ensure the governors will have everything they need for a hurricane.
Two
weeks ago, we spent seven or eight days in a national-level exercise where we
actually had an exercise where notionally a hurricane would come right up the
Chesapeake, which is a very challenging scenario when you look at the elevation
of Washington, D.C. and Baltimore and such, and how we would actually work with
that. And that was a multi – throughout
the United States exercise involving all the components including U.S. Northern
Command and FEMA. We have close
relationship with those two partners.
And we spent quite a bit of time doing that.
Katrina
was a good-news story in the sense that within eight days we could bring 50,000
people to assist. Seventeen thousand
lives were saved. And 70,000 people
were located to a safer territory. And
I would say now, with even more planning, that we are even better
prepared.
BURGESS: You talk about the close relationship that
you have with NORTHCOM and with FEMA.
The National Guard – one thing that has been suggested is if the
National Guard is truly going to take a point position in homeland defense
missions and whether or not – whether they should do that. And I’m curious in knowing whether you feel
that that is appropriate and, if so, there is nowhere in United States law or
statute that the National Guard’s role in homeland defense is actually spelled
out. It’s been suggested that that
could be a severe disadvantage because this is not codified in law. I’m wondering if you could address that and
what you think should be done to formalize that particular position?
ETTER: Well, that was addressed a little bit in the
National Defense Authorization of 2008.
There is some work on the National Defense Authorization of 2009 about –
and that’s why I’m going and, quite frankly, it changes every day. I think what we need to understand is that
the National Guard has to be apart, and just de-facto, will always be
apart. We’re in 3,200 different
locations with armories and air wings.
That is almost a citizen-soldier or a citizen-airman in every zip
code. Just because of being close,
being the first military responder, we will de-facto be a part of any plan no
matter what anyone says. Always
ready. Always there. That’s us.
BURGESS: But the fact that this is not actually
formalized and spelled out in the Department of Homeland Security, which has I
believe responsibility for supervising – if there were to be a weapons of mass
destruction in the United States ...
ETTER: Yes.
Yes.
BURGESS: The National Guard has all of the equipment
and expertise to respond to that, as far as I’m aware of, within the Department
of Defense. That National Guard has
most of the capability to respond to an event like that. If it’s not spelled out in advance, who has
control of that type of event? Don’t
you think that that can contribute to some chaos and confusion at a time when
you really don’t have that time to spend in that ...
ETTER: I don’t think so.
BURGESS: ... in that kind of condition?
ETTER: I don’t think so. I think we’ve done as – just recently in the National Defense
Authorization Act, there was a sub-sec called 1814, which required a report on
that. We have sat down and codified
some of those relationships in a report to Congress. And again, there’s ongoing work in that direction, but I talk
probably daily with NORTHCOM and weekly with FEMA. We’re very close. We’re
tied up. And I don’t think that there’s
anybody that’s going to do anything to prevent a rapid and effective response
from the National Guard or any and all forces –be they state or federal – that
we can use to help people.
BENDER: You came from the Vermont National Guard, so
you obviously have the perspective of being – of working for a governor in a
state and having to deal with possible challenges. Talk a little bit if you can – you know, there’s been criticism,
particularly among members of Congress, that the National Guard has always been
kind of a stepchild to the Department of Defense. In other words, equipment, training is sort of
hand-me-downs. Its – the active duty
forces get the best stuff first. The
National Guard gets whatever is left over.
And that goes for budget deliberations and such. And there’s been concern and support for
giving the National Guard a greater voice at the table when all of the senior
leadership of the military gets down – sits down and decides how to divvy up
the pie, if you will. Do you think the
National Guard has enough of a role? I
mean, state governors complain sometimes that they shut out of some of these
deliberations. How does the Guard,
particularly since it’s so critical now, how does it make sure that it’s not an
afterthought? I mean, it does have a
very critical homeland security role here at home.
ETTER: Well, if I could answer that in three parts,
first of all, we had the past. And in
the past, there are instances where we did not have front-line equipment, and
that’s quite true. At the present, I’d
say it’s getting much better. We are
getting a large amount of equipment in that is new, front-line, very usable for
America. As for conversations as what’s
the appropriate role of senior military leaders in the Guard, I believe is what
you categorized that as, those discussion are ongoing even as we speak this
week and next week. And there is
legislation out there that proposes that the Chief of the National Guard should
be a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
That I believe is a legislative discussion that another channel on
C-SPAN plays Monday through Friday, and as directed members of Congress,
they’ll come down and they’ll pass the law either way. The good news is things are getting better
as we talk.
BURGESS: If it’s appropriate for the National Guard
to be the tip of the spear, as it were, in homeland defense missions, who
should have control on the scene in those types of missions? Should it be the Adjutant’s General and the
state governors? Or should control be
ceded to DOD since these missions are invariably going to be joint? In the past, it – the National Guard troops
have been federalized pretty rapidly but there’s also been argument on the
parts of Adjutant General that control should remain in the hands of the National
Guard.
ETTER: Absolutely.
Perhaps I need to say that the National Guard has not been mobilized
domestically that much. What we need to
look at is more of importance is who is being supported here? And in – we have two cases where the local
on-scene commander is the person that we support, the civilian responder, to
ensure that we can do things such as save property, ensure civil
stability. The governor is the person
that domestically controls the National Guard when in the United States, and that’s
the way it should be. I don’t see
there’s any reason for the debate of whether the forces should be federalized
and put under the Department of Defense because right now it works just
fine. We both pitch in. We have a thing called Unity of Effort, and
in most cases if I walk up to another person in a uniform, I don’t know what
service they’re from. We’re both highly
trained, highly experienced, we don’t – we know what needs to get done. We look at the situation and go, that’s what
we need to do, and press forward. So
there are some that kind of look at this debate and think it’s a great problem,
and I don’t. I think that we have a
great combination of forces that we can bring between the Department of Defense
and the National Guard. And the end of
the day, though, the governor is the Commander in Chief of the National Guard
forces, and so long as that control is there, it ought to remain there.
BURGESS: What is the disadvantage of doing it the
other way, of putting control into the Department of Defense and federalizing
the whole operation?
ETTER: Well, it’s the question, “Who has the
responsibility?” The governor is the
elected official in the – of that state has the responsibility to ensure the
citizens are safe. And if that – he or
she has the responsibility then they need the authority to go along with that. And that would be a disconnect in the
authority to do that.
BURGESS: I think what I hear you saying is that the
governor is the person who knows the state, what the state needs and the
state’s people need better, perhaps, than the federal government at large?
ETTER: Well, in most cases the governor has lived
there most of their entire lives.
They’re well-familiar. They’re
on a first-name basis with the Cabinet, the police chiefs, and that’s why it is
most appropriate. And they’re looking
out for the welfare of the people in that state.
BENDER: I’d like to talk a little bit about the
individual Guardsmen or Guardswomen.
The Army National Guard as well as the Air National Guard obviously, up
until recent years, the National Guard was truly a part-time commitment. You had a civilian job and then a weekend a
month and perhaps a week or two a year, you’d go for training, that sort of
thing. Now that it’s become in some
cases a full-time job or certainly a lot more than people had signed up for, is
there a concern that the Guard, like the Army and the Marine Corp and some of
the active duty forces, will have trouble recruiting enough skilled personnel
in the right specialties to fill your needs given that a lot of these Guardsmen
feel like their active duty soldiers because they’ve been deployed so many
times in recent years?
ETTER: Well, let me say this about that: I think right now it’s important to realize
that the Army Guard is at about 102 percent.
They’ve done very well lately recruiting. The Air National Guard is up 400 to 600 people – I’m trying to
get the exact number in my head – in the last few months. We went through a initial period right after
the start of hostilities post-911 where there was a great deal of long-duration
mobilizations. The important thing to
do was to find a model that we could sustain for a long time if required. And that, of course, is up to our
leadership. But what would be the right
mix? It’s not likely during the global
war on terrorism that we’re going to go to two weeks a year. But what is the mix that’s appropriate that
can find a balance between families, employers and the personal service so that
– the Guard is different than active duty.
Different is not bad or good, but it is different. So I think the model that we’ve settle into
now – we have a – what’s called an AEF Construct on the Air side. And we have rotations on the Army side – the
one-in-five and the going over for approximately 30 to 60 days on the AEF on a
more frequent basis, seems to be about the right fit of balancing the needs of
the nation with what someone can do for the long haul. But it is – the pendulum was not in the
right place three years ago. And it’s in
a much better place now.
ECHEVARRIA: Just to take a second, you’re watching
“Newsmakers” with our guest, Major General William Etter with the National
Guard Bureau. He’s the director of the
Joint Staff, also being interviewed by our reporters, Brian Bender of The
Boston Globe and Lisa Burgess of Stars and Stripes. Lisa Burgess.
BURGESS: Your statement that it’s not likely during
the global war on terror that National Guard’s going to be going back to two
weeks. I believe most of the people in
government that I’ve heard talking about the global war on terror have said
that this is going to be an extremely long war, although that term really isn’t
used much anymore as a formal state-of-the-art term. Nobody has suggested that the global war on terror is going to be
over any time in my lifetime. So it
sounds to me like, going back to Brian’s question that the National Guard is
actually turning into an entirely different animal. This is no longer your father’s National Guard. How do you think that benefits need to be
changed or incentives need to be changed to make it easier for people to stay
in the National Guard at the type of operational tempos and demands that you’re
placing on them now?
ETTER: Well, that’s a very good question because
you’re quite correct. This is not the
National Guard of 20 years ago. And
it’s not likely in the immediate future that we’ll go back to that type of
steady state. So it is appropriate to
review the benefits and look and see if that’s now – we currently have
strategic reserve benefits for an Operational Reserve National Guard. They don’t match anymore. There’s certain unfairness to our
people. We ask people to do places – to
pick up, leave their families for a year, go to working environments that are
very difficult, very dangerous as we’ve sadly found out in some cases – and the
heat, the family separation, there’s a lot of stresses there. And our benefits package that we’ve had was
based on the two weeks a year that you’d mentioned. So those do need to close review. Members of Congress have been looking at that. Members in the DOD have been looking at the
policy. I believe we’re working in the
right direction, but there’s still more work to do.
BENDER: On that point, the Guard has obviously had
to improve relations with civilian employers, as well, because of how the
nature of the mission has changed. And
we hear some reports, perhaps anecdotal, that some Guardsmen because they are
away much longer than they had intended, deployed you know for far longer
periods of time then their civilian employees had expected that some are coming
back to find their jobs aren’t there. Or someone else has been put in that position. And we hear stories of National Guardsmen
who, in addition to that sacrifice they’re making by going overseas to Iraq or
Afghanistan, are losing out financially.
Not only is the benefit package perhaps not matching or at the level
that it should be, but when they get, they find that their civilian life is
sort of up in the air as well and they have to start over. What is the National Guard Bureau doing to
try and smooth that transition and that relationship with civilian employers?
ETTER: Well, we have a number of people that work
in a place called the ESGR, Employee Support of the Guard and Reserve. There’s a law called USERRA. And USERRA’s supposed to guarantee that if
an airman or soldier is called away that they do come back to a compatible
position. No one who wears this uniform
is doing it for the money. I mean,
you’re doing it for the nation and the pride we have in that. But without the strong support of the
employers – and I, personally, am on a six-month active duty tour. I’m going back to my civilian employer on
the first of July. If I didn’t have the
strong support from them, I couldn’t do what I do. That said, occasionally like for any large-scale event, there’s
pockets of ones and twos of perhaps employers who didn’t know the law. But the ones that do, have treated our
people very well. And without their
strong support, it wouldn’t work. So
this is a partnership.
BURGESS: I’m going press you for a little bit more in
terms of specifics on some of these things we’re talking about. What is the National Guard’s priority when
you talk about benefits and changing incentives? What are your priorities?
There’ve been a number of things that have been suggested. I know they talked about promotions based on
skills instead of longevity; changing some of the medical access; recognizing
civilian skills when people enter military service. Can you say what the Guard’s priorities are and how near-term
they may be?
ETTER: Well, these priorities – there’s basically
two types of ways of
looking
at that. Some of the debates about
educational benefits and retirement benefits and such, those are done at the
Congressional level. There are other
organizations that are not part of the National Guard but that weigh in, as in
anything in Washington, D.C. We at the
Guard really try to look at the things, just as you made sense – that you
talked about that make sense. If you’re
an accountant in your civilian job, so do you need to go to a one-year accountant
school or, hey, this is what you do every day, can’t you just transfer that
skill set over? We have some incredibly
amazingly well-trained people. We have
vice presidents of hospitals who are transplant surgeons. These are the type of skills that don’t need
another three years to learn how to do it because they actually teach people in
their civilian world. So we try to
address the, I would call it policy-type decisions that affect the training and
the regulations. And the members of
Congress are, again on one of the other channels you can see that, are going
through the “are we at the appropriate level of benefits for the outside?”
BENDER: When the Guard – when the Department of
Defense calls up the Guard for specific missions, obviously they look at times
for specific skill sets that they – the commander in Iraq or Afghanistan is
looking for. When the Guard goes to
support a request like that, do you look at the skill sets from the other
side? In other words, Massachusetts for
example – there have been Guard call-ups for – that have deprived, perhaps,
small towns or cities of policemen, firemen.
As you well know, a lot of National Guardsmen are also first responders
in their civilian job, not just in their role as the National Guard. Does the Guard do any assessment of how
pulling a unit out of a state might affect that? In other words, if there’s a town that has only six police, but
three of them are on deployment to Iraq because they’re in the National Guard,
does that play into your decisions on who to call up?
ETTER: Yes.
I mean, this is – there – the National Guard prefers to deploy and
remain as an element. They train as an
element. They go to their, you know,
annual trainings as an element. They –
it’s just part of how a military would employ, not onsies and twosies. That said, if there is a case just as you
had mentioned, where it would be a big effect on the local town there is a
little bit of flexibility. When you
take a unit, you take number like 80 or 90 percent. It’s not the last 100 percent.
We would look at things also such as if someone is in college. OK, they need one more semester to
graduate. Well, they can go the next
time. Because it is – this is
cyclical. When you call up the Guard,
you call up America. And you do exactly
what you just said – that’s teachers, firefighters. These are members of the community. That’s part of our strength that keeps us connected with America,
but that also does cause some hardship because the town has to pick up some of
the load or the challenges. There are
also compacts to bring other people in.
So at the end of the day, it’s going to be covered. But that is a shared responsibility or
challenge to these small towns.
ECHEVARRIA: We have about a minute left. Lisa Burgess.
BURGESS: On that same point of asking people to
deploy repeatedly, how is – last year they changed the requirement for the
24-month call-up from making that a 24 months of cumulative to making it 24
months consecutive or, I’m sorry, the other way around – 24 months consecutive
call-up/24 cumulative. How’s that
working for the Guard? Is that starting
– are you starting to see a sense of overstressing in terms of the amount of –
that you’re deploying people now?
ETTER: Well, we’re not trying to do it that
way. We’re trying to get into a
train-deploy-rest cycle to get away from a little here, a little there. So at cycle – you go over with the unit,
remain as a unit and go through the training.
BURGESS: So it’s more efficient to do it this way?
ETTER:
It’s more efficient to do the “go over
once, then to go over a little bit, then come back” for the Army Guard
units. The Air Guard has got this
figured out pretty well with the AEF, and it’s not a problem for them.
BENDER: What kind of budget are you currently
working with and what are you looking for in the future?
ETTER: Well, the budget in the specific Joint Staff
that I have is up to about $80 million.
We do not purchase things. And
that’s where you start getting into large numbers. Budget is always a challenge.
And it’s going to be – it’s a challenge for all the services this
year. And it’s something, again, the
elected members need to take a hard look and look at recapitalizing some of
that equipment. That it’s just going to
wear out over time.
ECHEVARRIA: Thank you, General Bill Etter. We’re out of time. Thanks for being on “Newmakers.”
ETTER: Thanks for having me here today. It’s been an honor and privilege and I hope,
again, everyone keeps the sacrifice of the Americans in their thoughts over
this Memorial Day Weekend.
(break)
ECHEVARRIA: Brian Bender, when we began our discussion,
you asked the Major General about the condition of the Guard, especially when
it comes to its domestic role. What did
you get from his responses?
BENDER: Well, I mean I think General Etter makes
clear this enormous struggle that the Guard is engaged in to fulfill its
primary mission, which is to protect the homeland, to be ready for the
aftermath of a hurricane or some civil disturbance or, God forbid, a weapons of
mass destruction attack. But it’s
overseas a lot more than it’s ever been to support the Army, the Marine Corp,
the other active duty forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it’s a constant struggle that I think with no end in sight
because there’s this long strong that goes back way before 911 over who
controls the Guard. They were initially
state militias under the control of the governors. It goes back to the days of state’s rights, that we want our own
force to protect our own homesteads.
But in recent years, as the Guard has been more federalized – is the
term of our days – the President has called them up for a overseas mission,
that mission back at home is getting harder and harder to do. And they’re trying to work that out. And like I said, I think that General Etter
makes it clear that there’s really no easy solution to it.
ECHEVARRIA: And Lisa Burgess, you followed up about the
international commitment that we have and how it affects the domestic
commitment. What did you take away from
what the General was saying?
BURGESS: Well, I would have liked to have heard a
little bit more in the way of specifics from him, but it’s a budget issue for
them. And like he said, all of the
services are in competition for a relatively small pot of money. And he was talking about recapitalizing
equipment and that, again, is something that all of the services are sort of
focusing on because they are using up equipment at a very fast rate. It’s getting damaged in the war and – or
burned out or destroyed completely and whether it’s the responsibility of the
states to replace some of that, or is it the responsibility of the Pentagon to
replace it. And it’s a fight for a very
small pot of dollars. And ...
ECHEVARRIA: Let’s go back to – one of you, I think it
was you Brian – that talked about, I guess, the Guard being the stepchild to
the other branches of the military.
Does it go back to that or is it part of that as an afterthought of the
Guard’s role in light of everything else?
BENDER: I think that’s a big part of it. The General talked a little bit about the
wrangling that’s going on over giving the Guard a bigger voice in the
deliberations over the budget at the front end. Who gets what and sort of what the priority list is? The Congress, for a number of years now, has
– it has finally codified it in law – has been very supportive of putting a
Four-Star General in the National Guard on the National Joint Chiefs of Staff
along with heads of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines, and that
that would ensure that the Guard was literally at the table when they decide
who gets what. There’s been tremendous
resistance to do that on the part of the active duty military. And it gets back to Lisa’s point. Everybody in Washington is fighting over
budgets. And if there’s another person
at that table to advocate for the Guard, it’s going to be very difficult not to
listen to them. So it will be
interesting to see how they work that out.
Clearly they have to follow the law.
But as in a lot of these things, they’re going to figure out how to
follow it in their own way. And I’m not
sure it’s going to satisfy some members of Congress.
UNIDENTIFIED
PARTICIPANT: Lisa Burgess, you’ve
talked about – as the role of the Guard because – becomes more term as far as
resources are concerned for actual Guard members, you kind of questioned him on
a sense of a need for change there as well.
BURGESS: Yes, there’s something kind of interesting
going on here. And I think it’s – he
sort of eluded to it when he was talking about the shared sacrifices that
they’re making in – overseas. At the
time that the Guard is suffering somewhat in terms of readiness, equipment-wise
and their stuff is getting used up, they now have the most experienced Guard
that they have had maybe since the Civil War or Revolutionary days. And this is actually helping them
enormously. When you talk about them
being sort of the red-headed stepchild of the military and being treated like
second-class citizens, it’s much easier for them to have that voice at the
table because they have been in Iraq, they are seasoned warriors, they are
taking much more seriously now than they used to be. And it’s easier for them to step up and be taken seriously when
they, when they speak and when they say – It used to be – the attitude used to
be, “Why do you need this advanced equipment, you can’t use it, you’ll just
destroy it anyway. You folks are not
competent to use this.” Now it’s been
demonstrated that they can, in fact, use this stuff. We all wear the same uniform, as he said, unless I actually turn
around and you see my patch, you wouldn’t know if I was active duty or
not.
BENDER: Yes, that’s a very good point. And I think it’s why I’d be betting on the
National Guard because it’s true, it’s harder and harder for the “powers that
be” to treat the Guard as this stepchild or – that’s a bad term – but, you
know, this afterthought because the military also realizes they are
tremendously reliant on the National Guard.
BURGESS: Yes.
BENDER: I mean, they can’t fight the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan with their current active duty numbers without the National
Guard. So I think going forward it’s
going to be interesting to see how they work it out. But they’re going to have to work it out because the Guard can’t
be left hanging.
UNIDENTIFIED
PARTICIPANT: Brian Bender is the
national defense correspondent for The Boston Globe. Lisa Burgess is the Pentagon reporter for Stars and Stripes. Happy Memorial Day to both of you. And thank you for being on the “Newsmakers.”
BENDER: Sure.
BURGESS: Thank you for having me.
END