My last assignment was a National Guard advisor/trainer. One of the things
we checked for was to ensure that no fire, law enforcement, and a few other
professions were in the units as they could not be called up to active duty
in time of war. All of them were discharged honorably. I see now the
Guardsmen on our ship come from exactly those professions so there must have
been some change since '88.

M.


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:15:48 -0500, thunder said:

I've always thought that the active/guard mix is a direct result of an
all
volunteer military. It's kept lean and mean during peacetime
necessitating guard usage during a war.

I understand that it's not just a matter of pure numbers. The plan was to
structure the active force to be deliberately super-lean only in some
areas.
There might be enough people on active duty in absolute numbers, but not
in
sufficient numbers in some specialties, requiring calling up guardsmen in
those specialties. You're right that it was related to the all volunteer
force. The concern was that as we went to an all volunteer force the gulf
between the military and civilians would continue to widen. But if
firemen,
policemen and other civilians would get called up in time of emergency the
isolation of the military would be reduced.

I would also suggest a draft
brings in a wider cross-section of the public than an all volunteer
service.

I seem to recall seeing figures on this, but can't recall what they
showed.
I do recall vividly that before the volunteer army there was a great hue
and
cry from the usual suspects about how our wars were fought on the backs of
the po' folks. I also recall that among those who couldn't get classified
4F
(this was before the lottery) there was an amazing increase in enrollment
in Ph.D programs in time of war, as well as a rapid expansion of
participation in "critical" jobs such as teaching. And at the time neither
group could be fairly said to be a representative cross-section of the
public.




Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27