Shortage of Equipment Threatens National Guard Preparednesss

By Diane M. Grassi


The national disasters suffered in the United States Gulf region this year from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma may have reaped a silver lining after all. Although mass criticism has been lodged against federal, state and local governments as well as at key elected officials and government appointees, the necessary disaster relief efforts exposed deficiencies concerning the nation’s preparedness in both disaster relief and homeland security, with respect to the state of equipment inventories used by the Army National Guard. While the news is less than encouraging, it may in the end result in a better run equipment replenishment system and ultimately help in saving the lives of American soldiers.

Since the official beginning of the War in Iraq, equipment availability problems and replenishment have largely had an impact on Reserve and Guard troops fighting abroad and upon return stateside. The Department of Defense provides the most modern equipment to units that deploy first. Later deploying troops such as most Army National Guard units inherit older items in the Army’s inventory. In addition, the National Guard serves a dual state and federal role unlike active duty combat troops. The problem comes in when 50% of the active duty troops are made up of Reserve and Guard soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, limited in some cases to inferior training equipment due to deployed gear, and in effect, equipment shortages stateside.

Because Army National Guard units have been told by the Department of Defense to leave such vital items such as helicopters, trucks, amphibious vehicles, construction cranes, satellite communications, radios, and night vision goggles in Iraq, it leaves the Guard in the U.S. vulnerable in fully carrying out emergency operations such as natural disasters. But even though it is logical that much equipment must be left in Iraq as the U.S. military has no end date for operations there, there is no system in place to replenish necessary equipment which has been removed from individual U.S. states, to have it available for either U.S. emergencies or enforcement of national security.

According to the National Guard Bureau, the federal entity responsible for the administration of both the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the problem continues to get worse across the country, as a great deal of Guard equipment comprised of approximately 64,000 items valued at more than $1.2 billion, has either been destroyed or left in Iraq and the Army cannot account for over one half of it. One would think that the Department of Defense has knowledge however of what equipment has been deployed and that which needs replacement. But stunningly revealed in a Government Accountability Report in October 2005 at the request of the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Army “does not have a complete accounting of these items or a plan to replace the equipment.”

A Department of Defense policy, DOD Directive 1225.6, “requires the services to develop a replacement plan for equipment transferred from the reserve component to the active component for more than 90 days.” But the Army only centrally tracks “the portion of the Guard’s equipment that it expects will remain in the theater for the duration for current operations…..Items that units transfer to other units may also remain in theater for up to 3 years.” But the Army does not have a complete accounting of these items because they are not tracked centrally.

When asked by the GAO why the Guard does not know when or if the items will be returned to National Guard bases stateside it was told by Army officials that “they did not track and develop plans to replace Guard equipment because there were many other priorities in the early phases of the war, and the strategy of having units leave some equipment was expected to be a short-term measure.” However, the U.S. is far past the early stages of the war at present. And an underlying problem for deployed National Guard units is that lack of accountability of the Guard’s equipment stocks retained overseas has resulted in the lack of assuredness of which equipment is needed to bring and which will be left for the training of troops potentially deploying.

Many natural disasters as well as terrorism come without warning. In the case of hurricanes there is a time period for evacuation, unlike tornadoes or earthquakes. As to the final damages and loss of life from such, there is no telling. And when disaster strikes in the U.S. the National Guard, while belonging to individual states under the auspices of each state governor, in a national disaster the president has the prerogative to federalize Guard troops. However, the various types of equipment available as well as Guard members are limited to what each state can provide. In that regard, many governors have been outspoken in calling for more transparency between the Department of Defense and states’ governors in order to better protect Americans stateside.

With only 34% of essential war fighting equipment in the U.S. according to Mark Allen, chief spokesman for the National Guard Bureau, down from 75% prior to September 11, 2001, many governors and lawmakers in Washington now believe that Hurricane Katrina “was more complicated because of the Guard’s equipment shortages,” according to the GAO report. Although governors have agreements to share equipment in a federal emergency with the Guard in other states, it is believed that there is only so long that such a system will suffice. Given the long-range deployment of troops in Iraq and proposed homeland security duties stateside, recently announced by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, the future equipping of Guard units will appear to get more and more complex.

Senator Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-MO) who heads the Senate National Guard Caucus said, “The Guard has a dangerously low level of equipment as the primary responder to domestic disasters.” And P.J. Crowley, Director of Homeland Security at the Center for American Progress and a former member of the National Security Council states that “The Guard’s expanded mission hasn’t yet translated into expanded resources and equipment.”

While the GAO report points out that the Guard “is working on an old business model in which it only deployed in the later stages of a major conflict if needed,” both the Senate and House of Representatives Armed Services Committees have inserted extensions concerning acquisition reforms for equipment in their versions of the fiscal 2006 Defense Authorization bills, still presently pending ratification. It is worth noting that the 2006 Defense Authorization bill must reach the desk of President Bush by November 18, 2005 in order to avoid a defense-spending shortfall for Fiscal Year 2006, which commenced October 1, 2005. It provides funding for the War in Iraq through February 2006.

Bringing to light to issues such as shortfalls in equipment for our troops and in systems management is but an example of support for those most deserving of attention. Whether or not one agrees with the political landscape involved, it is crucial to remain supportive of our troops. Sometimes, however, it requires delving beneath the surface, for the United States only remains as strong as are our armed forces. On this Veteran’s Day, we remain united. Godspeed to each and every one of our troops!