****UPDATE**** It should be noted that things will get very serious regarding this fight over Selfridge now that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has announced that two rounds of base closings — in 2013 and in 2015 — are part of the new Pentagon budget plan. (Revised Feb. 13, 1:32 a.m.)
In case you missed it, Rep. Candice Miller has already secured some powerful bipartisan backing in the Senate as she fights the Air Force’s plans to remove the 24-plane A-10 squadron from Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Harrison Township.
Miller, a Harrison Township Republican, has tapped into an emerging theme on Capitol Hill that the Air National Guard is taking a disproportionate hit in the new defense budget, though the Guard is considered a cost-effective means of assisting with current and future military missions.
On Thursday, Sens. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, discussed the proposed cuts for the Air National Guard on the Senate floor. Leahy specifically highlighted the expected ANG cuts for Selfridge’s 127th Wing.
Miller, buoyed by the support, said she hopes the entire Michigan delegation joins in fighting cutbacks that will be pursued by the Obama administration in “an unfounded and unfair way.”
Here’s portion of the Leahy/Graham discussion:
Leahy: “I am delighted to see the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, who is joining me to address a matter of great importance to the nation at a crucial moment in our history. …Last week’s briefing and information papers offered enough detail for the Senate to begin considering the overall strategic direction of the Air Force Future Years Defense Program. In Pentagon jargon, that is usually called FYDP. I have to say I am deeply disappointed and very worried as I look at the first glance at that proposal.”
Graham: “…As cochairman of the Guard Caucus, which obviously has the Air National Guard component …the bottom line is, this effort to downsize the Air Force falls incredibly heavy on the Air National Guard. There will be 3,000 active duty members lost regarding the plan he (Leahy) just mentioned, 5,000 coming from the Air National Guard. … In just a moment, we are going to talk about the bang for your buck in terms of the Reserve component called the Air National Guard, and we are going to challenge the Congress and the Department of Defense to reconsider this because, quite frankly, it makes no military or fiscal sense.”
Leahy: “As an example of the approach to the budget cuts, one of the A–10 units slated for cutting, the 127th Wing from Michigan, just returned from fighting bravely in Afghanistan and as a welcome home: ‘Great job. Sorry, we are going to disband you.’
“The approach to budget cuts the Air Force has decided to take is simply wrong. We have to have budget cuts. We know that. But there is a wide variety of reasons why this makes not the sense it should. I draw the Senate’s attention to a study produced by the Pentagon last year that was signed by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs that demonstrated what we already knew: Even when mobilized, Reserve component units are far less expensive than their peer units in the active component.”
“…But the Pentagon report showed something more interesting. It showed the Guard and Reserve save taxpayers’ dollars even when mobilized. The Reserve component units are estimated to be about one-third as expensive as similar Active component units, and they can deploy nearly half as often. That adds up to lot of savings in dollars and cents, but it also reflects a very major component of our security, because in the wars we fought in the last decade, we could not have done it without these Guard and Reserve units.”
Graham: “The Senator is absolutely right. When we look at the utilization of the Guard and Reserve since 9/11, it has been at World War II levels. When we go into the combat theater, we can’t tell the difference between Guard, Reserve or active duty member, which is a testament to all three. But when we look at what the Air Force is doing — and I think it is proper to consider the other services — the Marine Corps is making no reduction to their Reserves. The Army is making very small cuts in the Guard and Reserves and substantial cuts to the active forces. …”
Leahy: “… The bipartisan Guard Caucus will have some very strong statements. We look at what the former Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. Ron Fogelman, said before these plans were announced. He argued for a larger Reserve component and a smaller active duty Force. He … said, among other things: ‘The big question is, how does the department reduce its budget and continue to provide a modern, balanced and ready defense when more than half of the budget is committed to personnel costs?
“’The answer to that question is right before us: We should return to our historic roots as a militia nation. So, what does that mean, exactly? Simply put, it means we should return to the constitutional construct for our military and the days when we maintained a smaller standing military and a robust militia. To do that, leaders must put old parochial norms aside and be willing to actually shift forces and capabilities to the National Guard and Reserve.’
“He … goes on to say: ‘This would enable significant personnel reductions in the active components. It would also result in a larger reserve component. Most important, it would preserve capability and equipment that has cost the American taxpayer trillions of dollars, nest it in our mostly part-time Guard and Reserve, and have it available should it be needed. This concept worked well for our country for the better part of two centuries.
“’Unfortunately, several generations of leaders have come and gone, and most of today’s leadership fails to recognize the true potential of the militia model. We need our collective senior military and civilian leaders to recognize there is a way back to a smaller active military and a larger militia posture. The fiscal environment and emerging threats demand it.’
“Those aren’t my words. Those are the words of a former Air Force chief of staff.”
If you want to obtain the full transcript (there’s much more) you can contact Miller’s office here.
