MILITARY Many Air Guard troops grounded

Some officials complain that the Guard had no input into the changes.
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
WASHINGTON -- As Missouri officials fight to save the 131st Air National Guard Fighter Wing at Lambert Field, and Illinois does the same for its Air National Guard F-16 unit in Springfield, a broader trend is evident: The Air National Guard stands to take a huge hit nationwide in base closings.
"It's pretty dramatic," said John Goheen, chief spokesman for the National Guard Association. "Our analysis of the data that's been released thus far reveals that about one-third of our flying units will be grounded."
Of 88 Guard flying units around the country, 28 are slated to lose their planes -- a far greater impact from the base closing process than is being felt by other military installations.
The Air National Guard would lose 166 airplanes out of 1,106 planes -- about 15 percent -- under the recommendations of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, now being considered by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
Brig. Gen. Stephen Koper, retired from the Air Force, said the cuts will come at the expense of homeland security in the Midwest, reduced ties around the country between local communities and Guard units, and fewer options for governors in emergencies.
The F-15 wing at Lambert, for example, he said, plays a key deterrent role in "ensuring air sovereignty over the skies of St. Louis" and in protecting the "valuable infrastructure all over the Midwest." Every state now has flying units, but if the recommendations are accepted six no longer will have any, said Koper, president of the National Guard Association, an advocacy group.
What's behind the local closures that have outraged officials like Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, is an aggressive effort at the national level -- where Pentagon and Air Force officials are seeking changes in the Air National Guard and readjusted ties between active and Guard components.
Consolidation
Koper alleged that not only are the changes -- including consolidating smaller units into larger ones at the expense of places like St. Louis and Springfield -- negative in themselves, but that the overall approach was fashioned without input from the Guard. At a meeting in Omaha of the adjutant generals of the Guard of all 50 states a few days ago, he said, the unanimous feeling was that they were excluded from the base closing process.
Some military analysts counter that Rumsfeld's effort to consolidate bases and missions makes sense. The Pentagon has said homeland security issues were considered in drafting its recommendations.
"I think it's totally appropriate," said Jim Carafano, military expert at the Heritage Foundation and a 25-year Army veteran. "It's a recognition that you need to look at the services as a whole, rather than put them in separate boxes, and also that you can't afford the inefficiencies you've had in the Guard in the past, with small bases in a lot of places."
Since the end of the Cold War, Carafano said, military officials have taken a close look at the active force but have largely left reserve branches alone.
"The reserves are a small piece of the pie, but a very politically powerful piece of the pie," he said. "So the feeling at the Pentagon has been, 'Yeah, it's ineffective, yeah we don't really need it the way it is, but leave it alone. The gain's not worth the pain.'"
Loren Thompson, chief operating office of the Lexington Institute, said the Air National Guard helped bring about its current plight.
"The Air Force is trying to implement a concept called the Future Total Force, that integrates the reserves and the active duty force into the best mix of capabilities," he said. "Unfortunately, at the state level the Air National Guard has fairly consistently resisted taking on the missions that the joint force really needs them to do. So now the Guard is complaining about reorganization efforts that would force them to change the way they do business."
For example, Thompson said, the Air Force "desperately needs more support from the Guard on operating unmanned aerial vehicles, but the Guard doesn't want to give up flying missions, so that makes it very difficult for the Air Force to use its scarce assets in the most effective way. The Air Force is trying to use the base closure process to organize itself for a different way of waging war -- and the Guard just doesn't want to give anything up."
But the Guard says it's been excluded from decision-making over the Future Total Force as well. In a letter obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Maj. Gen. David Pataczak, president of the Adjutants General Association, wrote in March to Gen. John Jumper, chief of staff of the Air Force, that homeland defense was being sacrificed as the new policy was formulated. He added that the Guard sought a role in its crafting but was not being "allowed to help in the process."
Guard officials say they understand the need to modernize, but they express consternation that their pilots, who often have more flying hours than active duty counterparts, aren't being asked to fly newer aircraft that are replacing the traditional ones.
"Why couldn't the pilots in St. Louis fly the F-22?" Goheen asked. "Why not use some of your most experienced pilots to fly the next generation of aircraft?"