|
|
Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management Crisis and Emergency Management Newsletter Website |
|
| |
February
2008
Volume 14 -
Number 1 |
|
What’s
the Price for Reservists?
By Theresa Fasceski The independent Commission on the National Guard
and Reserves recommends changes in law and policy to ensure that the Reserves
and National Guard are organized, trained and supported to best meet the
needs of U.S. national security. Its latest report, “Transforming the
National Guard and Reserves into a 21st-Century Operational Force”, states
that the U.S. military’s reserve components are not designed to meet the
new non-nation-state threats, unlike those of the Cold War. The reserve
components must be ready to respond to emergencies at home and abroad.
Changes need to be made to the entire reserve component support structure,
including legislating the expanded roles in emergency management, in order
to meet these new challenges.
I wonder how this commission really expects the DOD reserve components to meet these new goals; not all, if any, of their recommendations will be implemented. Providing enough and the right equipment, adding benefits are simple funding issues. I say simple because the other hurdle involves changing expectations of and for soldiers, sailors and wannabes. In an all-volunteer military, an individual’s decision to join includes comparing time commitment, job description and location. Since 9/11, a National Guardsman has to not only consider committing to natural disaster response but also the amount of time spent in some hot and sandy places. The average Reservist doesn’t “do” this second job for money, but for the challenge or the love of country/state/service. The commission’s report stated that we should rely on the reserve component because there is a tie to the local community and for fiscal reasons. It costs four times more for an Active Duty member; otherwise, we must return to the draft, a politically non-viable option. Plus, once a Reservist retires after twenty years of one weekend-a-month, 2 weeks-a-year, the paycheck, after he/she turns 60, is 10% of the amount at the time of retirement. There are already personnel shortfalls for the Active Duty and reserve components. If a person is required to drill more frequently in order to meet expanded training requirements, will this be a deterrent for recruiting and for those who have already committed years to the service? Yes, there is more income, but there are fewer mental and physical breaks that can put a strain on mental health, the “real” job and home life. As a U.S. Coast Guard Reservist, I have seen our roles expand more into maritime security since 9/11. Our roles have traditionally been emergency management and law enforcement through fisheries and boating safety enforcement, search-and-rescue and pollution prevention and response. I was recalled to Active Duty for two years implementing the new maritime security regulations. I was lucky to be able to live at home, have a reasonable daily commute and earn more than I was in my “real” job. But if I had to start driving every other or third weekend to my Reserve job 5 hours away, I might have to consider resigning with less than 7 years to retirement (first retirement check 18 years later). |