The Army National Guard’s Restructuring for Homeland Security

CIAO DATE: 08/04

The Army National Guard’s Restructuring for Homeland Security

Colin Robinson

August 2003

The U.S. Army National Guard (ARNG) as it currently stands is a force with a dual mission, federal military operations abroad and civil assistance at home. Since World War II, the Guard has been primarily organized and structured for its federal mission, and funded by the Department of Defense with federal monies. After the end of the Cold War, that federal mission changed its character from defense of the U.S. very existence in a general war to that of responding to a variety of smaller contingencies world–wide either in a war–fighting or peacekeeping role. A milestone was reached in 2000 with the deployment of the National Guard’s 49th Armored Division from Texas to command the U.S. contingent of the Bosnian peacekeeping force — the first time any Guard formation had assumed such a responsibility.

Since the Sept.11, 2001, terrorist attacks, direct defense of the U.S. homeland has become a much greater concern, and pressure began to build on the Guard to play a greater role in homeland security. Efforts to prepare the Guard for homeland security duties have been underway since 1998, however, though 9/11 gave a greater sense of urgency to the process. While various outside organizations have debated major reorganization of the National Guard for homeland security since September 2001, the National Guard itself had been quietly re–considering its previous plans for structural change and has decided to expand the numbers of some units deemed particularly useful for homeland security. Previously, under what was called the ARNG Division Redesign Study, large numbers of Guard combat units were scheduled to become combat support and combat service support units in order to fill out long–standing shortfalls in support to Army fighting forces abroad.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the requirements for several branches were reassessed. The most publicized change has been the announcement of the ARNG Restructuring Initiative, which will convert several heavy armored formations to wheeled infantry, but it has been determined that the Transportation Corps will not expand as much previously planned — while Military Police, Chemical, and Engineer units will increase.

The Army National Guard Restructuring Initiative was announced by then–Secretary of the Army Thomas White at the annual conference of the National Guard Association of the United States on Sept. 8, 2002.^[1] Under the plan, a number of heavy armored and mechanized brigade, five in the first phase, will be converted to a motorized infantry configuration as ‘Mobile Light Brigades’, probably based upon much use of “Humvees”, the Army’s jeep replacement. These brigades will form part of new ‘Multifunctional Divisions’, and both will be primarily focused upon the lower end of the combat spectrum, but will be capable of handling missions ranging from homeland security and peacekeeping to high–intensity conflict. The battalions that will form the new brigades will look much like the current Air Assault battalions, with their own anti–tank company.

Infantry squads will not have their own vehicles however, as “Humvees” are individually too expensive.^[2]

Plans call for the first new brigade, the 37th Brigade of the 38th Division in Ohio, to stand up by 2008,^[3] and it will probably incorporate elements of Michigan ’s 46th Brigade, which is apparently slated for elimination in 2005.^[4] New York’s 42^nd Division, with three brigades spread across New York and Vermont, is slated to be the second formation to convert to the new status, currently planned for completion by 2012. Beyond that, the 35^th Division in the mid–western status is also programmed to become a multifunctional division at some future point.

The second new initiative is that of expanding the engineer, chemical, and military police forces, either by not eliminating units that were scheduled to disband or by forming new units. Some of the results of the latest Army changes, Total Army Analysis 2009, have now become publicly available.^[5] A number of new engineer companies will be formed, but specific figures are not available. More has been released about military police expansion; 10 new companies of 180 each will form between 2002 and 2007, supported by six new battalion headquarters. In terms of chemical defense units, two new brigade headquarters are in the process of forming, the 31^st in Alabama and the 404^th in Illinois. They will be accompanied by 11 new battalions and 32 new companies from 2002 to 2009. From 2002–04 battalions will form in Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, and in the state of Washington. Six more will form between 2005–2009, spread for national coverage.

In summary, the Army National Guard has realigned its force structure somewhat to face the new demands of the war on terror. The Guard has made an intelligent move in re–equipping of heavy units with lighter vehicles to fit them for a motorized infantry role. These units will be of much greater value for the homeland security role and for a variety of the seemingly endless small–scale contingency deployments. For the future, most indications point toward the Guard slowly assuming homeland security as one of its primary roles, of roughly equal emphasis with additional war–fighting forces for conflicts abroad. Given careful management and thoughtful changes to the mobilization system, the Guard can probably do both roles to a degree, if supported by civilian homeland security assets. However, the Guard must retain the war–fighting role abroad, and should not discard it, because while any modernized combat unit can handle most homeland security missions — quarantine, refugee control, etc — the same is not true of specialized homeland security units being given combat functions. If the Guard is trained to fight, it can carry out its homeland security roles from within its fighting resources; if it is asked to do no more than civil support, there will be no prospect of reinforcement for the active Army even if direly needed.

Endnotes

Note 1: Sean D. Naylor, “ U.S. Army Guard Moves Toward A Lighter Force,” Defense News, Sept. 9&-;15, 2002. Back.

Note 2: Colonel James Barrineau, Chief, Force Management Division, Army National Guard, interview, Oct. 17, 2002. Back.

Note 3: ibid. Back.

Note 4: Bill Shea, “Plan May Make Combat More Likely For Guard,” The Times Herald, Oct. 19, 2002. Back.

Note 5: Colonel Barrineau interview. Back.