Army Reorganization News

My Association of the United States Army Washington Update has some interesting factoids.

The Army is authorized to add 30,000 new soldiers and can keep them to 2009.

The Army has moved 40,000 positions out of the reserves and put them in the active force. 100,000 slots are being examined.

The National Guard and reserves are having their structure cut so that units will be overstrength. This will allow people to go to schools and otherwise be absent from the unit without making that unit undeployable. I would add that this will make it possible to deploy units without raiding other units to bring the deploying unit up to strength. I think this is called cross-leveling. This kills the donating unit until it can replace the losses and train up to standards again.

The Army expects to have 39 brigade combat teams (the units of action) by the end of 2005. (calendar or fiscal year, I do not know). These brigades will be able to operate independently or be plugged into other divisions.

While I rarely read anything on the idea of eliminating corps headquarters, the new divisions (units of emplyment) will function like corps of old (and like a Marine Expeditionary Force). The Army's chief of staff, General Schoomaker noted that 1st CAV Division controls 62 US and coalition battalions like a corps would do.

The article notes (what I'd already read) that the ARNG's 42nd Infantry Division will deploy to Iraq and command 2 brigade combat teams of the 3rd ID plus enhanced separate brigades from Tennessee and Idaho. With a Guard divisional flag being used, is this the last hurrah for Guard divisions or will they be retained in some number? The plan I'd read to reorganize the Guard into 34 brigade combat teams didn't mention the divisions. Will they be retained? With the divisions becoming the new corps in essence, one can argue we don't need 8 Guard division headquarters with 12 active headquarters (including two that command ARNG brigades--the "integrated" divisions).

On the other hand, they might be useful as a reserve for a larger war in case we need to reconstitute divisions. It is always tougher to train the higher headquarters. And officers in the reserves need career paths above brigade commander. I'd keep the division headquarters while understanding that their brigades are there just for administrative purposes. In war, the brigades would be mobilized and parcelled out to divisions in the active component as needed. Guard divisional headquarters could be mobilized for specific purposes (as in Iraq or as was done in Bosnia) but otherwise be left as the deep bench to build new units.

AUSA usually has good information. And they provide a lot for your membership dollar.