[Note from Donald Sensing - the author, John Krenson, has extensive overseas military experience in eastern Europe going back well into the 1990s. He is also a veteran of the Afghanistan campaign. I am proud to call him my friend and welcome him as a contributor. I have included some biographical information at the end of the post.]

Debate rages over the two traditional roles of the Guard – the war time mission and the civil defense/natural disaster mission. In wartime should the Guard be relied upon for combat forces or for support forces? Should the civil defense role of the Guard be expanded to or even limited to border security of the Homeland? Yet not many know that a third mission has developed quietly - and yet not quite so quietly – over the last dozen years that has had unforeseen significant impact on the War on Terror.

Some Background

The long term role of the National Guard has long been and seems even more today to be of considerable debate. Before examining this role three historical points come to mind including recent history and current events.

The National Guard has made up a significant percentage of forces used in nearly every major war or conflict with the exception of Vietnam. Consider the following numbers:

Civil War – 96% of Union troops provided by state militias; 80% of Confederate troops from state militias.

WW I – Nearly 400,000 National Guard/Reserve troops served.

WW II – Almost 300,000 National Guard/Reserve troops served.

Since then:

And since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the National Guard has provided 352,000 personnel for active duty.

During the Gulf War of 1990-1991, combat maneuver units of the Army National Guard were held and “recycled” through training over and over again and were not deployed. A National Guard brigade was finally certified as combat ready at the National Training Center (NTC) in California on the last day of combat in the Gulf War after spending nearly four months at NTC (note that active duty combat units spent 7 to 8 months training in the deserts of Saudi Arabia before engaging in combat). However over 235,000 Guard and Reserve troops served in varying capacities in the Gulf War including tens of thousands in Saudi Arabia and later Kuwait.

It has been widely reported that Guard and Reserve forces now make up nearly 40% of US forces in Iraq alone and these include multiple Guard combat units from combat Divisions on down to independent support Companies.

(For an interesting history of the Guard from 1980 through 1999 see here.)

Regardless of the debate for the future of the Guard and Reserve it is clear both in history and current operations that the United States has relied heavily and successfully on the Guard and Reserve in times of significant war and conflict, including all three main types of units, combat units, combat support and combat service support organizations.

One of the primary roles of the Guard during the Cold war was to provide strategic depth as a deterrent to the Soviet behemoth. The elimination of that strategic need as much as any other reason has led to the debate of the future role of the Guard and Reserve. So what is the mission of the Guard in particular?

The Roles

Traditionally the Guard has two missions, which can be easily gleaned from, say, the standing missions for a National Guard Military Police Battalion:

a. The battalion’s federal-service mission is to provide command, control, and coordination for combat, combat support and combat service support operation of all Military Police elements assigned or attached.

b. The battalion’s peacetime State Mission statement is to conduct operations in support of the protection of life and property and the preservation of peace, order and public safety as directed by the Governor of the State and the Adjutant General.

I seek here neither seek to frame nor resolve the debate over the future priority of these two roles or how they are carried out, nor even address the proposed role of using the Guard to exclusively protect the nation’s borders (another debate indeed). I wish to inform readers of what has developed over the last 12 years as a non-traditional role or mission of the Guard as an instrument in improving interoperability between United States and “partner” nations’ forces. The United States has come to rely upon the National Guard for aiding in the development of foreign armies - particularly those of the former Soviet Bloc in Europe and Central Asia. And this has been going on since 1993. Surprised?

Who Knew?

Here is a basic summary of the history of this involvement:

The National Guard State Partnership Program was established in 1993 in response to the radically changed political-military situation following the collapse of Communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Authorities questioned how the National Guard, having provided the United States with strategic credibility during the Cold War, could continue to be relevant in an era when defense of the Fulda Gap was no longer the driving force behind America’s national defense strategy.

Mindful of the uniqueness and strengths of the Guard’s citizen-soldiers, the National Guard Bureau foresaw a unique opportunity to make a lasting contribution to solidifying the newly established peace. Our response was the State Partnership Program (SPP). Elegantly simple in concept, the SPP sought to link the National Guards of the States of the United States with Ministries of Defense of the emerging democratic nations of Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia in cooperative activities of mutual benefit. In no way seeking to replace the bilateral relationships appropriate to national level diplomacy, the SPP aimed to enhance those connections by bringing “Hometown America” onto the international stage through personal, sustained relationships. These associations would build a “Bridge to America,” establishing and nurturing bonds of mutual understanding at the grass roots level.

What is particularly interesting is that NATO determined a similar need and thus established the better known Partnership For Peace program in 1994 - a year after the establishment of the SPP. Since then the SPP has become the primary means of US support to the PFP program and consists of 41 State National Guard programs plus those of Guam and Puerto Rico. This map displays National Guard states and their partner nations:

Primary objectives include -

— familiarizing partner nations with our equipment, tactics and training methods,

— the crucial role of our noncommissioned officers corps,

— demonstrating the importance and success of suborning the military to civil authority.

A significant purpose of this program is also to provide humanitarian aid, the injection of economic aid through the money spent on exercises and by US National Guard troops on the local economy while serving there, and the development of relationships and trust between the two nations – the US and the respective partner. Exercises often include a healthy dose of cultural activities designed for the expenditure of money and the social interaction between soldiers as they learn to trust one another, to develop an appreciation and respect for one another’s culture, and to learn how to interact breaking through cultural, ethnic, and language barriers. The impact on the local citizenry is positive and important as well.

A High-Payoff Target

The payoff has been significant and I can at least anecdotally attest that my experience as a Tennessee Army National Guard officer in nearly a dozen SPP exchanges – both in Bulgaria and with Bulgarians visiting Tennessee – helped me immensely in working successfully with an international staff during my service in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. I have heard the same from frontline Tennessee Guard soldiers who participated in previous PFP/SPP exercises in regard to their work with Iraqi and other Coalition soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom. As a result of our work in PFP/SPP the Coalition environment was not strange and unfamiliar to us and actually caused us to look forward to working with soldiers of other nations.

The relationships developed and nurtured through SPP with Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan have also been instrumental in our success in Afghanistan. The integration of new US allies from the former East Bloc – significant OIF troop contributors such as Poland, Ukraine, and Bulgaria – has been smoothed by years of the SPP/PFP relationship with National Guard states. It is through the SPP that these soldiers have learned how to work with US soldiers, tactics, and equipment whether those units be from their partner National Guard states or from the active component.

SPP has also prepared our troops – the limited number exposed to SPP in the National Guard – for working with soldiers of other nations and cultures. While active forces have trained for years in and along with other nations, the National Guard is leading the way for real coalition integration with our new allies.

I am certain the debate over the Guard and Reserve will rage on. Whether to cut reliance on combat units in the Guard or to shift our mission to a glorified border patrol there will be those in the bowels of the Pentagon and at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE)/NATO who will keep a sharp eye on preserving the ever increasing important role of the National Guard in mentoring and improving the interoperability of our new partner nations – the partners who also just happen to be the nations who’ve stepped up to the plate in recent years. They are truly partners for true peace.

Maj. John Krenson is a Tennessee Army National Guard officer and independent civilian businessman – a true traditional Guardsman. He is a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom having served as the Chief Intelligence Liaison Officer between US Coalition Forces and NATO Forces in Kabul, Afghanistan. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for exceptionally meritorious service there and now serves as the Operations Officer for the 168th Military Police Battalion, Tennessee Army National Guard. Maj. Krenson has been involved in PFP/SPP programs since 1996 having visited Bulgaria four times and having received Bulgarian officers in Tennessee nearly half a dozen times. He is currently the lead US planner for the largest SPP event in the history of the program.