 |
Front & Center - Bridging the Active/Reserve Culture Gap
06/01/2005
June 2005
|
By Maj. William Connor
|
In the March edition of ARMY Magazine, Col. Jeffrey A. Jacobs, USAR, sounded the alarm for reform within the reserve component (RC). He called attention to some observations of reserve culture issues: “I regularly saw senior reserve component leaders who were more concerned with their soldiers’ creature comforts than with their training, discipline and ability to accomplish their mission on the battlefield and come home alive.
“For example, I observed a (reserve) brigade commander whose major concern was the lack of free time on the training schedule.” Col. Jacobs quotes Gen. Taguba’s report to Congress about the reserve 800th Military Police Brigade: “Failure in leadership, sir, from the brigade commander on down. Lack of discipline, no training whatsoever and no supervision.” He claims it is time to find solutions to bridge the culture gap between the reserve components and active component (AC).
I spent 12 years on active duty (Infantry) before joining the reserve component two years ago and can confirm some of the differences and the need to bridge the gap. There are many fine reserve component leaders and units; observations about the 800th Military Police Brigade represent an aberration. In fact, I found that my respect for the reserve component became greater in seeing it firsthand. However, Col. Jacobs explains the problem in a concise manner and is correct in saying, “The fact of the matter is that an AC company commander deals with the challenges inherent in leading 100 soldiers every day; an RC company commander does not.”
Before addressing this problem, I must point out that the patriotism, values and commitment of the leaders in the reserve component are equal to that of the active component. The primary differences come down to experience and focus. Leaders in the active component have one professional commitment in life: the profession of arms. Leaders in the reserve component must exert substantial effort towards their civilian profession while attempting to gain military experience and education. My own RC leadership experience with these divergent commitments is not unique: civilian job (law school/law clerk), completing the Command and General Staff Officer’s Course at night, all while attending to reserve commitments. I found that balancing these multiple requirements was as tough as commanding infantry companies, and other reserve leaders have much tougher civilian challenges.
That said, the reserve culture and experience levels are in need of reform. My solution is to infuse the reserve component with leaders who have substantial active duty experience. By reforming the current reserve retirement system, the Army can encourage a number of long-term (10 years or more) active duty officers and noncommissioned officers to join the reserves. This group of leaders would bring the culture and experience of the active component and enhance the experience level and standards of the RC.
I recommend that we have a separate reserve retirement track for officers and NCOs in the reserves with more then 10 years of active service. Unlike other reservists, these leaders would not have to wait until age 60 to begin retirement pay and benefits. They would be eligible to fully retire at 25 years of service regardless of age. Pay would be computed based on the reserve point system. In addition, these leaders would have to request approval to join the reserves under this retirement track. The approval would be to ensure a quality infusion into the reserves. Soldiers serving in the reserves, particularly those in Civil Affairs, could apply for this retirement system if they went beyond 10 years of total active duty service. This would have the added benefit of encouraging reserve soldiers to volunteer for operational assignments and receive proper compensation.
The enticements of this retirement system would bring quality leaders from the AC to the RC. Though active duty retirement pay would be higher, leaders under this track would have an earlier opportunity to establish a second career. They would draw a comparable paycheck at a time when they are flourishing in their civilian careers. This would allow the many officers and NCOs with families to settle down earlier in life.
One argument against this recommendation is the potential cost of the enhanced retirement benefits. In balancing costs with benefits, however, it is important to recognize the number of leaders the Army would keep under this program. A substantial number of long-term active duty leaders leave the active Army, but do not join the reserves. The current reserve retirement is not seen as worth the sacrifices of continued service.
Another group of soldiers leaves the Army between five and 10 years because they are not willing to stay to the full 20-year active retirement. Unfortunately, many of these same leaders will not join the reserves. Many in this group, however, could be willing to remain on active duty for 10 years, with the remainder in reserves, under this unique retirement program. Both the RC and AC would benefit by keeping these quality leaders.
Since most leaders would be captains at 10 years, they would not be seen as “taking” the prized field grade positions in the reserves, and would have to compete for reserve field grade rank.
Some of the costs would be offset by what the Army would save on many leaders who would make this switch. The overall cost under this plan would be less for leaders who, if they stayed on active duty, would continue to collect an active duty salary and then retirement. Given the pyramid rank structure, the AC could afford the loss in manpower caused by some of these mid-grade officers going to the reserves.
This retirement plan has many other potential benefits for the Army, particularly for the RC. Regular reserve leaders would have to compete with the long-term active service leaders for command, thereby raising the standards of all. Leaders in this program would not only bring their active experience, but also better ties to the active component.
With their contacts in the active force, these leaders could help the understanding and thereby the interoperability between components.
Another benefit would be that it would keep quality leaders in the Army force structure for a longer period of time. This group must stay in the force structure for 25 years to draw the enhanced retirement benefits. Experienced leaders who would have left the RC at 20 years would now be in the Army for five more years. With current recruitment and retention problems in the reserve component, this would be a way to bring many soldiers into the reserves and ensure they stay longer.
An indirect benefit would be that it would help bridge the civil-military gap. The active duty military has become further disconnected from civilian society in recent years. The RC is supposed to be the AC’s connection to civilian society. The current culture gap between the active and reserve components, however, prevents a true connection. This plan would help put long-term active duty leaders in civilian communities. Unlike many active duty military retirees, the leaders in this program would most likely work in many nondefense civilian fields away from military bases. They would help their active duty peers better understand civilians and would help the civilian sector better understand the military.
The details of implementing this change would have to be analyzed and debated in detail. As the reserve components are being asked to shoulder more of the Army’s operational load, however, the Army must make all efforts to bridge the gap between the reserve and active component. This should be one seamless Army at war, and we must do what it takes to make this a reality.
MAJ. WILLIAM CONNOR, South Carolina Army National Guard, is currently a law clerk with the South Carolina Legislative Counsel (for the S.C. House and Senate), while attending the University of South Carolina, School of Law. He left the Regular Army in July 2002. Maj. Connor is a graduate of The Citadel, Charleston, S.C. |
|