Letters

[Administrator]

Lt. Col. Paul L. Yingling articulates well the need to reduce the standing military [“The Founders’ wisdom,” February]. He correctly explains both the constitutional and economic challenges faced by maintaining a large standing military and the self-perpetuating cycle of new and expanded programs. It is clear that a large, standing military in the U.S. will eventually bankrupt the country and/or require the delay or cancellation of required equipment modernization.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/03/4500267

[marrydavidson]

keep it up this good work i wish you very good Luck

[beckyhead]

I must respectfully disagree with the Lt Col's assertion that the National Guard is a solution to potential crisis that LTC Yingling writes about. If this country was to implement the solution he proposes it could undermine our nation's capability to plan, deploy, and engage threats. With a larger part-time force, the capability to maintain a high state of readiness is lost, since there is no consistent system to train, deploy and redepoyment cycle. In addition to countless potential problems of deploying large numbers of Guard forces, it opens up a Pandora's box of civilian job, pay, and home issues usually not encountered by an active force. Furthermore, the respective state's funding is subject to political budgertary whims that could compromise force structure and readiness (if any).

The National Guard (both Air and Army) are vital to our national defense infrastructure, have performed above par in OIF/OEF, and I do agree with the writer's assertion the NG does encompass more of our nation's make-up. But the real issue is a political one, on how leaders decide how we employ our forces, and if the fight is worth our blood and treasure.

MAJ Paul Woods, USAREUR.