The Sportster and Buell Motorcycle Forum - The XLFORUM®

The Sportster and Buell Motorcycle Forum - The XLFORUM® (http://xlforum.net/forums/index.php)
-   Military Vets, Active Duty, Reserves (http://xlforum.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   National Guard (http://xlforum.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1337390)

Popedizzle 30th December 2011 13:55

National Guard
 
Why is the National Guard always looked down upon? Is it because everyone still has the "weekend warrior" mental image of us? I've already deployed once (non combat) and will be going to Afghanistan in 2013. I went through all the same training and have to deal with all the same malarkey, ON TOP of my job likes to throw my way.

jharback 30th December 2011 14:14

Well, from my experience it has to do with two main problems with the guard. One is that it is very political.

For the second (keep in mind that I'm almost 20 years out of date) it's training leaves a lot to be desired. We use to get their Drill Sergeants in for summer camp at Fort Benning. They were a disaster to put it plainly. Because of "politics" we were told to give them good ratings no matter what. You may think that you went through the same training as active duty but, the standards were more than likely quite different.

ParrotHead 30th December 2011 14:25

I've often wondered the same thing and I am interested in hearing what others have to say. I have a close friend who has deployed 5 or 6 times in the last few years as a Medic and in my opinion anyone who is defending us deserves the same amount of respect.

JackAttack 30th December 2011 14:35

Because a lot of Guardsmen are undertrained and unprepared. Throw a complete lack of military bearing and respect for customs and courtesies on top of it and you can see why they have a bad name.

I'm not saying this is how you are in any way, but from my experience there is a serious lack of professionalism from both the Guard and Reserves. Any enlisted person who calls their commander by their first name is wrong. Period.

I'm not saying that they haven't done their part in the war. I'm not saying that all guard/reserves units are like that. This is just my small experience with them in my little corner of the military.

jharback 30th December 2011 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by ParrotHead (Post 3704008)
I've often wondered the same thing and I am interested in hearing what others have to say. I have a close friend who has deployed 5 or 6 times in the last few years as a Medic and in my opinion anyone who is defending us deserves the same amount of respect.

Well, that's really not what were talking about here. For example would you, as a professional ball player, have the same professional respect for someone who plays on his company's team?

Yes, they do deploy. And yes, they end up in the same kind of shit storm that the regulars do. But, the quality and professionalism is not the same. The Guard and the Reserves "play at it", while the active duty "lives it."

It's really bad the higher up the chain of command that you go. There are (or at least use to be) guard Generals who had never been on active duty. They were a Political Appointment by the Governor of the state. All too often, his golfing buddy.

Popedizzle 30th December 2011 16:53

My basic platoon (Sep of '07) was mostly active duty, but 7 of us were going Guard and 2 were reservists. So yes, my basic training and AIT were the same as the active duty. As Rodney Dangerfield said, "No respect I tells ya. No respect."

flathead45 30th December 2011 17:04

its the training for basic and AIT but its after that thats different.

the NG goes through the same basic and ait but its just a drunk party during weekend drills.

I was a 3x3 NG during the "cold war" I served as little time as could possibly serve. thats the stigma about the guards

jharback 30th December 2011 18:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Popedizzle (Post 3704114)
My basic platoon (Sep of '07) was mostly active duty, but 7 of us were going Guard and 2 were reservists. So yes, my basic training and AIT were the same as the active duty. As Rodney Dangerfield said, "No respect I tells ya. No respect."

So their first six months is the same. What about the next 5, 10, 20 years? The initial training is the same but, that's pretty much it. As I said before, the guard and reserves "play" at being a soldier.

crunchthetroll 31st December 2011 00:08

As a reservist deployed twice I love playing at it.
both deployments as transportation, we put up better numbers than active duty did.
When our battalion changed the new battalion didn't even know we were reserve for 3 months. Once they found out, they wanted us to do every little thing there was.
It was a constant stream of "do you have carpenters to build this or electricians to wire that".
During AT we've built fox holes that infantry couldn't find.
On my first deployment (Iraq 2004-2005 hauling bulk fuel) I was probably in more fire fights than most MPs and half the infantry.
We had 25 Purple hearts and 4 dead.
Lucky we were just playing.
For the most part I've found Reserves better than regular. When something needs done Regular wants this paper work and that license and
we can't do it for this reason. Reservist have jobs in the real world. If we don't get it done we get fired.

jharback 31st December 2011 00:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by crunchthetroll (Post 3704474)
As a reservist deployed twice I love playing at it.
both deployments as transportation, we put up better numbers than active duty did.
When our battalion changed the new battalion didn't even know we were reserve for 3 months. Once they found out, they wanted us to do every little thing there was.
It was a constant stream of "do you have carpenters to build this or electricians to wire that".
During AT we've built fox holes that infantry couldn't find.
On my first deployment (Iraq 2004-2005 hauling bulk fuel) I was probably in more fire fights than most MPs and half the infantry.
We had 25 Purple hearts and 4 dead.
Lucky we were just playing.

I wasn't trying to be degrading. I was trying to answer the OP's question, "Why is the National Guard always looked down upon?"

Of my 26 years service, 18 months was in the National Guard. I transferred from one unit to another because the incompetence just drove me nuts. I finally quit the guard because I just couldn't handle that incompetence anymore. My son has been in the Guard for about 16 years. He's been deployed twice. The politics is really starting to get to him. I guess driving a truck is pretty much the same whether it's in the states or in Iraq or Afghanistan (other than getting shot at) so the competence shouldn't be that bad. But, if you get into the technical aspects of a Combat MOS I don't see how the Reserves/National Guard could be as proficient as Active Duty. After all, the active duty trains a good 8 hours a day, five days a week, 52 weeks out of the year. How can the National Guard be anywhere near as good when they train 12 hours a month and two weeks a year? Just not possible. And the training in the Guard/Reserves is no where near as good as that of the active duty. They also lack a considerable amount of Military Discipline.

All of these combined has a lot to do with how the active Army looks at the reserve. They often see enlisted and officers calling each other by first names, their uniform and personal standards are lower, their training standards are lower, their technical competency is lower, etc., etc. There's just no way a "part time" soldier can be as good as a full time "Professional Soldier." There's just no comparison. I just don't understand why anyone would think that there is.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:16.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
XL Forum® - Linson Media LLC