It really doesn't matter whether one is in the National. Guard or
Regular Army, a certain percentage of the force is going to be in
the support role regardless of the source of manpower.  For example,
the National Guard units ratio to Regular Army units called to WWII
and Vietnam were relatively few compared to today, (WWII created
mostly new units) yet the Combat to Support ratio is similar.  The
below analysis was written 1996:

--------------------

My understanding was the Guard was only called into actual combat in
a 'pinch', since the primary role of the Guard is duties at home, such
as putting down domestic disturbances, like riots, or non-combat duties
like rescue operations, disaster control, emergency services.  Since
a war overseas requires more logistics than one nearer to home, I reasoned
the Guard was used to 'make up the difference'.

--------------------

This would be true in any Army except Costa Rica's.
These are givens.  Since Art's prior post was conveniently
snipped, what argument are you trying to counter?

--------------------

It was Michael I was trying to counter, not Art.  I claimed the military
gave the soldiers training to discipline the instincts we all have, this
was in the cycle of democracy thread.  I said 'years' of training because
I was thinking of the special forces, Michael responded with 6 weeks and
ridiculed me for not knowing anything about the military.  As it turns
out, it is 8 weeks minimum, and more for anyone who gets advanced training
so apparently I know more than he does.  Michael appears to delight in
putting me down, no matter how foolish he needs to make himself look in
order to do it.

In any case after this long harangue, it appears to stand that the
training the military gets has as one of its purposes to discipline
the drives we all have.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *