The Army Reserve Makes Good Business Sense
By Lieutenant General James R. Helmly, Chief, Army Reserve

If the United States did not have an Army Reserve today, would it create one? Could it afford not to, particularly during times of tight budgets and an increasing emphasis on return on investment?

This country needs and deserves a strong, efficient Army Reserve. To have otherwise is to cheat the American people. The Army Reserve makes unquestionable sense, not just from a military readiness standpoint, but from a business perspective, as well.

The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has brought the issue of a strong Army Reserve out of the realm of academic interest and placed it squarely in our strategic thinking. Some have argued that relying on "part-time soldiers" for the critical and specialized capabilities embedded in the Army Reserve is a mistake. On the surface, the contentions are beguiling. "Bring these capabilities into the Active component, and you will have them available any time, all the time," or "contract some services out and we'll relieve soldiers of these duties that aren't really part of fighting and winning our Nation's battles."

There is a strong "business case" for a robust Army Reserve, the sheer "dollars and cents" of it. Reserve Soldiers work side by side with Active duty soldiers to fight wars, keep the peace and defend America's interests, but afterward they return to their civilian lives instead of staying on the government payroll. Soldiers in the Reserve gain valuable on-the-job training every day at their civilian jobs, expertise they use on military missions. The use of part-time Reserve forces to supplement the Active military is a good example of the government employing best business practices to smartly and strategically use taxpayer dollars. How much? To maintain readiness for a unit of 100 Active Component Soldiers costs approximately $5.8 million per year. That same sized Reserve unit costs approximately $840,000 per year. When it comes to mobilizing Soldiers, the Army saves $2.1 million for every 1,000 Reserve Soldiers per year compared to a like number of Active. Further, when you are in the field and rotating units, the Reserve provides the same rotational capability as the Active component for about half the cost.

Let us quickly dispense with this notion that contractors could be brought in to fulfill many of the duties now provided by the dedicated men and women of the Reserve. This may be true in a few cases, but for the most part, the Reserve requires Soldiers dedicated to the mission of the organization - not civilians brought in on an ad hoc basis to perform tasks and then go to work for some other federal agency. This is particularly true in combat operations. The only "outsourcing" that should be done here is the Active component relying on Reserve capabilities, which are ready only when and if the Active component needs them.

The Reserve needs and deserves people whose focus in life - aligned with their faith, their family and their civilian responsibilities - is the furtherance of this great organization in service to the American people. Fortunately we have them - Soldiers in the U.S. Army Reserve.

These fine men and women - representatives of a broad cross-section of the American populace - are readily accessible to the Active component when called upon. They can be mobilized quickly and proficiently to provide the much-needed support the Active component must have to function. These Soldiers bring to their assignments the important community values they share with their friends and neighbors, adding richness and depth to the experience for all - their fellow Soldiers and the people they protect and serve.

We face new and difficult security challenges across the globe and here at home. Before the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, DC, these were challenges anticipated only in theoretical war-gaming simulations. Today, we recognize threats come not only from nations who may possess weapons of mass destruction and support terrorism, but also from non-state enemies who would attack us here at home. To defend our nation's interests, shouldn't we put a premium on war-fighting readiness, worldwide service and immediate responsiveness? And, shouldn't we acknowledge the reality of what we have seen both in Afghanistan and Iraq: that the Army's involvement is unlikely to end on a clearly defined date and this puts pressure on our all-volunteer military?

In the aftermath of the Vietnam conflict, Army Gen. Creighton Abrams enunciated a policy - which became known as the Abrams Doctrine - that "the Nation should never go to war again without calling up the spirit of the American people." To accomplish that, and to field the Army that is needed, the Army Reserve became integrated operationally and functionally into the Army.

While the motive behind the Abrams Doctrine is as valid today as it was in the years immediately after Vietnam, incorporating the "spirit of the American people" to our prosecution of the GWOT is only part of the value of the Army Reserve.

During the past 14 years, the Army Reserve has performed a complementary role to the Active Component, providing Combat Support and Combat Service Support functions to enable the Army to ramp up its capabilities to project combat forces and sustain mobilization. The Army Reserve has organized this way because it is simply the most effective and cost-efficient way of delivering the Army the Nation needs.

Could we have a virtually all-Active Component? Yes. But do you really want to keep on active service skills you may only need at specific times? Soldiers in the Army Reserve bring civilian acquired and maintained skills on behalf of the Army. Civil Affairs skills in the Army Reserve range from managing municipal government, to running water treatment and power plants, to setting up schools. Army Reserve soldiers hone their skills in those jobs in their civilian life, and bring that knowledge and ability to bear for the Army when it is needed. You could transfer those capabilities to the Active Component, but at what cost? Those and many other CS and CSS skills are not needed all the time, but still you would have to keep Soldiers performing those jobs continually trained. How much training of combat units would have to be traded off in order to keep these Civil Affairs units at peak proficiency? Civil Affairs is just one example; you could extend this logic out to transportation, logistics, medical and virtually every other function the Army Reserve performs.

Do we have everything in place today and ready to go to face the challenges of the GWOT and the changed world? No, but the Army Reserve is transforming to adjust to this new reality. Some believe the Army Reserve cannot change, that it is asking too much. Let the doubters say what they wish - they are wrong. "Transformation" is not a buzzword we throw around to please the public and the higher-ups. It is an imperative we take seriously to live up to the changing demands placed upon us and to give the American people their money's worth.

The Army Reserve is becoming a more flexible force because it has to, and while it is imperative that the Army Reserve transforms itself - remaining successfully engaged in its vital mission - such changes do not mean we abandon our core competencies or core values. The long-held tradition of the invaluable, American citizen-soldier coming to the defense of the country and the aid of others will not - and cannot - be altered by the changes we are undertaking.

If the United States did not have an Army Reserve today, would it have the business sense, the wisdom and foresight to create one? I believe, qualitatively and quantitatively, the answer is an undeniable "yes."

^ Back to Top

Read More Articles »