 Good morning. Welcome to the military strategy forum here at CSIS. My name is Kim Wynkup. I'm the least interesting person on the panel, but we've got a great panel for you this morning. This is the military strategy forum where CSIS for the past couple of years has been hosting the most senior leadership of the Department of Defense, the combatant commanders, the chiefs, the people that are really making the decisions about our nation's defense. And they've been terrific dialogs, and I want to thank on behalf of CSIS, Rose Royce, who's been enormously helpful to be the sponsor of this. I know General Steve Plummer's with us this morning. We thank you very much, and we thank Rose Royce for his continuing support. These sessions take a lot of preparation. There's a lot of people working on it. I want to mention too, Lieutenant Colonel Dan Bilko, who's a military fellow here at CSIS from the Guard, and Terence Smith, who makes it all happen and puts it together. We're privileged today to have General Craig McKinley, who's chief of the National Guard Bureau with us. He is the first four-star chief of the National Guard Bureau. He's not going to like me to say this, and it's possible. I would say it's actually probable that he's the next member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He's accompanied... Now he's really not going to like that I said it. He's accompanied by Lieutenant General Bud Wyatt, who's the director of the Air National Guard. General Wyatt has a distinguished career in the Air Force, and as a lawyer, he's an SMU grad that'll become more relevant in a moment, and he was formerly the tag of Oklahoma. We also have Major General Tim Cattavey, who's the deputy director of the Army National Guard, two relatively recent deployments to Bosnia and Iraq in his background, and then was the tag of Nebraska. He's also breaking in a new director, a newly confirmed director of the Army National Guard, so we very much appreciate your both being with us. And with your understanding, I'm going to sort of limit my discussion of your backgrounds and only force General McKinley to sit through it, given he's our presenter. General McKinley joined the Air Force through ROTC at SMU, the relevant point. He was the distinguished military graduate there when he joined in 1974. He's 37 years of service and counting. He's had extensive service all over the Air Force as a pilot, 4,000 hours, and almost every aircraft that you can imagine. He's been to European command, and he's served in a wide variety of positions in the Air Staff. Two master's degrees. He's been at senior leadership courses at Harvard, the Maxwell School at Syracuse, the Center for Creative Leadership in Colorado Springs, a fabulous background. Most recently, he became the Director of the Air National Guard in 2006 and then was selected by the President and Secretary Gates to be the Chief of the National Guard Bureau in November of 2008. As Chief, he has really one of the most interesting and unique charters in the department. Now, let me just read a part of it. He's the Principal Advisor to the Secretary of Defense through the Chairman on National Guard Matters. He's the Principal Advisor to the Secretary and Chief of both the Army and the Air Force. He's the Department's Official Channel of Communication with the Governors and the Adjutant Generals of all the states. And he's also, in his spare time, he's responsible for the well-being of almost a half million guardsmen. Now, let me be just less serious for a moment. He's also by all accounts, he's a terrific golfer and could have been on the pro tour if he had chosen that path. One of his close friends mentions that he's particularly fond of Klondike bars, partly due to your potential golf career and also because it's breakfast. We didn't have any here for you this morning, but it's a good thought. He's flown aircraft in the Guard inventory of all kinds dating back, frankly, to ones that were developed in the 1940s. I understand his call sign is Mustang, which is either relevant to his SMU background or has something to do with an aircraft that he must have flown way back when. Wish to have flown. Well, either way, General McKinley and the National Guard are at the center of the nation's security. They've been involved and critically involved in deployments and the two wars of the past 10 years. It's not just that they've been involved in domestic issues that have served this country well in critical situations for the past couple years. More importantly for our discussion this morning, they're going to be knee-deep in the major defense decisions that are coming in this country with respect to this enormously important drawdown that we're about to face. General McKinley, we are thrilled to have you with us this morning and look forward to your comments. Thank you all. Well, good morning. Thanks for coming out on this blustery morning. It feels like winter's finally arrived. It's great to be with you today. I didn't know whether it was the free breakfast or the folks next to me who are going to speak today that brought you out, but I'm pleased that you're here. There is a lot going on, obviously, around the world. Kim, thank you for that kind introduction. I will get even with the person who provided you those thoughts behind the scene. Paybacks are heck. You know how that goes. To my former boss, Steve Wood, who was over there, I came back from Europe and went in as the Deputy A-8 for the Air Force. Great to see you, General Plummer. Thanks for you and your company sponsoring this. I know you've got a bunch of your colleagues in the room. Thanks. This gives us a chance to share some current events with you all and to hear what's on your mind today. And I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Dr. Hamry is a personal hero of mine, and I'm sorry he's not here today, but please extend my warmest regards to Dr. Hamry. It's important, I think, for us today just before the Thanksgiving holiday to stop and think a little bit about what your National Guard is doing for you. Sometimes when we're out in the states and the territories, some of the criticism of us in Washington is that we don't tell our story very well. And quite frankly, that's a wrap that many of our organizations hear is that senior leaders don't tell their story very well. So when I had the opportunity to accept this invitation, I wanted to bring the enterprise with me. And you're getting the majority of the enterprise here with General Wyatt, our Director of our Air Guard, and Tim Cattivy, our Deputy Director of the Army Guard. That's the bulk of our major operation. But we have another player, Randy Manor, who's our Director of our Joint Staff. And my predecessor, Steve Blum, created a Joint Staff within the Bureau because a post-Catrina presentation of forces demands that we have a Joint Staff now. So getting our organization right was a huge part of my predecessor's role as the Chief, the 25th Chief. I'm the 26th Chief. And quite frankly, that was part of my goal, too, was to continue to mature the organization of the National Guard Bureau so that we can do the things that Kim Winkup told you about. I've got a few prepared remarks, but really the importance of today is to hear what's on your mind, to answer your questions. I see many friends in the room, so I don't expect any hard balls from anybody I have pictures of here. But it's great to have the opportunity to be here. Just an aside, Bud and I are SMU grads. We didn't know each other at the time. Bud's a little older than me. I hope you don't mind me saying that. And Bud had a different plan. Bud was an all-star quarterback playing football in Oklahoma. So to go to SMU back then and even today, it costs a few bucks to go to that school. So you don't go there unless you're independently wealthy. So Bud gets an athletic scholarship. Full ride, you know, the whole deal. Eats at the athletic table, eats steaks every night, and I go through on an ROTC scholarship. A little different gig. So Bud graduates after being an all-star football player, quarterback of the team. Nobody knew me, obviously. I get to go to flight school. Bud goes to 90 days of OTS, and he goes to flight school. And now look at us. I don't know who made the right choice, but then we rendezvous later in our careers. And it's kind of neat. Tim, I don't have any stories on you. I hope you don't mind. All right. Thanks again for all the senior people here, former flag and general officers. It's great to have you in the room today. As many of you know, next month on December 13th, we mark our 375th birthday. That kind of aggravates some of my fellow service chiefs, because the United States Army is our senior service. But when I tell them that we're 375 years old, they roll their eyes and go, yes, sure. Because they said we weren't a nation before then. And quite frankly, that's the beauty of the National Guard is before we were a nation, we had folks, immigrants who came to our shores who decided to form bands of people to protect themselves. And that's kind of the early genesis. Over those 375 years, the National Guard has played a significant role in maintaining peace and security for our nation and for individual states, the three territories of Guam, Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and here in the District of Columbia. And I'm very proud of the rich heritage and of the present day resolve as we continue our role in the preservation of the ideals upon which our country was established. Today, we're faced with a historic opportunity as we stand at the confluence of a new fiscal environment and the transition from combat to stability operations. This convergence is leading to new defense-wide budgetary realities, which I hope we'll get into some debate with as we get into questions and answers, and challenging our decision-makers as they formulate difficult spending choices that are both sustainable and capable of keeping the American people safe and secure. The global security environment can be characterized as an era of persistent conflict. In fact, my good friend George Casey, I think, coined that line in which asymmetric threats, and anybody who heard me last week, I couldn't get asymmetric out. So I want to say it's asymmetric in every speech I get from now on in which asymmetric threats continue to pose a danger to the United States. In light of this, we must remain vigilant. The United States faces greater security challenges today than at the end of the Cold War, which was the last time the military was significantly restructured. And obviously, after every recent global conflict, our military has gone down about 20 to 25 to 30 percent in their overall budget after every major conflict. The past 10 years of military conflict has led to vast improvements in manpower training and equipment, the National Guard, no exception there. We've benefited greatly from United States Army, United States Air Force planning and programming for us. This reality, combined with significant combat experience, has created what could be called a war dividend, especially for the National Guard. We now have the most capable, accessible, and battle-tested National Guard in the history of the United States. Now, some of our folks who fought in World War II the last time the National Guard was fully mobilized might argue with that. And this is arguably a tough comment to make because I've met some of these greatest generation folks. But I make that comment today because of the great integration that we have with both of our services. By capitalizing on the investment made in the National Guard, this organization can arise as one of the best options available as our nation strives to concurrently preserve military capability while decreasing overall defense expenditures. And as needed for, nearly 85% of the National Guard is part-time. National Guard members cost approximately one-third that of their active-duty counterparts, especially when we're not mobilized. National Guard appropriations account for less than 7% of DOD appropriations. National Guardsmen and women serve longer and retire later than their active-duty counterparts, and that retirement costs one-tenth of the active duty. So those are facts that we present to you. We can debate them. And quite frankly, I think those are facts that have to be substantiated by people other than ourselves. So I welcome that too. In the domestic supporter arena, we are always forward-deployed and we're community-based. We believe that time and distance equals American lives. I think we saw that during Hurricane Katrina. Guardsmen and women live in nearly every zip code and have units located in more than 3,000 communities in every state and the territories and the district. 96% of all emergencies in the United States are handled by civil authorities or the National Guard. That's just a statistic that's out there today. A myriad of response capabilities that the National Guard possesses. We have domestic all-hazards response teams. We have homeland response forces that were created in the recent QDR. We have chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive enhanced response force packages. You'll hear those referred to as SERFPs. We have the National Guard reaction force that's a very small footprint but can rapidly deploy in support of first responders like police and fire. We have 57 weapons of mass destruction civil support teams that are out there full-time at the disposal of the governors and our national command authority to try to ascertain various substances that may pop up. And General White will talk about what we used to call air sovereignty alert but which is now called aerospace control alert, ACA. In natural disasters, which we've had 10 major disasters this year each costing a billion dollars or more, that Craig Fugate has had the tough job of getting out and managing for the president. We handle floods, Hurricane Irene was our most recent large-scale natural disaster that potentially could have hit 17 or 18 states along the coast and it really took sight on the northeast. Snowstorms, wildfires and we have this thing since September 11, 2001 called protection of civil infrastructure. We've got teams on the southwest border and we participate in counter-drug programs. And then we're intimately involved with all our national special security events, NSSEs, the APEC Summit being the most recent. We've got about 8 or 10 more NSSEs on the horizon running out through the inauguration in 2013. In overseas defense operations, we provide critical operational components to both the Army and the Air Force in their warfighting or Title X missions. We have about 55,000 soldiers, which General Caterby will talk about available each year to the combatant commanders. And since September 11, 2001, National Guard citizen soldiers and airmen have been mobilized more than 700,000 times in support of the overseas missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and domestic missions, some more than once. More than half of National Guard members are combat veterans today. Today there are roughly 55,000 Guard members currently activated as of this morning. And General Wyatt will talk about some of the new missions that the Air Force has transitioned to the Air National Guard. One of our new preeminent organizations is the MQ-9 Squadron up in Syracuse. In the global environment, we believe that when you leverage the blend of civilian-acquired military skills, you take soldiers and airmen to places like Kosovo, the Horn of Africa, and the Sinai that can really make a difference by integrating with those local populations. We've got some experts in the room here who can talk about the state partnership program. It includes more than 60 military-to-military partnerships with foreign nations. And I know some of the attachés were scheduled to be here, and I welcome you here today. This state partnership program costs about $14 million per year. And what does it result in other than a lot of goodwill and building partnership capacity? Today we have 22 state partnership program nations which provide 11,000 troops in Afghanistan. And those are 11,000 troops that we don't have to provide. We have things called the agribusiness development teams, ADTs. They're a self-contained team of 58 Army and Air National Guardsmen with expertise in various sectors of the agribusiness fields. I know General Cadovi can talk extensively as a former Aging General in Nebraska about how important those agribusiness development teams have been in Afghanistan. The ADT members bring their military capabilities as well as their professional civilian skills and education in various agricultural disciplines to work directly with the farmers in Afghanistan. I didn't realize it, but Nebraska has the largest Afghan population in the United States and they're partnered very closely with the civilian schools in Nebraska. Since 2008, 31 of those teams have operated in 15 provinces and contributed almost 600 agricultural projects generating more than $31 million in economic benefits for Afghan citizens. Interagency relationships aimed at global stability and prosperity including our very close relationships with FEMA and the State Department are critical skill sets that have been developed in the National Guard over the last 10 years. Seven states provided support to Operation Tomodachi after the large earthquake in Japan and the tsunami. The Louisiana National Guard led New Horizon Haiti 2011, a collaborative effort to rebuild and renovate school buildings and operate medical treatment sites. And this one, some of you may not know, but I think it's an amazing mission for all of us. Using specially equipped LC-130's New York Air Guard members completed 374 missions in Antarctica carrying 2,400 passengers and 8.1 million pounds of cargo and fuel and supportive operation deep breeze to U.S. military supportive science and research activities. That entire news site at the South Pole was resupplied by LC-130's from New York. The most important part of our whole enterprise are our people, soldiers, airmen, and our families. We have a very diverse, a very capable, and a very healthy workforce. More than 80% of our citizen soldiers in the Army National Guard joined the military after September 11, 2001. Our warrior transition units, which Tim can talk to, have community basing and they provide support for over 600 Army National Guard soldiers in positions at all levels of the organization from squad leader to battalion commander. We're heavily involved in resilience, risk reduction, and suicide, which I know we'll probably get some questions on. And then a whole list of family support programs, which many of you have heard, such as Yellow Ribbon, Employer Support, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, Psychological Health, Warrior Support, Family Assistance Centers, youth programs to include a program called Youth Challenge, which is a very effective program in our states that affect about 110,000 young men and women who've actually gotten their high school degree and star base at our air guard bases. So in closing, the National Guard's prepared to respond to our country's budgetary crisis and to help maintain our national security. The new fiscal realities facing the Department of Defense offer an opportunity to review not only what the National Guard has contributed over the past decade, but equally, if not more importantly, where the National Guard will be 10 years from now. One of the things that I'm most pleased with is Secretary Panetta has come into the building and Chairman Dempsey, General Marty Dempsey, has said we have to design a military that will function and be capable in the year 2020. It's hard to look out that far, especially with the threats that we have today, and say what kind of military do we need, but our task, the task of the gentleman in front of you and our adjutants general, which are really out on the tip of the spear for our National Guard, is what does the National Guard need to do to get to 2020? And how can it be the most effective and efficient force to support our Army and our Air Force and our Governors 8 to 10 to 15 years from now? The Guard has reaffirmed its value to our parent services, to our states and to the nation as an operational force. There is cost being operational, however, and we will continue as a strategic hedge. Now we must embrace the opportunity at hand, and we must make our case in the building in the Pentagon that we are relevant, capable, accessible, and a fully integrated component of the United States Army and Air Force as we prepare for future threats at home and abroad. I thought this would be interesting. I took this out of Gordon Sullivan's September 2010 white paper. He said, I quote, the Guard and Reserve are at a crossroads. Down one path lies continued transformation into a 21st century operational force and progress on planning, budgetary, and management reforms still required to make that aspiration a reality. Down the other path lies regression to a Cold War style strategic force meant only to be used as a last resort in the event of major war. General Sullivan is absolutely accurate in that pivot point in our nation's history. I look forward to your questions as does General Wyatt, General Caterby. Kim, I'll turn it back over to you to moderate. Thank you for the opportunity to make those brief remarks. Thank you. Well, thanks, Chief. There's a method here at CSIS for the question process because we're being webcast, so I'm going to, Terrence, and there's another gentleman in the back who have microphones. As you get recognized for questions, please wait for a moment so we can get a microphone in your hand so everybody can hear your questions. Well, Greg, in your second. Greg Kiley with CSIS. General, you mentioned having to independently substantiate your own numbers. Do you have a plan for that? We've asked within the building, and the closest thing we've had recently is the office of Secretary of Defense Reserve Affairs under Denny McCarthy. He and the former vice chairman did an analysis. I think what all of us would approve and want is to have a very thoughtful, forceful look done by Rand or another agency in town that can verify because what we're facing, I think, in the building is people saying, well, you know these last 10 years when we mobilized 60,000 soldiers, this is a very expensive force. That's looking at a small snapshot in time. I would like cradle to grave, day from enlistment till the day we retire, then our retirement fees to be looked at. And I don't think we've ever done that. And so I'm encouraging the department and others to say, let's once and for all put the numbers on the table. Let's verify and let's make sure that when we say a member of the guard cost 25 or 30% over the lifetime of that member, that we're really talking apples to apples and not just during this very intense period of combat that we've been through these last 10 years. So hopefully we can get there. I'd be willing to put some of our money up to do it because I think it's important for our nation, especially the people in this town to understand that we're just not pulling those numbers out of thin air. Sometimes that happens. And I think former chief Casey says when you go through these very tough budgetary environments, that's when the tension arises. And so we really have to have accurate data to speak from. Thanks. I'm Michael Bosworth. I'm the deputy chief technology officer of Naval Sea Systems Command and also a reserve. My question is, I've been on the flag oversight board for Task Force Climate Change, which is looking particularly at the warming of the Arctic over the next 20 years in the opening of navigation and economic opportunities there in a very vast and desolate region with very little infrastructure. I'm curious to any of the three generals here what has been a National Guard response to that or how do you see that that might affect your planning for the next 10 or 20 years? I'll just kick it off and then turn it over to the folks who work with the services on this. Obviously, United States Northern Command, now Chuck Jacobi, formerly Sandy Winterfield, and I have had preliminary discussions. Opening this whole area up is going to be vitally important to the United States and to our great neighbors to the North Canada. So this is kind of a binational issue, but I think both services are doing a lot behind the scenes, not only looking at climate change globally, but also looking at fuel conservation, biofuels, and things like that that I think are very important to our future. Our equipment is the same equipment as the Army and Air Force uses, so whatever plans that our parent services can put on the table is what we will adopt. But each state too, I think, have got some very significant investments in energy conservation, biofuels, wind farms, things like that that I'll let Bud and Tim talk about individually. Thanks. From the Air National Guard side of the house, General McKinley touched on the fact that we share the same types of equipment playing with the active component. Air Mobility Command has really led the way in the fuel efficiencies initiatives that they have, taking a look at loads, fuel loads, cargo loads, routes. There are some new routes that are opening up over the poles that certainly cut down the time in fuel usage. And we work hand-in-hand with Air Mobility Command, not only in saving fuel, but in the conversion from petroleum-based to other-based fuels, the green fleet, if you will. Locally, what we're finding and pushing in the Air National Guard, we have 88 wings across all 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. And what we sometimes forget is that there are a lot of solutions out there that are not necessarily federal solutions. When we work with the Adjutants General and we work with some of the resources within the respective states, we can find some efficiencies in the operation of our bases. Incentives at the state level for wind farms, for solar energy, anything that can save energy, save costs, make us more efficient. And that's the beauty of working with the 54 Adjutants General is, because within each state there are different paradigms, different opportunities, and if you leverage what works across several states with others, you really get the best of breath. And so we're concentrating not only looking for the federal solution, but looking for the state solution as we focus on the efficiencies that our bases can provide. Yes, sir. I'll just give two examples or two comments. First, as we build new armories, trading sites, essentially any facility, we take the best of energy conservation into mind as we build those and they're put into the architecture and the engineering of our new MilCon projects. So that's for the future. The other thing, recently the Army announced a Net Zero program where they identified some target installations that will work on reducing the footprint in energy, water, and waste. And the Army selected and we support the State of Oregon, who will have a special project for water, and then there also going to be our state that shows ways and comes up with ideas that we can apply to the other 54 states, territories, and districts. Columbia, how to reduce the footprint to Net Zero if possible, but to lower our energy, water, and waste footprint to the lowest level possible. Just my final comment, maybe you have a redirect, but we had two of our governors in town this week as they started their journey to Afghanistan to visit soldiers. It was Governor Markell from Delaware and Governor Malloy from Connecticut. And what I was struck with, I had lunch with Dr. Paul Stockton and the Assistant Secretary is looking at how we would resupply the generators during a large scale civilian crisis here at home. And both governors said there's extensive commercial investment and study done in their home states obviously on fuel cell and other issues. I think for us we really need to push away from the DCA or find out what is the best product, what is going on out in the field, and use our state-based organizations to bring us the best of breed so we can stay on the leading edge of this. But I appreciate the question. Thanks. Let me get two other questions pre-position and then take advantage of that opportunity and ask one myself. The gentleman right here, okay, and we'll do the next in a moment. Sir, if you don't mind, take advantage of the chance to be moderator. You've talked about some wonderful things that have been going on in the Guard and its performance, but could you and the directors talk about an issue that's been discussed pretty widely recently here in Washington about unemployment for service folks after they come off? It presents a unique problem for the Guard because in many cases, probably in most, your folks when they get mobilized are coming from a civilian occupation and then are going to go serve the country. And there are unfortunate reports about the numbers that are going on. Could you give us an idea of what the situation is and kind of what some thoughts on what might be done to make it better? Well, we'll start at the beginning. Our recruiting and retention is doing exceedingly well, and I attribute that to young people wanting to serve. They're proponents to serve, but also this is a very tough economy today. And so we've got young people who will leave in the Army's case for a 12-month boots on the ground or in the Air Guard case, multiple deployments for shorter periods of time, and they're coming home and finding themselves out of work and not having much success. We think our statistics are much like active component statistics, but maybe a little higher in some of the areas of the country that we would say in the upper Midwest, the manufacturing areas of the country, where we've seen some units as high as 21-25% unemployment when they return. Those are unacceptable to us, and they're unacceptable to our leaders in the field. The President obviously has set a pretty high mark on getting vets back into work, and he's done some magnificent things. The Secretary of Defense has spoken to the subject, and our adjuncts general with their governors have done an awful lot. Have we turned the trend the other way not quite yet? I think it's going to have to take a combination of effects. Many of the large employers are going to have to understand that these are some of the finest people you would ever want working for you, and they bring all the great skills back from their military training, but we owe our vets a job when they get home. Employer's support of the Garden Reserve, I'll throw out a thanks to them. We couldn't do our work without them. They arbitrate. They are the ombudsman who prevent any kind of breaks in law or faith. But beyond that, we've got to continue to pursue programs out there individually in the states to try to get this trend turned around. I know Tim will cover the Army and Bud the Air. I will throw a thank you out to Jack Stoltz and the Army Reserve. He's done a magnificent job in the Army Reserve creating programs that have helped his folks. Again, we'll take any great ideas, but it is a significant problem and we've got to deal with it and try to turn the trend around. I think Gerald McKinley has touched on most of the points. In the Air Guard, I think because of the shorter length of time of our deployments, although the issue is significant, unemployment is significant, perhaps not as significant as in the Army National Guard, when you take a look at most of our forces, especially in the RPA arena and some of the other stress skill sets, we don't anticipate a lot of retrenchment coming back home from Iraq or Afghanistan because if you'll think back a little bit, you know, 10, 12 years ago, coming out of Desert Storm, and I guess it was 20 years ago. Boy, that was fun. About the requirement to continue air presence forward, we anticipate we're still going to be rotating in and out of theater to provide the type of forward presence that are required by the Air Force. But we work very closely again with the Agitance General because we're finding that a lot of the unemployment is not necessarily due to service in the military, but due to local economies and demographics in those particular areas. And so the Agitance General and the resources available at the state level are the first line of defense. But I'll tell you that the initiatives that the President has instituted, the great work of Employer Support Garden Reserve, some of the programs that we have in, the yellow ribbon transition programs that help with finding jobs are all things that are working. They're not complete solutions, but they are making a positive impact on addressing that problem. Well, I have much more to add. General McKinley, General White covered most of the key issues. I just say from the Army Guard perspective, we continue to partner with those businesses that are interested in veterans and Army National Guard soldiers as their employees. Many of the things we look for in soldiers, they also look for in employees, committed, dedicated, drug free and understand something about leadership and et cetera. So we partner with those at the national level, the larger corporations, but I'll just continue to comment that General White said, my experience in Nebraska, we had many of the local and smaller businesses in the area that we contacted and we would help facilitate those that were looking for jobs with those in the state of Nebraska that had openings, and I think that was very productive. You know, Kim, this has been a personal concern of mine. The high tempo that the Guard has experienced, both on the Air Guard side and the Army Guard side, has created a condition where many of our soldiers and airmen have turned to the Guard almost for full-time employment. That's a phenomena that we haven't seen in a long, long time. It gets back to the value piece and as we unwind this force from predominantly high tempo, high deployed force, many deployed twice, three times, to back to our traditional 70, 30, 85% part-time, we've got to figure out a way to get us back into that balanced structure and this unemployment issue will be with us for a few years, I'm afraid, so we've got to tackle it head-on and we've got to transition the bulk of the force back from combat back to citizen, soldier, and airmen and that's going to take some really strong coordination with our Agents General and the Governors. General McKinley, Rich Green from NAGIS. Given the information that you presented as to all the things that the Guard has done, our capabilities and our value and cost-effectiveness, we often hear from the active component that we're not accessible. Most of us in the Guard would clearly say that that's an invalid response on their part but how are we doing with changing the perceptions of the active component as to our accessibility? The lawyers in the room would talk about the authorities that are given to the building to access guardsmen and reservists to do appropriate operations and there's legislation on the floor now to take a look at that, to give more authority inside the building to tackle that. I certainly let my colleagues address their specific services but I think it's been a traditional cultural issue with our services that it's a hard thing to do to get a guardsman. It may go back to the 70s, I don't know but we've got to break that mindset that Governors might for some reason not allow their guardsmen and women to participate. We've not seen that and I think Bud and Tim both can tell you that I don't know of one mission we've turned down. Now I know they send their soldiers and airmen a little differently, they mobilize a unit or they volunteer to send units but that's something we've got to tackle. I think we're making progress with it. I know the Army and the Air Force understands the dilemma but it's still brought up in many circles that we can't commit to integrating the Guard because we don't know if we'll have access to them. That's a big issue Bud. I think you know, General McKinley touched on the authorities part if you look at the statutes that allow mobilization in certain circumstances there are plenty of authorities out there. I think there's some pending legislation section 120304 that would even increase add another authority to access the Garden Reserve. Another factor is policy. Inside the building we have a lot of policies that were in place during the Cold War and have not migrated or changed to the point that allows easy access to the Garden Reserve. The example that I can think of is Haiti where there was a feeling in the building that we have to give guardsmen in reservists 30 days notice to respond to an event like Haiti and we're kind of shaking our heads. We do this on a moment's notice inside the United States and we had guard units ready to go on a moment's notice to help Haiti but because of self-imposed policy we were prevented from getting into the fight early. So we've got to take a look at policies and then you've got to think about resourcing because in the air guard we really have the blessing of the United States Air Force to be resourced in the baseline for enough money to organize training equip to the point that we're ready to step out the door on the same timelines as the active component. If you look at our doc statements our description of capability statements that set the standard for not only levels of training but the speed within which we have to get a fighter unit say or a lift unit out the door. They're the same time standards as the active component we trained at the same levels and we're able to do that because the Air Force has adequately funded us to get us up to that level but we don't have a budget for any operations and so what we need to rely upon and stress to the active component is you need to have some MPA days some military personnel authorization monies and resources there so when you need the guard it's not a matter of us having to spend time training up we're ready to go but you need to program. It's kind of like oh we've seen the enemy and the enemy is a failure to plan for enough MPA days to allow immediate access to the Garden Reserve and I think we have turned the corner on that I think you'll perhaps see a press release from the Chief of Staff here pretty soon that talks to the access problem and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force will tell you that there is no access problem as far as getting to the Air National Garden. I'd say from the Army perspective many of the same things that General Wyatt discussed I just add that the way that the Army and Air Force utilize their reserve components is a little bit different very strong volunteerism in the Air National Garden Air Reserve but the Army has to have units we generate readiness by units so you want that unit that's been training man-equipped and led as a capability and you need all of them in order to get the capability that comes along with the organization so the Army leans very heavily towards when we need a capability in voluntary mobilization now with named missions named operations and a mobilization authority comes with it I don't think there's any argument about the access we've not turned one mission down and when the Army said we need this capability we've recommended and they've selected and we've sent that unit off to war or to other missions around the world I think what comes into play are those unnamed missions or those that pop up Haiti was mentioned by General Wyatt we had something very similar we had units that were ready to go but what was the authority and do we have to give them 30 days notice and if the United States Army is going to invest in a capability in reserve components and they have an emergency operation such as Haiti they want to be assured that if they've invested there and that's the capability they're counting on that they can have access to it in those types of cases and I think the authority that General Wyatt said we support that and we think that will answer that requirement thank you just to kind of touch on what General Catevi said as an example of the volunteerism out of the Air National Guard last year we answered close to 57,000 requests for personnel some a day or two at a time some you would count one if it was a 365 day NPA order of that 50 close to 57,000 89.5% were filled with volunteerism out of the Air National Guard Operation Odyssey Dawn happened in March we heard General Johns or former Transcom Commander General McNabb talk about March Madness and the stress on the mobility fleet worldwide when Odyssey Dawn popped there was a difficulty in getting enough tanker support for not only American forces but for the coalition forces they asked the Guard there was no mobilization authority for Odyssey Dawn they asked the Guard to participate we provided 14 of the 22 air refueling tails from 11 different states the Air Expeditionary Refueling Unit was commanded by Brigadier General Roy up to graph a Pennsylvania Air National Guardsman no mobilization authority six months long we were in theater 100% volunteerism so there's no access problem to get to the Air National Guard I think you're probably starting to get the impression that we are an integrated force this National Guard that's almost a half a million people out there has been brought in and we are tightly wound with our services therefore we need to be used and that's our argument here keep us operational keep us balanced don't take the Guard in our case down to a point where we're unusable again and I think Secretary Panetta gets it and Marty Dempsey gets it and so do the other service chiefs there's gotta be a sweet spot here there's gotta be a balance why would we squander this investment because the leaders of of integration has brought us to I think that's the that's the debate that's where we are that's why we're strongly urging the services and our supporters to say let's get this right for America it's good for everybody and that's kind of where our emotion is and that's where our emphasis is hopefully as we go through the budget lay down in February we're gonna resonate I'm Sherman Patrick with Senator Chris Coons next year coming up in the Senate we've heard that they're gonna be addressing cybersecurity in particular we in Delaware have been very impressed with what our Guard has done on cybersecurity we think it's a great mission but my question is going forward looking at the structure of 2020 what's the right balance between new missions like cyber and traditional missions like airlift well we built our structures around actually cold war constructs and so if we're gonna break into these new areas of opportunity and necessity for our nation we're gonna have to break down the cold war manning structures that our Air Force and Army have us bend in and I would say both the Air Force and the Army understand we have capabilities we have civilian acquired skills in all of our nation's National Guard that could be used in the capacity in which you refer cyber for example rather than go out and create little niche missions which is kind of where we are today I want to work with General Alexander and contribute Army Guardsmen and Air Guardsmen to his force so that we can utilize the most competent the most skilled people we can out in the field that's our next step and General Alexander and I have got great communication lines open and we need to do that but everybody needs to participate in this we don't need to have a cyber Pearl Harbor to discover that we need to prepare and plan for this and I thank you for that question because in Delaware for example with your high tech corridors it's really important with your adjutant General Frank Vaval and your governor to make sure we do involve all the members of the National Guard if the Air Force portfolio was a stock market I would invest in cyber and RPA because that's where I see the shift coming the Air National Guard and I think the Air Force to a large extent is shifting from a platform based construct of the past to a capabilities based force of our 106,700 Air National Guardsmen right now close to 9,000 are already involved in cyber on the RPA part of it we fly about 20% of all the combat air patrols for the Air Force but cyber I think perhaps the even greater opportunity because if you think about what a cyber warrior does and how proficient the cyber warrior needs to be you find most of the proficiency in the civilian communities trained by some of the companies that reside in the exact area that you're talking about we have identified all centers of excellence around the country that provide the demographics for building a cyber force in our local communities through Air National Guard units so what we're doing is in those areas like Delaware, like Washington State like Silicon Valley, like Austin, Texas and there are some others not to leave anybody out we are standing up our cyber forces in the states in those particular areas of the 24th Air Force for presentation of the forces to General Alexander trying to become a part of the way ahead that the Air Force sees for cyber if you think about the individuals that we're talking about whether they come into the Air Force right out of high school or college and go into the cyber world and are trained militarily in the cyber world eventually they get to whether it's a four year or six year point and there's no way that the military can compete with civilian salaries that these skilled warriors have and so rather than lose them forever to the military we think the niche for the Air National Guard is to provide units in those locales where they will probably work in their civilian life using those same skills let them make the high dollars in the civilian workforce but on drill weekend, two weeks in the summer and whenever they want to come to work for the Air National Guard and be challenged in some areas that you won't be challenged with in your civilian community we've already seen that we've got a cyber warrior in Washington State that on drill weekend on his own dime flies to the east coast to Fort Mead to do battle with folks worldwide and that's what we think we can we can offer we can capture some of that talent that's trained in the Air Force and not let it separate but rather transition to further service to the country. In the Army Guard our current effort is limited to individuals with the skill sets that they acquired through civilian training and is the need our requirement is generated and we find an individual that fits that is willing to volunteer they mobilize individually and they go and help specific cyber members in their mission we also have individuals that are assigned to the cyber commands both Army and Joint in the future as we identify what the Army's structural support will be we definitely would want to be a part of it as we are with every other capability that the Army has we play in it and have some cyber organizations if that's where the United States Army goes. Ray Dubois, CSIS clearly the pressure on the defense top line and the draw downs in Afghanistan and Iraq are going to lead to reductions in strength I wonder if the three of you based on some of the comments you've made already might share with us some specifics to it the balance between the active components and the reserve components and the draw downs that we will face on the air staff what have been the discussions with respect to that balance on the Army staff we've heard discussions that perhaps some heavy formations would move from the active component to the reserve component there have been other discussions about the national reserve components ought to maintain their level of strength while the active components are reduced so I'm interested both in terms of the air staff and the Army staff discussions and also in the tank with you Craig in terms of the joint chiefs the corporate chiefs talking about this in the macro sense I think former Secretary Gates and now Secretary Panetta have pretty much outlined their priorities they're seeking savings in four or five bins and four structure is not yet at an appropriate place where we can discuss it meaningfully because of some of the issues that are being deliberated in the very small groups in the Pentagon but I think our case is to present the National Guard force presentation to be considered as a force to rely on as a force that is competent and capable and that if integrated properly can be a significant advantage during a fiscal constrained environment those are the themes that we're following I'll let General Wyatt and General Catterby talk about the specific Army and Air Force pieces because they're different and the service chiefs quite frankly are each taking a little different angle on what contribution that their reserve components will make to a force structure that has a $450 billion reduction that's where we are today $450 billion reduction the secretaries articulated that so what part of that will the Air Force and the Army take but each service chief has their own unique way of doing it what I can tell you is we're very much at the tables to discuss it we're very much being heard alternative strategies are being discussed and I kind of think that's progress from where we were 10 or 15 years ago back when things were kind of divisive and we had off-sites where people came to town and we had to have some pretty serious discussions we certainly aren't there yet we're able to put our equities on the table so far where we go from here with the super committee and potentially sequestration and things like that time will tell but I'll let Bud and Tim talk about their services because I think that's what your question really zeroes in on I think let me maybe address the question in a couple of fashions the Air Force overall and then some of the internal ways that we build units a little bit differently than the Army does Air Force as a whole we will tell you what has what General Schwartz has said about the Air Force as it goes forward he's made the statement that the Air Force will get smaller in strength and that we will get smaller across all three of the components he spoke to the General McKinley's Joint Senior Leadership Conference of the National Guard last week and advised us that it looked like there would be a not only a downsizing of all three of the components but a shift of the percentages of combat Air Forces from the Guard to the active component and a shift in the percentages of tails in the math from the Guard to the active component now you can agree or disagree with the General but that's the direction that I've been I've been given the discussions continue we don't know what the final force shaping is going to be depending upon the size of the budget so that decision could change as we go forward depending upon how big the budget buggy is to tie that back into the previous question if those percentage shifts in the CAF and the math do take place I look at as opportunities to maybe shift some of our force structure that remains what parts of it do remain to some emerging missions like RPA cyber like some of those mission sets red horse the engineering, the medical some of the things that serve our governors very well so I don't necessarily look at it as a bad thing look at it as a challenge and an opportunity but the discussions continue inside the Air Force when we talk about ACRC mix we sometimes talk about not necessarily the overall shift of the percentages CAF, math, force structure or who's getting smaller and who's getting larger but we talk about the way we put our units together we have associations a lot of times historically we've had an international guard unit and a reserve unit and an active duty unit and now we find there is great efficiencies to leverage the strength of the three components into things called associations we have active associations where most of the physical equipment is owned by the National Guard but the active duty has a contingent that comes in operates out of the same location and is part of that unit classic association go the other way where the iron if you will is owned by the active component in the guard the reserve falls in like a Langley F-22 unit where the Air Guard 92nd fighter wing is part of the first fighter wing so we are looking at that the total force enterprise inside the Air Force I think the thing that challenges all of the services is to first of all recognize that whenever there are outside pressures either from you know emergencies or financial crisis all of us have a tendency to not consciously but just as a natural reaction go back to organizational bias go back to those things that were comfortable to us when there wasn't these pressures go back to the comfortable institutions go back to the comfortable way of doing business like we've always done if we let organizational bias across the services across DOD affect us in the future then we will lose some opportunities to transition in the future I think that's the challenge not necessarily the AC RC mix but the challenge of getting away from organizational bias and thinking of new ways to do business new constructs to do business well I'll start off by saying that there's a lot of thought a lot of analysis a lot of discussion going on as to what the United States Army should look like and we're focusing on the year 2020 the good news is is that all three components of the Army the act of the Guard and Reserve are committed to giving this this nation the Army it needs and deserves with that said we're looking at the right balance and the right mix between the three components and within combat arms combat support combat service support there are no decisions as I said analysis and discussion is ongoing as far as heavy BCTs heavy force in the Army National Guard we already have seven heavy BCTs and Striker Brigade so we understand how difficult it is and the energy and resources it requires to train manage equip and lead those type of organizations and we'll support the Army in wherever direction it needs to go and just my final comment everybody's been in here during downturns in the economy and fiscal challenges and so do we let the budget drive the strategy or the strategy drive the budget I'm very impressed with general Dempsey's approach to trying to articulate the strategy to take that all the way to the White House and to get the president's opinion and views and guidance and then once that set I think over the next 90 days and a lot of things can happen in the next week for example we may be back at the drawing tables this time next week if other conditions present themselves so too early to tell you but I'm confident as a chief and as our two services that we're in there with our services trying to articulate what we can provide and this 2020 military is a big deal I think we all need to pay attention to it what the nation has in 2020 we'll define the decade that's out there and as the president has said it's going to be a shift toward the Pacific and so many of you in this room understand that may be better than we do but it's definitely a shift in focus and it's kind of an exciting time in our nation's military turbulent but exciting Chief it is all of that and you're in the middle of it as we know there is a debate going on the hill today that there might be people calling you soon I know there's a DMAG meeting with the Vice Chairman and I think a tank meeting all today so we are very appreciative you're taking the time from your schedule certainly General Wyatt you're also coming here to enhance and enrich the conversation on behalf of CSIS thank you so much for taking the time to be with us to share your thoughts and we wish you the best in the future thanks