The Reserves and Homeland Security: Proposals, Progress, Problems Ahead

• create homeland security units;

• convert Air National Guard engineer units to consequence management forces;

• create Reserve Component “virtual” organizations to support information operations; and

• assign Reserve Component personnel to a standing joint task force headquarters for homeland security.

On July 22, 1999, Charles Cragin, acting assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, announced the completion of RCE-05, calling it “an important step in an ongoing and rigorous process of identifying new and better ways of using the Reserve Component.”¹⁹

The Fate of the Initiatives
The RCE-05 proposals immediately became a subject of controversy. One objection was that the creation of homeland security forces might violate the Posse Comitatus Act. Posse Comitatus prohibits federal forces from performing law enforcement activities without the permission of Congress. This was, perhaps, the least credible objection. The act has never been a serious obstacle to the use of federal forces for domestic operations, nor does it preclude the military from providing logistical support, loaning equipment, and offering technical advice, facilities, and training to civil authorities. Though there is much confusion in this area that might be addressed by more clearly stated and publicized policies, there is strong precedence to support using military forces for homeland security activities. The Posse Comitatus law and other strictures are not significant legal impediments to creating home defense forces.²⁰

There were other concerns as well. The RCE-05 report catalogued potential objections to its recommendations in an annex to the study.²¹ Assigning homeland security tasks to the Reserves would create potential conflicts with other missions, such as supporting operations in major theater wars or smaller-scale contingencies. The cost of restructuring units for homeland security might be prohibitive. Preparations for homeland security might detract from readiness, leaving units unprepared for either warfighting or homeland defense. Another noteworthy objection was the claim that the Reserve Component is already capable of performing many missions that protect the homeland. In their role of providing domestic support to civil authorities, the National Guard and Reserves have performed many of the tasks associated with consequence management including providing physical security; population control and evacuation; search and rescue; erecting temporary shelters; delivering food and water; conducting fire fighting; and handling explosive and other hazardous material, all accomplished with on-hand equipment and with little additional training or preparation.

Finally, both service staffs and Reserve Component leaders were skeptical of the report’s findings. The services doubted additional resources would be available to reconfigure Reserve forces for homeland security tasks. For example, the Defense Planning Guidance, a key document for determining resource requirements, did not even address homeland security needs.²² Army National Guard leaders were wary as well. In recent years, the Army staff had been slow to shift funding priorities to reflect the increased use of Reserve forces. They were unconvinced that simply giving more missions to the Reserves would result in more funding for Reserve forces.²³ In addition, leaders in the National Guard, already engaged in a concerted effort to stave-off the remaining personnel cuts mandated by the 1997 QDR, were reluctant to relinquish combat-related missions, which would be tantamount to admitting they had excess force structure.²⁴

A brief review of the recommendations, in turn, reveals that they met with limited success.

• Homeland Security Units. The report’s first proposal recommended assigning homeland security missions to Reserve Component commands. The report considered creating new missions, including “dual missioning” (assigning a unit a wartime and homeland security mission), “remissioning” (assigning homeland support duties as a primary mission), or “restructuring” (reorganizing a unit with different personnel and equipment specifically for homeland security tasks). The Army, which potentially had the most Reserve forces that could be reorganized as homeland defense units, looked at the issue most closely. The Army staff conducted a series of workshops, wargames, and meetings to flesh out possible requirements. But rather than recommending new units, the staff instead proposed providing some additional resources to enhance National Guard readiness for consequence management. Results were briefed and accepted by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army in December 2001, but were not assigned a high priority and became “unresourced requirements.”²⁵

• Air National Guard Engineer Assets. The second RCE-05 proposal was to convert Air National Guard Bare Base Air Wings (Base Engineer Emergency Forces, or “Prime BEEF”) into teams for providing additional consequence management capabilities. Prime BEEF units were created in the 1960s to construct and operate airfields at austere locations. Their capabilities include fire fighting, disaster preparedness, and detection of chemical and biological attacks and decontamination. RCE-05 recommended using Reserve Prime BEEF units, as consequence management troops. The Air Force, however, was looking to expand the service’s capability to deploy its Air Expeditionary Forces to remote areas where bases might not be readily available. The Air staff concluded that it could not afford to divert deployable assets exclusively to homeland security missions. The service concluded Prime BEEF units could conduct consequence management missions with their existing force structure if the need arose.