Army Guard leaders urge civilian leaders to plan for domestic operations during war

WASHINGTON - As the Army shifts from predictable mobilization models of the past to the demands of future large-scale combat operations, the Army National Guard's more than 329,000 Soldiers must be prepared to mobilize at scale for war while continuing to support governors in responding to emergencies at home.

That was the core message Army Guard leaders delivered at this year's Association of the United States Army Annual Meeting and Exposition during the Director of the Army National Guard Seminar.

If a conflict with a peer or near-peer adversary erupts, the Army Guard will almost certainly be federalized on a large scale, not only to fight alongside the active-duty Army and Army Reserve overseas but also to protect the homeland and respond to threats such as cyberattacks, attacks on critical infrastructure and natural or human-caused disasters.

During the seminar, panelists warned that these simultaneous demands, which they called "simultaneity," could strain the Army National Guard and complicate governors' responses to state emergencies.

"Hurricanes will not take a break for great power war," said Lt. Gen. Jonathan Stubbs, director of the Army National Guard and host of this year's seminar panel. "Bad days and natural disasters will still happen… and our governors will need a capability and… a response."

Maj. Gen. Larry Muennich, adjutant general of the Indiana National Guard and a seminar panelist, echoed Stubbs' concerns about governors' ability to respond to emergencies.

"A governor is wondering… when these forces get pulled away in this environment of a partial mobilization... what's left for the governor in a contested homeland?" said Muennich. "The governor will call me and say I need state active-duty forces because I need to go do X, Y, and Z," he added, emphasizing that protecting critical infrastructure will be a priority for his governor, particularly in a contested homeland with fewer National Guard forces available.

Simultaneity was not the only concern raised during the seminar. Panelists also discussed competing demands for resources.

"The joint force headquarters in your state will be absolutely stressed," said Muennich, whose home state operates Camp Atterbury, an Army Mobilization Force Generation Installation (MFGI). "That joint force headquarters is going to stand up… the MFGI. But only a small portion of the Soldiers who operate that MFGI at Camp Atterbury come from Indiana. They're going to have their own challenges getting out the door to get to Camp Atterbury to stand up Camp Atterbury," he added.

Muennich also highlighted the challenges of mobilizing state formations.

He said Camp Atterbury and many Indiana Joint Force Headquarters personnel would also be responsible for mobilizing Indiana's 38th Infantry Division and 76th Mobile Brigade, creating additional challenges and requiring state adjutants general to determine how to address gaps in state and federal capabilities.

Maj. Gen. Bob Carruthers, a seminar panelist and commander of the Florida Army National Guard, described his state's approach to addressing some of the challenges posed by simultaneity.

"To mitigate that… we have re-stood up the Florida State Guard," said Carruthers. "It's been on the books since World War 2… and we had talked to [governor] about reactivating it because we knew…as more and more mobilizations are occurring."

Carruthers emphasized that reactivating the Florida State Guard, with up to 1,500 state-trained and equipped volunteers available for domestic response, could help fill potential gaps in the state's emergency response capabilities.

Maj. Gen. Jack James, a seminar panelist and deputy commanding general of the Army National Guard, U.S. Army Transformation and Training Command, proposed additional solutions, including establishing a process to coordinate force allocations among the Army Guard, the 54 states, territories and the District of Columbia, and the active-duty Army to prioritize resources and resolve competing demands quickly.

"The framework in the process is so critical. Essentially what I'm talking about is a broker…," James said. "We need… a brokering function…, an arbiter for how resource allocations are going to be made in a quick, timely manner so we can get after it for the country."

Muennich agreed, emphasizing the need to strengthen resilience at the state level.

"We have to look at how to improve the resilience within the state," said Muennich. "What other things can we look at? What other options do we have within the state? To improve resilience, to respond, whether they're things like your state force, whatever you might have within each individual state, or civilian cyber corps for response," he added.

Maj. Gen. Brey Hopkins, deputy commanding general, U.S. Army Western Hemisphere Command, Reserve Component, whose command plays a central role in mobilizing, training and validating Army National Guard formations, offered another potential solution: decentralizing the mobilization process for certain missions.

"There is a solid argument that if you're mobilizing for homeland defense, defense of critical infrastructure, static security of multiple different locations, or roving patrols within a state, do you need to go to an MFGI?" Hopkins asked.

Hopkins emphasized that improving mobilization processes is not merely an administrative concern but also a matter of national security and strategic deterrence.

"If you don't think our adversaries are looking at how we do things and how quickly we can mobilize the nation for war and you don't think they have a stopwatch on it … you got another thing coming," said Hopkins. "Demonstrated mobilization proficiency is a component of strategic deterrence."

He reinforced that point, emphasizing how rapid mobilization and force projection contribute to deterrence.

"If we can demonstrate the ability, whether that is through prepositioned forces, prepositioned stocks, or our ability within the National Guard and the Army Reserve to quickly mobilize, defend the homeland, and project power from the United States, that ties directly to deterrence."

Following the seminar, Stubbs emphasized the importance of readiness as the Army transitions to large-scale combat operations.

"We're a fight-tonight force in the homeland, meaning we can do the things in the homeland to support our governors, support law enforcement, other federal entities and agencies, but then we can rapidly pivot and deploy overseas to support our geographic combatant commanders," said Stubbs. "But make no mistake, the Army National Guard of today is the combat reserve of the United States Army. If the nation fights, the Army will fight. If the Army fights, the Army National Guard will fight. This is a no-fail mission."