The National Guard is indispensable to the force of the future

OPINION:

For 250 years, America has maintained a force to defend the homeland and deter aggression from overseas. Of all our storied services and capable components, only one force can, and has, shouldered that dual burden: the National Guard.

I know that force. Before my time in Congress, I served in the Arkansas National Guard and retired as a colonel after 30 years. However, the National Guard’s roots have created a paradigm in which it is often treated as “second-class.”

The National Defense Act of 1920 established the three components of the United States Army: the Regular Army, the National Guard, and the “Organized” Reserves. It characterized the National Guard as the “primary combat reserve” of the Regular Army.

The National Guard is more than a strategic reserve; it is an operational, combat-tested force that America relies on every day. And the numbers prove it.

In 2025 alone, more than 15,000 National Guard members deployed overseas in support of a broad range of missions. Roughly 13,000 National Guard members were on duty protecting the homeland from natural disasters, conducting security operations, and assisting civilian authorities. And through the State Partnership Program, the National Guard expanded relationships with 116 partner nations worldwide.

This already impressive track record is even more remarkable given their operating budget.

The Army National Guard composes 34.4% of the total Army end-strength but is asked to operate with only 15% of the operations and maintenance funding. The Air National Guard is no different: It makes up 21.9% of the total Air Force end strength, but has only 11% of the operations and maintenance funding.

When hurricanes, floods, fires, and cyberattacks threaten our local communities, the National Guard responds. When combatant commanders in Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, and the Middle East require trained formations, the National Guard is already in the rotation. And when the nation requires a show of strength, as it did recently with the conflict in Iran, the National Guard answers the call.

Yet, our budgeting and force-structure decisions require the National Guard to carry out active component responsibilities with second-hand equipment, disproportional funding, and shrinking formations.

We call this a “red star cluster” in the Army: a warning signal that needs to be addressed. In Congress, we call this a responsibility that needs to be taken seriously. History shows both the cost of neglecting readiness and the strategic value of investing in the National Guard.

In January 1941, the Arkansas National Guard’s 206th Coast Artillery Regiment was mobilized, trained and sent to defend Dutch Harbor in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands. On June 3, 1942, the Japanese Navy launched two aircraft carrier raids in the first ever aerial attack by an enemy on North American soil. Although surprised and outmatched technologically, these brave Arkansans beat back the Japanese in the opening battle of the Aleutian Islands campaign. The Battle of Dutch Harbor demonstrated what the National Guard can accomplish when the nation mobilizes and trains prior to combat.

But the regiment’s outdated weapons also illustrate the unnecessary risks created when National Guard formations are given yesterday’s equipment for tomorrow’s fight. Eight years later, Task Force Smith provided the opposite lesson on the Korean Peninsula courage cannot compensate for an understrength, ill-equipped force.

“No more Task Force Smiths” is now a mantra that is invoked to caution against unpreparedness and is a warning against confusing capacity with capability.

That is why Congress must learn from both Dutch Harbor and Task Force Smith and invest in readiness over ambition. It is our obligation to modernize without hollowing out the force that must be prepared to defend at home and fight abroad.

The lesson is simple: when the National Guard is prepared in advance, it is the tip of spear; but when our nation waits until the crisis arrives, brave Americans pay the price.

For the National Guard, this means concurrent and proportional fielding. National Guard formations assigned the same missions and deployment timelines as the Regular Army, while also remaining responsible for defense of the homeland, require more funding and comparable equipment not less.

Peace through Strength begins with forces that are ready. We should build the Regular Army to meet the challenges of tomorrow, but not at the expense of today’s capable and ready National Guard.

The National Guard is not the force of last resort. It is not the billpayer for the Regular Army. The National Guard is indispensable to the force of the future. It is time we funded, equipped, and employed it that way.

• Rep. Steve Womack retired from the Arkansas Army National Guard in 2009 at the rank of Colonel with more than thirty years of service. He has represented the Third District of Arkansas since his election in 2010. He is currently a senior member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, where he serves as the Chairman of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Subcommittee and also sits on the Defense and Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Subcommittees.