![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/635693756441891495-hargettwithflags03146-2-jpg.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nRetired Maj. Gen. Gus Hargett<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n Photo Credit: Courtesy of NGAUS<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n I thought maybe he misspoke. But here he was last month saying the same thing in public testimony to a panel charged with determining how the Total Army would confront future threats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If he’s right, then the Militia Act of 1903 has been repealed and no one told me. That law, also called the Dick Act, specifically requires the Guard to conform to the standards of the active component. Since then, guardsmen and active-component service members have attended the same schools, trained on the same equipment and operated under the same doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even their formations have been identical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This was reinforced by the 1993 off-site agreement which also realized the wisdom in maintaining a Guard that reflected the active component.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Look, no one expects the Army Guard to pack up this morning and fight tonight. That’s not its purpose. That’s the job of full-time soldiers. And they do it well, largely because of people like Odierno.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Army Guard will join the fight later, fulfilling the combat-reserve mission for which it was created.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If McHugh and Odierno are right about the Army Guard and Army not being interchangeable, they have themselves to blame. It is their responsibility \u2014 their duty \u2014 to make them interchangeable. Taxpayers expect it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But they are wrong \u2014 flat wrong \u2014 if they believe the Army Guard is not meant to be interchangeable with the full-time Army. The nation witnessed it in 2005 when roughly half of the maneuver brigades fighting the war in Iraq were from the Guard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So I guess I’ve been right all along about that fundamental principle of the Army Guard. It is an interchangeable force. It is meant to step in when needed and take over the battle without a drop in effectiveness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the general and secretary see it otherwise, one has to wonder if it is because to acknowledge that fact would be to endorse greater use of the Army National Guard and its comparable capability at a lower cost.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Maybe that’s the lesson I’m supposed to learn from their testimony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hargett is the president of the National Guard Association of the United States and a former adjutant general of Tennessee.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In my mind, if the regular Army needs more combat power, the Guard provides it. That, to me, defines interchangeable.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":79607,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-noindex":"","_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-nofollow":"","_yoast_wpseo_canonical":"","_acf":"","_yoast_wpseo_primary_category":14,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_smg_distribution_targets":[]},"categories":[14],"tags":[],"coauthors":[1817],"class_list":["post-43668","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion"],"acf":{"subheadline":"","legacy_arc_id":"FJCEK6OMIJCAXLFKADAEHPYYTE","arc_canonical_url":"\/opinion\/2015\/06\/08\/commentary-guard-is-interchangeable-with-active-duty\/","remove_feature_photo":false,"is_sponsored":false,"subtype":"","redirect_url":"","disable_inline_ads":false,"native_logo_pretext":"Presented By:"},"yoast_head":"\n