26
Recruiting and retention is not just a concern for one political party. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-
Fla) argues occupations unduly tax the Guard and Reserve who “have a specialized niche, and in
times of war, that’s one thing, but in times of long, lengthy occupations you can’t take them
away from their employers and their families; Otherwise, they’re not going to reenlist” (Loeb,
2004). However, as a member of the Air Force reserve and self-described hawk Sen. Lindsey
Graham (R-SC) has been one to raise the alarm. “We could have a bloodletting in terms of
retention and recruiting,” he told one reporter. “The unaddressed cost of this war is the effects
on Guard and Reserve families. We are going to lose people. We can’t survive in families and
in small business” (Dys, 2004). Graham also has been among the many who have noted the
disproportionate effect extended active duty requirements for reservists has placed on first-
responders and their communities. The Adjutant General of the South Carolina National Guard
is less pessimistic, but cautious. “Many said when they first go to Iraq, they were sure they were
getting out as soon as they could…some of their views changed. We’ll lose some” (Dys, 2004).
According to one of his spokesman, the greatest impact has been an increase in those leaving as
soon as they are eligible for retirement.
One plan for future utilization of the National Guard calls for 50 percent to be in training,
25 percent to serve in the U.S. and 25 percent to deploy (Seymour, 2004). Yet this, combined
with other factors, bodes ill according to Brookings analyst Michael O’Hanlon who told the
Christian Science Monitor, “there’s a potential for a catastrophic fall off. How many people in
these units want to deploy one in three years for next half decade?” (Stern, 2003). Even if it
comes, the rebalancing promised by the Secretary of Defense will not have major impact on the
reserve component for more than a year.
Convention