THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT 
              Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: Sunday, December 31, 1995              TAG: 9512290019
SECTION: COMMENTARY               PAGE: J4   EDITION: FINAL 
TYPE: Editorial 
                                             LENGTH: Short :   46 lines

NATIONAL GUARD NEEDS A DOSE OF DOWNSIZING GUARDED TOO WELL

For some time the Pentagon has wanted to shrink the National Guard as a way to free up funds for ongoing operations at a time of a budget a squeeze. There's resistance from Guard partisans, including many governors. But the Pentagon has got it right.

During the Cold War, the Guard served as a useful and cost-efficient way to maintain a backup force in the event of a sudden, massive emergency. But in these leaner times when threats are smaller and different, a Cold War-size Guard has become an unaffordable luxury that soaks up dollars that could be put to better use.

Some want to keep the Guard at full-strength out of sentiment and historical respect. In other cases, the fondness for the Guard represents turf protection and pure pork - a flow of federal dollars to localities and individuals that appreciate the money. Some governors tout the Guard as a necessity in the event of urban violence or natural disaster. But regular troops can be employed in such cases.

What's clear is the cost of keeping the Guard at its present strength of more than a third of a million men - more than $1 billion a year. It's estimated that cutting the Army National Guard roughly in half could save hundreds of millions in training and equipment costs.

A Pentagon spokesman, quoted in a New York Times report, says the Guard is irrelevant to military strategy in the '90s and represents ``a kind of welfare program for weekend warriors. . . .''

That's blunt, but at this point the country can't afford euphemism or equivocation. The Army is in the middle of a decade-long downsizing that will shrink it by 36 percent. By contrast, Congress has restricted cuts in the Guard to only 20 percent. That makes no sense.

The Pentagon has the responsibility to protect the nation and ought to be listened to when it argues that money now devoted to the Guard could be better spent elsewhere. Arguments on the other side are unpersuasive. Congress should get its priorities straight, second the Pentagon's motion and cut the Guard down to size. by CNB