Special Commentary:

Not So Fast: Why the Call to Expand the Reserve 

Components is Premature

June 24, 2020 | COL Matt Lawrence

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will have significant implications for the military and 

the US Army. Some experts have suggested that massive budget cuts are likely and will force the 

Army to increase the size of the reserve components. After all, the reserve components have 

performed the majority of the military’s work during the pandemic, and have argued for years 

that they are a low-cost alternative to active forces. However, there are several reasons this 

should not happen—at least not without a major shift in America’s global military presence and 

a significant revision of our National Security Strategy.

There is no doubt that the Army’s reserve components have played an important role in the 

nation’s coronavirus response. Over forty-six thousand National Guard troops have been 

mobilized across the country, and the Army Reserve mobilized over three thousand soldiers. 

This was most notable in the Urban Augmentation Medical Task Forces, which deployed to 

various cities in need of additional manpower. They have provided vital services and a visual 

reminder of the Army’s homeland responsibilities.

The importance of their efforts have led some to suggest that the reserve components will 

become more important and that resources should be diverted to them or that their numbers 

should grow. After all, reserve units in reserve status cost less. The National Guard consumes 12 

percent of the Army’s base budget, and the Army Reserve only a paltry 6 percent, the major 

savings being the full-time pay, additional benefits, housing, installation, training, and 

operations and maintenance costs required by their active counterparts.

This argument, however, ignores the larger issues with merely transferring active structure 

to the reserve components. Altering the force mix of the Army makes dramatic changes in its

responsiveness and ability to perform missions across the globe. Such a change could occur in 

the face of a crisis that forces the nation to reevaluate its global presence and responsibilities, 

but coronavirus does not present such a black swan event.
The financial issues that have arisen due to the COVID-19 pandemic are significant. The 

national debt, which stood at $22 trillion prior to the crisis, is ballooning. The government 

borrowed an additional $3 trillion for the coronavirus stimulation package, and it will likely 

consider more in the coming months—especially if a resurgence of the virus occurs. This does 

not even consider the reduction of revenues the government is suffering due to business closures

and massive unemployment as the nation tries to control the spread of the disease.

There will be pressure after the pandemic passes to pay for its cost by both reducing costs 

and increasing revenues. The Army, being the largest portion of the government’s largest 

discretionary line item (the Department of Defense), would likely be forced to make the largest 

concessions.

But despite the eye-popping figures associated with the ballooning debt and an uncertain 

future, the economic picture is not necessarily that dire. It is true that by the end of the COVID19 crisis, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio will be the highest it has ever been. Eventually, the debt 

will have to be paid off, but for the moment, low interest rates on borrowing, the global 

preeminence of the dollar, and the temporary nature of the current borrowing mean an 

economic crisis is not piling on top of the viral one.

Economists have long worried about the debt-to-GDP ratio reaching a red line where credit 

becomes downgraded, and the country’s ability to borrow declines. However, it is unclear at 

what ratio that may happen and when it may present economic hardship. The United States has 

a debt-to-GDP ratio of 104 percent while Japan has the world’s highest debt-to-GDP ratio for a 

major economy at 237 percent (although Japan benefits by 90 percent of that debt being 

domestically held). Furthermore, the United States is not alone in a ballooning debt ratio after 

COVID-19. Several other major developed countries, including Canada, France, the United 

Kingdom, and Belgium are close to US levels of debt without the immense power of the 

American economy to help drag them out in the future.

So it is not given that a money shortage will cause the United States to drastically change its 

global presence and national security posture. The nation’s forward presence of 177,000 soldiers 

will continue, and politicians, especially in this election year, will continue to avoid any pressure 

to change as well. Republicans will avoid breaking their lockstep with the president, and 

Democrats will avoid giving him an opportunity to cast them as “weak on national security.” And 

while the Department of Defense will likely see its budgets stagnate or decline slightly, it won’t 

be crippling. Even if there is a shift in power in Washington, these political threats remain and 

will temper any drastic change. This means the missions and global presence required of the 

Army today will not fundamentally change, regardless of whether or not the Army has to shed a 

few thousand soldiers to satisfy its balance sheet. This will necessitate the force mix (active v. 

reserve numbers) to remain at the 50 to 55 percent reserve level where it has been since the fall 

of the Soviet Union.

1

There are other reasons a major shift to the reserve components is not feasible. The first 

issue with increasing the reserve components is that capabilities are lost. Yes, reserve units are 
designed to deploy and fight as their active counterparts are, but they are not able to deploy 

quickly or as often. Where an active unit is designed to deploy once every two years, reserve 

units are designed to deploy every five years. To do so more often would harm recruiting and 

reserve soldiers’ ability to retain full time employment. Acknowledging this disparity, a 2014 

RAND study calculated that replacing an active duty unit’s capabilities in the reserve 

components would require 2.7 identical reserve units, eroding most if not all potential cost 

savings.

Reserve units are also not as responsive. The Army routinely has a rapid deployment force, 

on a two-hour alert window, and ready to deploy within eighteen hours in the event of an 

immediate crisis. Reserve component units are incapable of such a feat. Soldiers are dispersed 

when not on duty, usually within fifty miles of their unit’s location, but they are not on call when 

not wearing a uniform. And because they are limited to a base of thirty-nine training days per 

year, reserve units must train on collective tasks and be validated after being mobilized and 

prior to deployment. For smaller units, such as public affairs detachments, this is relatively easy. 

Larger and more equipment-intensive units such as brigade combat teams require far more 

time.

So as easy as it may be to propose a shift to reserve component structure to save money, 

there are serious national security decisions that must be made prior to doing so. America is in 

the throes of two crises, one from a virus and another with its roots in prejudice and racial

injustice. Neither of them presents the conditions that would require fundamental change to the 

way the country protects itself and its global interests. Despite all the glib prognostications 

about the future, the Army of tomorrow will look more like today’s than many imagine.

ENDNOTES

1. This analysis was done using a number of public and non-public sources, including 

historic active duty numbers, internal Army Reserve and National Guard manning numbers, 

and troop levels from various National Defense Authorization Acts.

*****

The views expressed in this Special Commentary piece are those of the author and do not 

necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department 

of Defense, or the US Government. This article is cleared for public release; distribution is 

unlimited.

*****

Organizations interested in reprinting this or other SSI and USAWC Press articles should 

contact the Editor for Production via email at usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.ssi-
webmaster@mail.mil. All organizations granted this right must include the following statement: 

“Reprinted with permission of the Strategic Studies Institute and US Army War College Press, 

US Army War College.”

*****

All Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and US Army War College (USAWC) Press publications may 

be downloaded free of charge from the SSI website. Hard copies of certain reports may also be 

obtained free of charge while supplies last by placing an order on the SSI website. Check the 

website for availability. SSI publications may be quoted or reprinted in part or in full with 

permission and appropriate credit given to the US Army Strategic Studies Institute and US

Army War College Press, US Army War College, Carlisle, PA. Contact SSI by visiting our website 

at the following address: http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/.