Air University

Stephen R. Lorenz, Lt Gen, Commander

Air War College

Stephen J. Miller, Maj Gen, Commandant

Kurt Schake, Col, Dean

Lawrence E. Grinter, PhD, Series Editor

Michael Masterson, Lt Col, Essay Advisor

Air University Press

Terry L. Hawkins, Interim Director

Bessie E. Varner, Deputy Director

Jerry L. Gantt, Content Editor

Sherry C. Terrell, Copy Editor

Mary P. Ferguson, Prepress Production

Daniel Armstrong, Cover Design/Illustrations

Emily Adams, Quality Review

Please send inquiries or comments to

Editor

The Maxwell Papers

Air War College

325 Chennault Circle, Bldg. 1401

Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6006

Tel: (334) 953-7074

Fax: (334) 953-1988

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-mxwl.htm
AIR UNIVERSITY

AIR WAR COLLEGE

Air National Guard Structure

for the Twenty-first Century

The Multimission Framework for

Total Force Integration

Kevin S. Dailey

Lieutenant Colonel, NEANG

Air War College

Maxwell Paper No. 43

Air University Press

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

May 2008
ii

Disclaimer

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are 

solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US 

government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited.

This Maxwell Paper and others in the series are available electronically at the Air University Research Web 

site http://research.maxwell.af.mil and the AU Press 

Web site http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil.
iii

Foreword

For nearly three decades, the Air National Guard has 

served as a strategic reserve available to the Total Force 

only during a time of crisis. Today, the days of the “baseball 

cap flying club” are long gone, and Total Force Integration is 

firmly ensconced as the only way to fight the nation’s wars. 

With the added complications of reduced budgetary outlays 

and high operational tempo, Total Force considerations and 

organizational constructs become even more important to 

the mission’s bottom line for the United States Air Force. 

Given the myriad of Total Force organizational constructs, 

is there one “best” unit structure for optimum Total Force 

Integration? If so, what might that unit look like, and why? 

If not, what framework of common traits might ensure future success? Lt Col Kevin Dailey offers the Multimission 

Framework as an answer. His research for the framework 

originates with an extensive series of interviews with senior service leaders, multiple case studies of the different 

current constructs, an extensive literature review, and an 

examination of current challenges. By reviewing the constitutional mandate for the militia forces, the rationale for an 

Air National Guard, and the complex series of Guard missions, as well as organizational unit types, Colonel Dailey 

adds further depth to the strength of a new framework built 

on the common threads of successful models. This framework is built to maximize effectiveness in future integration 

efforts and is presented as “Multimission Integration.” 

The Multimission Framework for operational integration 

proposed by Colonel Dailey is a synthesis of the successful 

constructs across the many models currently being utilized 

throughout the Total Force. Current models in vogue are 

the Active Associate Wing, the Reserve/Guard Associate 

Wing, the “Blended” Wing, and the Integrated Wing. Colonel 

Dailey examined each of these models for its positive and 

negative contributions to the Total Force. His research presented an ironic challenge: all of them work to varying degrees of success when coupled with good leaders and good 

people. Can history and research demonstrate a better way 

forward? 
iv

Digging deeper uncovered the key to the Multimission 

Framework. Binding together each successful model are 

the common threads of policy, procedure, and programs 

that make the Multimission Framework the key way forward. This new framework for integration includes these 

successful common threads—a robust concept of operations, an ethical and legal chain of command, proper human resourcing (the right people and the right leaders), 

clear administrative controls, a clear operational direction 

chain, HRO supervisory training, judge advocate general 

(JAG) approval, volunteerism, recruiting, and the mobilization hammer. These common threads balance the various 

contributions of all types of forces without neglecting the 

unique requirements and missions of both federal and state 

forces. Although US Code Titles 10 and 32 draw relatively 

clear lines in the sand on responsibilities, both federal and 

state forces share missions more often than not. 

Colonel Dailey makes a strong case for the Multimission 

Framework as a primary organizational construct for future Total Force success. When the entire Total Force team 

embraces operational unity for effect, yet understands and 

retains the distinctive strengths of each component, operational and strategic success for the United States Air Force 

will be assured. 

As with all Maxwell Papers, this study is provided in the 

spirit of academic freedom, open debate, and the serious 

consideration of issues. We encourage your responses.

 STEPHEN J. MILLER

 Major General, USAF

 Commandant, Air War College
v

About the Author

Lt Col Kevin Dailey is an active duty Nebraska Air National Guardsman from Offutt AFB, Nebraska. He holds 

a bachelor of science degree in military history from the 

US Air Force Academy and a Master of Human Relations 

(MHR) degree from the University of Oklahoma. As an RC135 master navigator, he has flown nearly 5,000 hours of 

operational reconnaissance, combat, combat support, instruction, evaluation, airborne command and control, and 

training sorties. He has held several staff jobs including 

chief, Reconnaissance Assignments at Headquarters Air 

Force Personnel Center, as well as joint service in both the 

US Space Command and the US Northern Command as 

an operational plan advisor to the combatant commanders and as chief of operations for the Mobile Consolidated 

Command Center. Most recently, Colonel Dailey held the 

position of formal training unit (FTU) flight commander in 

the 170th Operations Support Squadron. The FTU flight is 

now the 238th Combat Training Squadron, operationally 

integrated within the 55th Wing. He deployed to Operations 

Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as a director of operations for the 763rd Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron. The unique mission partnership between the Nebraska 

Air National Guard and Air Combat Command’s 55th Wing 

presented Colonel Dailey with true operational expertise in 

the Total Force arena. He is currently a member of the Air 

War College Class of 2008 at Maxwell AFB, Alabama. 

vii

Abstract

Since the Vietnam War, much has changed with regard 

to the Total Force and the structure of the Department of 

Defense. The Air National Guard, in particular, began many 

transformational programs designed to better enhance its 

mission capabilities for both state and federal missions. 

In fact, the Air National Guard evolved into an operational 

reserve necessary to successfully fight the nation’s wars. 

Ultimately, the strength of the Air National Guard is built 

upon its greatest asset: its people. With people at the center of the equation, is there a best organizational construct 

in which to form an Air National Guard unit? If so, what 

might that unit look like? If not, might there be certain 

traits which resonate successfully within all the models? 

With these research questions in hand, the author began a 

quest for resolution on the optimum Guard organizational 

construct.

When a researcher pursues new subject matter, there is 

the possibility that the research results may be significantly 

different than expected. In this case, through a myriad of 

senior officer interviews, multiple model case studies, an 

expansive literature review, and a thorough review of the 

challenges in new units, the research indicated that there 

is almost no limit to the number of successful types of Total 

Force Integration models. However, what the research did 

demonstrate was the importance of certain core threads necessary for any models to both survive and thrive. Because 

of these core threads, this study recommends a common 

framework for the way ahead for future integration efforts, 

which shall be presented as the “Multimission Framework 

for Total Force Integration.” 

Within the discussion, it became necessary to examine the historical chronology of Total Force Integration as 

well as Air National Guard history and culture. A thorough 

examination of cultural artifacts and challenges leads to 

the proverbial question of why a governor needs fighters. 

US Air Force core competencies remind us of the need for 

Guard members to be proficient in the same missions as 

their active duty peers. However, Guard personnel also 

have a dual-mission nature due to state and federal laws. A 
brief look at US Code, Articles 10 and 32, demonstrates the 

key differences by law and clarifies the common misconceptions in this statutory guidance. With the groundwork 

laid, the study examines all current major integration models in vogue: the Guard Reserve/Active Associate Wing, the 

Blended Wing, and the Integrated Wing. Through careful 

examination of the strengths and weaknesses behind each 

model, a Multimission Framework is proposed as the way 

ahead. 

The Multimission Framework for integration relies upon 

the following successful common threads: a robust concept 

of operations, an ethical and legal chain of command, proper 

human resourcing (the right people and the right leaders), 

clear administrative controls, a clear operational direction 

chain, HRO supervisory training, the JAG’s approval, volunteerism, recruiting, and the mobilization hammer. Given 

these successful threads, it becomes possible to weave an 

extraordinarily successful unit capable of optimum integration. As demonstrated by the case study evaluations and 

common threads, the more carefully an integration effort 

is prepared using the Multimission Framework, the more 

likely a new organization will achieve long-term success. 

By embracing the diversity and distinctive strengths of the 

active and reserve components, the Total Force becomes 

better prepared for operational and strategic success for 

the nation.

viii


Introduction 

We simply could not accomplish today’s dynamic 

mission without the Total Force integration of our 

Guard, Reserve and Active Duty force. Gone are the 

“strategic reserve” days of the Guard and Reserve. 

Today, our total force sacrifices daily through 

extended deployments in the most challenging missions we have. As an integral part of this highly 

skilled team, the Guard and Reserve train to the 

same high standards set by our Active Duty, operate the latest equipment and participate in every 

mission across the spectrum of operations.

                  –––Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne

                  –––“Letter to Airmen: Recognizing the Total Force,”

                  –––July 2006

For many years, the Air National Guard (ANG) acted

“more or less in parallel with active duty counterparts,

working in unison but only interacting occasionally for

exercises and such.”1 Today, the ANG is extensively employed worldwide with both active and reserve components

as part of the Total Force. During the Cold War, the ANG

represented a “strategic reserve” not unlike an off-the-shelf

capability which could only be utilized in times of great crisis or war. In an era of ever-tightening budgets, drastic decreases in manpower, ongoing global war efforts, and larger

responsibilities within the CONUS, is there any wonder

that Total Force Integration (TFI) continues to receive great

attention on Capitol Hill? Air Force officials affirm that “the

integration of active duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force

Reserve Command forces made possible Operations Noble

Eagle, Enduring Freedom, and Iraqi Freedom.”2 With the

added complications of reduced budgetary outlays, personnel downsizing, and force recapitalization, Total Force

considerations have become even more important to the

mission’s bottom line. As figure 1 graphically depicts, the

post–9/11 era drove a dramatic man-day increase in both

the Total Force OPTEMPO (operational tempo) and operational commitments with little hope for relief in the current

global war on terror (GWOT).3
Since 1973, when the Total Force policy was first put

into practice, Air Force leaders have discussed how to optimally employ the Air National Guard on both federal and

state missions. In 1973, Secretary of Defense James R.

Schlesinger declared, “Total Force is no longer a concept.

It is now a Total Force Policy which integrates the active,

Guard, and reserve forces into a homogenous whole.”4 The

focus of this study is to explore the structures of Total Force

Integration and to ultimately determine the optimum organizational framework for integration efforts with the Total

Force as one complete service. Is there a “best” unit structure for TFI? If so, what might that unit look like, and why?

If not, what framework of common traits might ensure future success? The research involves a series of interviews

with senior service leaders, multiple case studies of the

current constructs, an extensive literature review, and an

examination of current challenges. This study recommends

a common framework for the way ahead for future integration efforts, which shall be presented as the “Multimission

Framework for Total Force Integration.”

Air National Guard History and Culture 

There can be no true integration solutions without examining the Air National Guard’s rich heritage. Like the Army

Figure 1. Reserve component of total force mission (Reprinted from 

Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs 

[Readiness, Training, and Mobilization], Rebalancing Forces: Easing the 

Stress on the Guard and Reserves, 15 January 2004, 2.)

%FTFSU4IJFME4UPSN

$POUSJCVUJPO

/PCMF&BHMF&OEVSJOH'SFFEPN*SBRJ'SFFEPN

$POUSJCVUJPO

.%VUZ%BZT

.%VUZ%BZT

.%VUZ%BZT

.%VUZ%BZT

.%VUZ%BZT

3$$POUSJCVUJPOTJODMVEJOH

)BJUJ
#PTOJB
48"
,PTPWP13$T

': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ': ':

/PUF%BUBTIPXTiEJSFDUTVQQPSUuPOMZ
OPUiJOEJSFDUTVQQPSUu	FH
SFDSVJUJOH
641'0
NPTU"(3TVQQPSU

















National Guard, the Air National Guard traces its true roots

to the Constitution of the United States. The Preamble states

that the Congress shall “provide for the common defence

[sic] . . . and secure the blessings of Liberty.” Article 1, section 8, lays out the foundations for the Guard: “To provide

for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,

suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for

organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for

governing such Part of them as may be employed in the

Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of

training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by

Congress.”5 From this hallowed document, Guard members

draw forth their important charge to organize, train, and

equip for both federal and state missions. From the lens

of colonial history and the era of the minuteman, one can

imagine the concern of a fledgling democracy requiring a

significant militia to protect its new homeland.

Historically, however, the United States holds great disdain

for large, standing military forces. This could be expressed no

more plainly than by the author of the Constitution, James

Madison: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means

of defence agst. [sic] foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”6 In essence, President Madison and the founding fathers wanted to minimize the threat

of a large military on home soil through placement of “citizen

soldiers” in the form of a militia in communities.7 These forces

could rise to the nation’s defense during a time of crisis and

then demobilize back into society after the conflict.

Culturally, the Air National Guard traces its roots back to

the militia concepts developed early in the nation’s formative

years. However, the aerospace medium did not involve airpower, per se, during colonial times. “Although the Air National Guard was not established as a separate component of

the U.S. Air Force until 1947, National Guard aviators have

played significant roles in all of America’s wars and most of its

major contingencies since the beginning of the 20th Century.”8

What makes the ANG truly unique harkens back to the very

“militia” nature at its core. Day to day, Guard members serve

in and around the communities they protect and defend. They

enjoy enduring, positive community relationships and have
significant ties to the state or territory in which they serve.

Many Guard members belong to modern “militia” units where

they remain for much of their adult lives. In comparison, active duty members move on average every two to three years,

lowering the possibility of sustained local relationships.

Other ANG-unique cultural artifacts revolve around unit

identity, esprit de corps, and primary mission core competency. In fact, Guard members tend to be extraordinarily efficient at their primary roles and missions. Many possess

more than one career qualification and can work seamlessly

in multiple career areas. Active duty counterparts talk about

the incredible manner in which the Guard maintains its

equipment. Compare and contrast a Guard C-130 or KC-

135 with its active duty counterparts. The Guard aircraft will

be pristine and functional inside and out. It will have more

on-time takeoffs and fewer maintenance aborts. Why? The

reason is found in the “ownership” of the aircraft and the

effort put into keeping unit aircraft top-notch. For example,

the Wyoming Air National Guard flies C-130 aircraft; “Three

Guard crew chiefs watched all eight of the 153rd’s airplanes

come off the assembly line.”9 The level of continuity possessed

in such a unit is unbeatable. There are dedicated crew chiefs

everywhere in the Total Force, but in the Guard, the crew

chief adopts the aircraft as part of his or her family.

As for esprit de corps and community linkages, most traditional Guard units contain “high timers” possessing 20 to

30 years’ service, all in the same state or wing. This experience core has immeasurable significance in helping to bridge

the knowledge gaps for younger, traditional Guard members.

In fact, long-time Guard members know the community, and

the community embraces their service. The failure to embrace local community ties represents what Gen Creighton

Abrams “sought to eliminate [through] the disastrous Vietnam War fallacy . . . [where] wars could be fought ‘in cold

blood’ without paying the price of national mobilization.”10

When wars or crises arise, the Guard needs to be utilized

not just as an operational or strategic reserve, but also to

spread the burden of warfare through communities across

the country. Just as local disasters represent an opportunity

for the National Guard to serve, so does a conflict. If the National Guard or the Reserves are not utilized, the nation will

not bear the burden universally nor experience the shared
sacrifice of its military. In the era of the “all-volunteer force,”

it becomes all the more critical to share burdens across the

nation to prevent a disproportionate price being paid by active duty forces and only a small segment of society. General Abrams created what he referred to as National Guard

“roundout brigades” for the US Army in an effort to burden

share. These “roundout brigades comprised a strategic hedge

against the possibility of a protracted campaign in the Persian Gulf or a regional crisis elsewhere.”11 In August of 1970,

then–Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird began implementation of the Total Force concept, which “sought to strengthen

and rebuild public confidence in the reserves while saving

money by reducing the size of the active duty force.” Furthermore, Secretary Laird required that “all policy-making, planning, programming, and budgeting activities within the DoD

considered both active and reserve forces concurrently.”12

This balanced approach to the reserve component would

prove beneficial to the Total Force.

In the ANG, the Total Force concept brought the introduction of more modern weapon systems and new missions.

For example, the Nebraska Air National Guard (NEANG)

received RF-4Cs and a tactical reconnaissance mission

as the conflict in Vietnam wound down. In 1992, the unit

converted to the KC-135R and worldwide mission-essential

air refueling operations.13 Both aircraft missions proved invaluable to the Air Force and helped to energize the total

force partnership. Such a partnership goes hand-in-hand

with the citizen-soldier ethos. Many Guard members carry

their civilian skill sets directly into the service of the nation.

For instance, an airline pilot traditional guardsman might

fly Boeing 737s for United Airlines during the week and

fly Boeing KC-135s on the weekend. Such a move remains

common in traditional ANG flying units and builds directly

on the professional pilot’s skill set.

Likewise, a traditional Guard member helps share the

efficiency of the ANG skill set at a discount on the tax dollars expended. The Guard maintains a perishable skill set

while retaining traditional Guard members at combat mission ready (CMR) standards for times of crisis or war. However, does this explain why the governor needs “his own air

force”? More specifically, why does the governor of any state

need an F-16?
Why Does the Governor Need Fighters?

When does the governor of Iowa need F-16s? Could he

utilize these aircraft to quell a riot of corn farmers over

grain prices and unfair labor practices? Such inane questions pervade both society and the active duty military.

However, these misdirected questions avoid the true core

issue behind the question: What is the mission of the

Air National Guard? Simply put, the ANG augments the

USAF’s core competencies and operational and strategic

surge capability and facilitates greater budgetary efficiency

in manpower. Furthermore, it provides state augmentation

to first responders during natural disasters, homeland defense missions, and a myriad of other tasks set forth by the

Constitution and the state or territory.14

The US Air Force and the Total Force share a common

set of core competencies. As the Air Force declares: “Our

Nation’s Air Force develops, trains, sustains, and integrates the elements of air and space power to produce: air

and space superiority, global attack, rapid global mobility,

precision engagement, information superiority, and agile

combat support.”15 For the ANG to be capable in modern

warfare, it must execute missions resident within the Air

Force. Organizing, training, and equipping per the constitutional mandate prepare the organized militia or National

Guard to fight and defend the homeland if so called upon.16

Similarly, the ANG does not invent missions, as the first

question implies, but rather completes missions tasked by

appropriate national and state command authorities. If the

mission is not required to defend our nation and state or

to prepare other service members to fight, then the ANG

does not need to be resourced to be a part of the solution.

For example, if the country did not need tactical airlift or

air refueling, the mission type would disappear from the

Guard’s capability set.

The ANG also fulfills its commitment as an operational

reserve. As mentioned previously, the ANG can no longer

afford to fly outdated or incapable equipment because of

mission changes and the increased needs of the nation. The

director of the Air National Guard, Lt Gen Craig McKinley, explains: “Since 1989, the active duty Air Force has

reduced its forces by 210,000 personnel and 2,800 aircraft
and relied on the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve

to fill the gap. The ability of the Air National Guard to add

a critical surge capability through the use of its traditional

force increases the efficiency of the active duty Air Force.”

In fact, the Air National Guard represents “24 percent of the

Air Force.” General McKinley continued: “Since the events

of 11 September 2001, our expeditionary combat and combat support units have filled over 140,000 individual deployment requirements.”17 Figure 2 illustrates the impact

of the ANG on the Total Force team in raw numbers and

weapon systems types as of 2007.

Mission category Air Guard quantities

As percentage

of total USAF

(active and reserve)

Personnel end strength 106,678 21%

Fighters and attack aircraft 106,765 31%

Helicopters 106, 18 9%

Recon/BM/C3I aircraft 106, 29 16%

Special Operations aircraft 106,4 3%

Tanker aircraft 106,260 41%

Airlift aircraft 106,245 27%

Total Aircraft 101,321 22%

Figure 2. Completing the team as an operational reserve (Adapted 

from “2007 Air Force Almanac,” Air Force Magazine [May 2007]: 48, 62.)

According to General McKinley, “In addition to meeting

training and readiness requirements, Air National Guard

aircraft have flown over 176,000 sorties as part of air defense

and Air Expeditionary Forces in support of the GWOT.”18

Furthermore, the ANG provides 65 percent of required tactical airlift, 35 percent of strategic airlift, and 80 percent of

Operation Noble Eagle (homeland defense) tanker sorties

as well as 100 percent of CONUS air sovereignty groundalert sorties.19 When the active duty Air Force needs airlift,

air refueling, close air support, or many other missions, it
calls upon the ANG to lead, assist, or augment. As the active duty force reduced its manpower to 334,200, the ANG

maintained its manpower at 106,678 through a challenging

strategy. Across-the-board personnel cuts on active duty

were avoided by the ANG through an increased “exposure to

risk” by slightly reducing flying hours and maintenance.20

This risk strategy demonstrated the high priority placed on

taking care of people through the practice of positive recruiting and retention in the Guard.

The ANG provides critical core capabilities for use as an

operational reserve, but “on a budget.” The Air National

Guard budget for FY06 was $7.6 billion.21 This represents

about six percent of the USAF total budget outlay while

producing significant quantities of the aforementioned airpower.22 This savings to the US taxpayer is accomplished

through the ANG’s militia structure and organization. By

keeping a relatively small number of Guard members on

full-time active duty, a percentage as part-time technicians,

and a larger percentage as traditional Guard members, the

ANG as a whole can keep current and qualified personnel

“waiting in the wings” for utilization during crises.

The fourth and final mission carried by the ANG is a

state mission. State (or territorial) governors are commanders in chief of the Guard forces in their state or territory.

According to National Guard Bureau (NGB) Public Affairs,

“Under state law, the Air National Guard provides protection of life [and] property and preserves peace, order, and

public safety. These missions are accomplished through

emergency relief support during natural disasters such as

floods, earthquakes, and forest fires; search and rescue operations; support to civil defense authorities; maintenance

of vital public services, and counterdrug operations.”23

Much like first responders, the Guard, when activated, provides considerable relief to strained infrastructure during

times of state turmoil or crisis.

Perhaps the most compelling reason for the ANG’s role

is found in the legal system which established it. The US 

Constitution gives the legal mandate, but US statutory law

lays the expanded framework. Specifically, US Code, Titles

10 and 32, are the linchpins to the establishment of these

forces. Their structure is illustrated in figure 3 and discussed in detail in the next section.
US Code, Titles 10 and 32, 

and the ANG Structure

US Code, Title 10, establishes the roles and responsibilities of the armed forces as well as organizing them by

branch and establishing general military powers for their

employment.24 Title 10 places the military under the president of the United States as commander in chief of the

armed forces. As shown in figure 3, a military member (or

activated Guard member) would have a reporting chain

which ultimately ends with the president on the right-hand

side. Under US Code, Title 32, the Air National Guard is

"/(WT"/(644USVDUVSF

"/(	5JUMF
 "/(64	5JUMF


(PWFSOPS

)24UBUF

"/(

5"(

"/(6OJU

8BS'JHIUJOH

$*/$T

1FSTPOOFM ."+$0.T

/"'T

"/(64

6OJU

.PCJMJ[BUJPO

"/(646OJU

	/P4FSWJOH1FSTPOOFM


"/(6OJU

	/P4FSWJOH1FSTPOOFM


%FNPCJMJ[BUJPO

Figure 3: A snapshot look at structure (Reproduced from a briefing 

given at the 2007 Intermediate Development Course by Col Laura B. 

Stevens, staff judge advocate, Tennessee JFHQ, “Legal Issues for the 

Squadron Commander,” slide 14.)
10

established under the governor as commander in chief of

the militia air arm per the left-hand side of the diagram.25

The chain of command goes through Guard members at

the state headquarters to the governor with the adjutant

general (TAG) providing advice as depicted. When Guard

members are activated and mobilized under Title 10 orders,

their chain of command goes through the federal chain of

command on the right. Also, Guard members who are assigned to the NGB fall under Title 10 and are considered

ANGUS (Air National Guard of the United States).26

The reality of being a global superpower requires significant flexibility in tailoring military forces both in the CONUS and overseas. For the United States to stay relevant

in world affairs, it must remain engaged with a robust military force. This vigorous requirement for a standing military frightened ordinary Americans during post–Civil War

reconstruction, causing the government to enact a federal

law known as the Posse Comitatus Act preventing the US

Army (and the US Air Force as of 1956) from acting in the

role of law enforcement or as a police force. This prohibition

was laid out in US Code, Title 18, Section 1385, as follows:

“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,

willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a

posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be

fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than

two years, or both.”27

One key exception to Posse Comitatus is the presidential

exclusion for quelling domestic violence. In general, Title 10

forces (active military and federalized Guard members) are

required to obey Posse Comitatus and not participate in law

enforcement activities except for the domestic violence exception authority granted to the president.28 When Guard

members are utilized in state status, they are serving under

Title 32 and can be used as required for law enforcement,

training, or other state operational missions.29

Each Guard unit consists of personnel listed on a unit

manning document which appears quite similar to an active-duty unit. However, the average ANG unit includes three

different types (or status) of personnel. First, Active Guard

Reserve (AGR) personnel serve to organize, train, and equip

the units. They are on call “24/7,” 365 days a year, like
11

their active-duty counterparts. Second, Air Reserve Technicians (ART) reside on the manning roster at both a military

rank (when activated) and a state grade/skill level (Civil

Service). “The concept of the Technician Program is military technicians are part of a full-time cadre that performs

the same type of job in a technician status they perform

in their capacity as a military member.”30 In general, they

are limited to 40 hours per week while in ART status and

must be offered compensatory time or overtime pay should

they exceed allotted hours. Finally, there are the traditional

drill-status Guard members. Of the three types, this is the

most like a militia because their job hours are limited to

unit training assemblies (UTA), core training periods, and

voluntary deployments when not activated or mobilized.

The three types of personnel in a Guard unit contribute to

the “cost savings” of the Guard over active-duty forces.

However, this benefit comes at a cost. Despite being mission ready, Guard members cannot instantly deploy outside

their states without an activation order or working agreement. For the president to employ Guard members in federal

active-duty military service, he has three options: “Volunteerism, Presidential Reserve Call-up, and Mobilization (partial,

full, or total).”31 In general, most Air Guard members deploy

under the first method, volunteerism. The system tends to

deploy combat mission ready (CMR) Guard members when

it best fits the requirements of the member, the state guard

unit, and the urgent need for more active-duty forces in the

world. In accordance with US Code, Title 10, 12301(d), “At

any time, an authority designated by the Secretary [of Defense] concerned may order a member of a reserve component

under his jurisdiction to active duty, or retain him on active

duty, with the consent of that member.”32 Furthermore, the

voluntary action also comes with the mutual consent of the

state or territorial governor and the member.33

This system works for the Guard but can be frustrating

for active duty counterparts without proper planning and

accounting. A Guard unit must engage all its members to

solicit volunteers to match requirements for the combatant

commander. For example, an air refueling unit might volunteer a portion of its capability and combine with Guard

members from another state to fulfill an air expeditionary

force (AEF) tasking. The two states would include a mix
12

of active duty, traditional, and technician Guard members

to fulfill the tasking. Each unit, however, would recruit its

own people through volunteerism to meet the tasking. The

task sounds simple, but many traditional Guard members

are citizen-soldiers; some fly for airlines, others work for

local governments, and perhaps others are small-business

owners. When a large Guard unit leaves a small town, it

can leave a great void. This community bridge is usually

spanned by shorter periods of separation from the home

state with greater numbers of rotations.

Guard members may also be involuntarily activated by

a presidential reserve call-up, or mobilization. For a presidential reserve call-up, the action must be “for not more

than 270 days.”34 For a full mobilization, involuntary active duty can be “for not more than 24 months.”35 Involuntary activations for extended periods of time can have a

devastating impact on a Guard unit. Guard members are

extremely patriotic, but when a member is mobilized involuntarily, numerous unintended consequences result. For

example, a farmer might lose two or three growing seasons

and the associated harvests. A small-business owner could

lose revenue if no one else is available to serve clients. Ultimately, involuntary activations impact long-term recruiting

and retention when it appears that special unit missions

will be involuntarily activated on a regular basis. Wars tend

to be unplanned, of course, but this is why Guard members

prefer voluntary deployments over involuntary activations.

Another unique attribute of the Guard is that most members stay in their units or states for many years or, in some

cases, their entire careers. This leads to the “Guard family” being tightly knit through lengthy careers. These tight

bonds and familial-type relationships occasionally raise the

ire of active duty counterparts. For example, the use of first

names in the workplace or even siblings serving in the same

unit might surprise an active duty commander.

This appearance of a “casual” work environment leads

active duty members to assume that Guard members might

be less professional or less willing to demand a high standard of performance. The reality is actually far from the

archetype. Performance is based on a standard and can

be measured over relatively short periods of time. Relation-
13

ships, on the other hand, are the product of time, relational

transparency, and long periods of interaction.

Picture the Guard members who help rescue someone

from a tornado or a flood as well as participate in clearing and reconstruction after the disaster. The governor can

utilize Guard personnel immediately following a natural

disaster declaration due to the unique chain of command

found in the Air National Guard and the close, established

relationships with first responders. The unique attributes

and strengths of the ANG can be empowered if they are

placed in the correct environmental structure. An integrated

structure with active duty forces can help facilitate these

processes. The first organizational construct examined is

the Reserve or Active Associate Wing Model.

The Reserve/Active Associate Wing Model

One of the more popular structures employed in the ANG

in recent years is the Associate Wing Model. The Reserve

Associate Wing Model is defined as those “Guard or Reserve

units assigned to an Active Duty wing or squadron that

are administratively and organizationally separate, but operationally combined” with the active duty wing forces. The

Active Associate Wing (sometimes referred to as a “reverse

associate”) is defined as those “Active Duty units assigned

to a Guard or Reserve wing or squadron that are administratively and organizationally separate, but operationally

combined” with the ANG forces.36

The obvious distinct advantage to either arrangement is

the proximity to the mission partner. When the ANG and active duty components reside on the same piece of real estate,

unique synergies develop. Guard personnel tend to have the

advantage of great depth and breadth across their particular

mission sets. Active duty Airmen tend to be younger than their

ANG peers but bring fresh generational ideas to the wing.

One successful unit is the 153rd Airlift Wing in Cheyenne, Wyoming. This unit embraced the Active Associate

Wing Model with the 30th Airlift Squadron (active duty)

as one of 20 units operationally subordinate to the ANG

wing. The 153rd is trailblazing the first-ever reverse associate unit in the Air Force.37 The Total Force arrangement is

already bearing fruit. Seasoning young active duty Airmen,
14

as mentioned above, occurs everyday through day-to-day

interaction with experienced Guard members. The active

duty Air Force also gets increased access to a larger number

of C-130 mobility assets by flying, training, and deploying

with ANG equipment and personnel—something the active

USAF budget cannot afford at this time.38

According to Col Harold Reed, 153rd Airlift Wing commander, “Some people see the active associate as an experiment; we see it as a way to make sure the nation gets the

most out of its airplanes, air crews, and tax dollars. . . . Mixing the two unique cultures is producing a better Airman

and a better way of doing business.”39 Although challenges

remain in the arrangement, the wing continues to perform

admirably. In fact, the 30th Airlift Squadron’s operations

superintendent believes the unique integration effort creates benefits unavailable to active duty Airmen: “Here we

get the chance to deploy for operations like Coronet Oak and

Joint Forge and do off-station trainers. In the active-duty

world those opportunities are not available. And we still deploy for combat. With that mix, we can’t get any better.”40 In

addition, active core competencies could be strengthened if

active airmen fly with the ANG on the US Forest Service’s

modular airborne fire-fighting system missions.41 Such

missions historically resided in the reserve component and

now augment training for active duty C-130 crews as well.

Another superb example of the Associate Model comes

with the latest integration efforts of the Virginia Air National

Guard. The 192nd Fighter Wing (ANG) is training to fly the F22 Raptor with the active duty 1st Fighter Wing. The 192nd

acts as a reserve associate, flying 1st Fighter Wing aircraft.

In this example, “The Air Force fighter wing taps into a pool

of highly experienced Air Guard pilots and maintainers. In

return, the 192nd will trade its 1980s-era F-16s for the most

advanced warplane in the U.S. arsenal.”42

As is often the case with a complex, shared working environment, there are challenges. Col Jay Denney, 1st Fighter

Wing vice-commander, explains: “We’re breaking new ground

here between Title 10 and Title 32. . . . Administratively,

he [the guardsman] is disciplined, trained, and paid by the

Guard, as the chain of command goes through the Guard

chain.”43 The concern is that a Guard member could be flying an active duty aircraft and not be directly under the com-
15

mand of the active duty wing. The key is developing a concept

of operations (CONOPS) which addresses this issue up front.

For instance, if a four-ship flight of F-22s is flying a mission,

one member of the flight will be the flight lead. Regardless of

which unit the member belongs to, he or she will give “operational direction” to the flight. By ensuring qualifications

are appropriately documented and achieved, the challenges

to safe mission execution are reduced.

Another challenge comes in scheduling Guard personnel. Approximately 30 percent of the 192nd are full-time

personnel, and 70 percent traditional. The F-22 has a much

higher utilization rate than previous-generation aircraft, so

it can be flown more often. This gives the ANG increased

flexibility on when to fly but also means there can be conflicts when the aircraft is needed both by active duty pilots

and the Guard on UTA weekends. The integration of support

group functions yields another challenge. In this case, ANG

manning is limited to the ratio (30:70) mentioned above.44

Flexibility on both sides makes the solution more palatable.

Guard members may fly with active duty and vice versa.

Funding can also challenge this construct. Clearly, when

a Guard member flies an F-22, he or she is burning ANG

flying hours and maintenance time. However, what about

Guard members’ use of base infrastructure or commissary

privileges? Truly, the Guard presence at Langley AFB will

cost the active component some increased resources. However, the prize is precious. The 1st Fighter Wing incorporated

the skill sets of highly experienced ANG fighter pilots like

Lt Col Phillip Guy, who brought “17 years of flying F-16s

and 2,700 hours of flight time [to the table].”45 Guy recently

deployed to Kadena Air Base, Japan, on the first overseas

deployment of the F-22. The deployment took advantage of

both the Raptor’s extraordinary capabilities and the synergy

of the ANG and active duty operating as one team.46

The “Blended” Wing

Carl von Clausewitz once wrote that “war is not merely an

act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation

of political intercourse, carried on with other means.”47 The

world of politics also plays an important role in the structure of the Air Force and the Air National Guard. In 2001,
16

the 116th Bomb Wing at Robins AFB, Georgia, learned it

would lose its B-1B flying mission due to an Air Force decision to retire 33 B-1Bs from the inventory. Furthermore,

1,150 Guard members would be left without a flying mission.48 In the words of Lt Gen H. Steven Blum, chief of the

NGB, “If you take the flying unit out of the National Guard,

you’ve taken the Air out of the . . . Air National Guard.”49

This force structure change would be the equivalent of

“taking the Air” out of the Air National Guard for the state

of Georgia. Then–Secretary of the Air Force James Roche

came up with an extraordinary idea to “blend” active duty

and ANG personnel in the same unit. Roche proposed using

the 93rd Air Control Wing (ACW) and its E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) aircraft as the

solution to the Georgia ANG’s loss of mission.

Brig Gen Tom Lynn, the first ANG commander of the

116th ACW, expanded on the topic: “We never, quite frankly,

considered JSTARS . . . it was a mission still in growth.”50

The 93rd ACW did not possess a full complement of people

or aircraft. The 116th Bomb Wing, however, now possessed

a large number of people in need of an air mission. Secretary Roche’s proposal would allow for the blending of people

and aircraft assets to both meet needs and achieve unity of

effort.51 However, new concepts can be challenging to implement, especially in the low-density, high-demand (LD/

HD) world of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

(ISR) assets. A high OPTEMPO could further exacerbate the

challenge of this Total Force experiment with the cultural

shifts between the active duty and the ANG.

The biggest challenge in the blended environment is establishing unity of command. With Guard members under

Title 32 and active duty under Title 10, there was a concern

about how to “organize, train, and equip” together while in a

different status. Brig Gen Jim “Rev” Jones embraced the

challenge from the beginning head-on as the 116th Operations Group commander and later as the first active-duty

wing commander of the 116th ACW. A groundbreaking charter needed to be established and observed. General Jones, in

concert with General Lynn and the Georgia adjutant general,

established a repeatable and enduring process for the wing’s

success down the road. This led to legislation for “dualhatting” of the commander of a blended wing should it be-
17

come necessary in the future. In other words, the commander

of the 116th ACW could gain a dual commission under both

Titles 10 and 32. In the Title 10 world, it is easy to establish

unity of command with a set of “G-series” orders. However,

when you lead personnel from both authorities, a parallel

command structure becomes a necessity.52

Nevertheless, in the 116th ACW, there was both an

“ethical” and a “legal” command chain. General Jones explains: “What we came to understand was that there is a

difference between a legal, lawful binding order and operational direction.” As the active duty wing commander, he

ethically commanded all the people in the wing. Legally,

he was the active duty element commander. The vice wing

commander, a Georgia guardsman, ethically became the

116th vice wing commander. Legally, the vice became the

element commander for the Georgia Guard members in

the wing. When leadership rotated out, the two positions

would reverse. When the wing commander gave operational

direction, there existed a “tacit implication where the ANG

commander gave the exact same guidance to the guardsmen.” General Jones stated the key to the arrangement: “In

a blended wing, leadership is very personality dependent. It

requires a great deal of trust . . . working side-by-side . . .

two commanders, but one must be subordinate to the other

to achieve objectives.”53

Another key element of success in the blended wing

came from the supervision of the different types of Guard

personnel. All frontline supervisors, whether active duty or

ANG, were required to take a three-day Human Relations

Office (HRO) course on supervision. This clarified supervisory actions and made it possible for various supervisors to

generate reports on all personnel types, with a special emphasis on the differences associated with technicians and

traditional Guard members. Through coordination with the

judge advocate general (JAG), a policy was established that

leaders would rate a subordinate’s performance in both

title and position. However, to prevent possible legal problems, the final reviewer and authority endorsed the performance report under the same statute as the member—Title

32 for Guard members and Title 10 for active duty. One

by-product of the blending effort came in the form of timelier, higher-quality performance reports. Both active and
18

ANG members wanted to ensure that they did not inadvertently hurt someone’s career due to differences in accepted phrases, acronyms, or accepted component jargon.

Ultimately, the element commander’s final review and approval ensured that the component’s quality cut remained

fair and accurate.54

One other important consideration must be evaluated.

When considering the lifecycle of a weapon system and

its personnel, one would expect approximately four to five

years for turnover. The E-8C reached its initial operating

capability (IOC) in October 2002. This turnover time would

represent the first generation of JSTARS in October 2007.

General Jones believes the true advantages of a blended

unit are just being harvested. For example, a single ANG

crew chief would take care of a single aircraft for years, or

a weapons officer could generate new and better tactics for

the long-term employment of the system. Guard personnel

bring stability, longevity, and experience to an LD/HD platform.55 In fact, the 116th ACW cross-trained former ANG

bomb wing personnel in ratings or similarity of functions

wherever possible. In several cases, former B-1 weapon systems operators (WSO) cross-trained to the air battle manager (ABM) career field creating “tremendous synergies,”

according to General Jones. “Now you have shooters who

are talking to other shooters controlling the fight.”56 This

creates a situation where the controlling ABM experienced

both the direct employment of weapons in the B-1 and now

could control with both authority and credibility.

According to General Jones, one clear advantage of the

blended construct over the other models is the cutback on

manpower and facilities required to perform basically the

same tasks as an integrated or associate unit. If everything

from the jets to command sections is shared, less space is

required than with the other models. On the other hand,

one clear disadvantage is the reality of deployments in a

high OPTEMPO or an LD/HD wing. The original site activation task force (SATAF) and P-Plan (personnel programming

plan) for the blended wing established a 1:1 ratio for availability of forces, with an additional 205 authorizations to

grow the back-end mission personnel. Unfortunately, the

assumption of 1:1 availability is not true, especially when

considering traditional Guard members. General Jones ex-
19

plains: “You can’t expect a traditional guardsman to deploy

at the same rate as active duty. They can’t sustain it . . .

and if you involuntarily activate them, you stand a good

chance of losing them on the back side.”57

Once again, General Jones came up with an innovative

solution to the personnel availability problem. Rather than

just counting the number of crews available, it would be

better to consider effective or deployable crews. This required establishing some standardized expectations for

Guard personnel. For planning deployable crews and personnel, “an AGR or a full-time technician could be expected

to be available half of the time” when compared to an active-duty member. A traditional guardsman, on the other

hand, could be expected to be “available for one quarter of

the time.” These availability expectations ultimately made

it possible to plan farther out, resulting in increased volunteerism on the Guard side. Jones adds: “We also allowed for

intra-AEF rotations since the LD/HD community is outside

the AEF construct. This also increased volunteerism since

some Guard members might not be able to do a whole AEF,

but could do a half.”58 Undersecretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) Michael Dominguez agreed with the

mathematical assessment. According to General Jones,

“The Air National Guard needed 192 full-time bodies. The

active duty went from a 2.0 to a 2.25 crew ratio to give us

the additional bodies” necessary to compensate for a shortfall in available and deployable personnel.59

One challenge associated with the blending experiment

at Robins came in the form of expectations. Col Keith “Alf”

Jones, former deputy operations group commander for the

116th, noted, “In a blended unit, career tracks and paths are

imported from the active duty side. On the active side, new

personnel usually come from off base all the time whereas

Guard members are homegrown. Expectations vary for who

becomes the commander or director of operations (DO).

Which commanders are guardsmen and which are active

duty?” For example, a recent graduate from senior developmental education might be selected to command a unit

prior to arrival on station. To a Guard member at Robins,

this is the equivalent of hiring an outsider from another

community. If the Guard member anticipated commanding
20

or becoming a DO, then the perceived outsider might upset

both personal and unit expectations.60

Likewise, the active duty Air Force also stratifies its personnel on a regular basis. In the 116th ACW and the 116th

Operations Group (OG), it became necessary to identify both

a Guard and an active duty stratification list. In the active

duty world, stratification could very easily be the difference

between promotion and being passed over. For Guard personnel, stratification can also make a difference in the field

grades and early promotions. By clarifying where people sit

in terms of stratification, it became possible to clarify expectations on who might be next in the queue for leadership

opportunities.61

Perhaps the most difficult challenge to the blended construct came through what Colonel Jones refers to as the

“perception of a better deal.” If an equitable number of leaders from either the Guard or active duty were not in leadership positions, then either side might be slighted by the

perception. One current proposal to manage this perception

issue was a proposal to identify an affiliation to a unit. For

example, the training unit command position would be active duty, while the operations support squadron would be

Guard. The current proposal recommends three commander

positions be active duty, with two positions going to the

Guard. This design would match the 60:40 ratio of active

duty to Guard personnel in the 116th Air Control Wing.62

A final blended construct challenge comes in the form of

the different rules surrounding Guard technicians. “By law,

dual-status military technicians are Civil Service employees of the federal government who must be military members of the unit that employs them. Technicians train with

the unit and are mobilized with it when it’s activated.”63

Technicians also fall under the representation of a union.

In the case of the 116th Operations Group, the union must

be coordinated with to accomplish mission-specific events

which might go beyond normal hours. Colonel Jones used

an operational readiness exercise as an example. Prior notification of the employees’ union must occur before training

event initiation. Although this pre-coordination required

both time and energy, the coordination never prevented

training from occurring during Colonel Jones’ tenure as

deputy group commander. Rather, the union attempted to
21

protect its members by ensuring appropriate acknowledgement of paid hours and compensatory time.64

Despite some challenges, “The differences . . . are slowly

dissolving away, and I think that just comes from working

together and building relationships,”65 says General Lynn.

Perhaps the best testament to the strength of the blended

concept came during Operation Iraqi Freedom and a recent

AEF rotation. A Guard-centric rotation saw Guard members in F-16s, JSTARs, C-130s, and the 165th Air Support

Operations Squadron, all working in tight concert with the

48th Brigade Combat Team to take the fight to the enemy.66

Ironically, the Army did not care which title Airmen wore in

the CONUS or which state they represented. What the Army

did care about was the precise application of airpower, especially when it directly impacted land power.67 Employment of the Total Force as “one team in one fight” might be

a significant takeaway from the current “long war.”

The Integrated Wing

The third and final Total Force Integration (TFI) construct

currently being employed is the Integrated Model. The definition of an integrated wing is those wings “that are administratively separate, but organizationally and operationally

combined.”68 The first unit to explore this operational construct was Detachment 1, Nebraska Air National Guard.

The former detachment is now the 170th Group with two

squadrons, the 238th Combat Training Squadron and the

170th Operations Support Squadron (OSS). Developed under the joint vision of Maj Gen Roger Lempke and Col Rick

Evans, the 170th Group is under the operational direction

of the 55th Wing, the largest wing in Air Combat Command

and the second largest in the USAF. The 55th Wing operates 46 aircraft of seven different types, including the RC-

135S/U/V/W, the OC-135B, the WC-135, and the E-4B.69

By design, the 170th Group was created to assist its active duty mission partners, the 55th Wing and 55th Operations Group, in those areas considered stressed in continuity or experience. Those areas most ideal for employment

of experienced Guard members included the RC-135 FTU

(formal training unit) and the 55th OSS. The “Fightin’ 55th”

experiences an extraordinary turnover due to a sustained
22

high OPTEMPO and the worldwide requirements associated with the RC-135 reconnaissance mission. The NEANG

worked with the 55th Wing to establish a working CONOPS

that directly focused upon the perceived multiple stressed

shortfalls in the 55th Wing.

As the ANG unit grew to fill those critical gaps, the mission growth areas were seeded with experienced Guard

members. For example, in the FTU, instructor pilots, instructor navigators, instructor ravens (EWOs, or electronic

warfare officers), and instructor ASEs (airborne systems

engineers) helped train initial qualification student crewmembers to qualified CMR status. In the OSS, seasoned

Guard members took key roles in scheduling, reconnaissance operations, the Rivet Joint mission trainer, the RC-

135 operational flight trainer, wing tactics, wing safety,

base weather, base operations, wing intelligence, and wing

plans. The 170th Group’s success is due to the depth and

breadth of its people. For example, the average flight crew

member in the 170th Group has over 3,100 hours of total

flight time, 950 instructor hours, 125 evaluator hours, and

nearly 600 combat or combat support hours.70 Such extensive experience helps to minimize voids associated with

large manpower-intensive wings like the 55th.

Because of the unique relationship with the mission partner, numerous synergies result. For instance, the 763rd

Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron has had an ANG

commander or operations officer on multiple occasions. The

weapons officer position on the deployed mission planning

team is critical to mission success for the RC-135 in the US

Central Command area of responsibility (AOR). This position

is manned two-thirds of the time by ANG weapons officers.

In Wing Plans, a Guard USAF Test Pilot School graduate

leads classified requirements and upgrades to the RC-135.

Similarly, half of the officer instructor force in the FTU is

ANG. Guard personnel also make deployments worldwide in

support of the Open Skies mission, the Combat Sent, the

Cobra Ball, and the Rivet Joint. Every deployment a Guard

member takes lowers the OPTEMPO for the active duty 55th

Wing mission partner. In an LD/HD world, each contribution

makes a difference. Organizing, training, and equipping for

combat remain essential to the core CONOPS of the 170th

Group; however, some integration challenges remain.
23

One challenge is retaining the unit culture. Since Guard

unit members are scattered throughout the mission partner’s active duty wing, they spend more time with active

duty personnel than with their Guard counterparts. The

unifying events are tied to the UTA. During the week, most

AGRs and technicians are fully engaged with their mission partner. As the former flight commander for all Guard

members assigned to the FTU, the author confirms that 90

percent of daily actions involved the operations of the 338th

Combat Training Squadron (CTS), the active duty mission

partner, rather than the ANG, leaving only 10 percent of a

normal duty day to manage “pure Guard members’ ” administrative issues. However, in most scenarios, the author

provided “Top Three” coverage for the 338th CTS and directed operations in the operations office. At times, administrative issues for the ANG might conflict with operational

issues with the mission partner. However, the mission focus

of the ANG team at the FTU created an ideal work environment for integration with the mission partner.

Another challenge to integration involves the “dual hatted” nature of both position and authority. All 170th Group

personnel who are integrated into the 338th CTS or 55th

OSS give and take operational direction based on their

positions. For example, the 55th Wing chief of reconnaissance operations, an ANG position, supervises and gives

direction to three active duty planners for the movement

of wing assets around the world. Likewise, he or she takes

direction from operational leaders in the 55th Wing chain of

command in the execution of his or her duties. Due to the

constantly changing nature of the reconnaissance world,

Recon Ops often works hours outside of normal duty periods. Further, the position often requires launching aircraft

during UTA periods on weekends. Unfortunately, this can

put the Guard member behind on core training events. In

this example, the operational mission takes priority over

the UTA weekend, since the chief of recon ops is an AGR

position and can make up the training during normal weekdays with the mission partner.

One perceived challenge to the dual-hatted nature of

Guard/active duty integration comes in the perception of

chain of command. As previously stated, the model at Offutt placed leaders from the ANG in positions of supervision
24

but did not give them Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

authority over those non–Guard members they supervised.

Any UCMJ action against an active duty member would have

to be carried out by another active duty member on G-series

orders. Likewise, a Guard member’s chain of command extends through the ANG for any administrative issues or actions. From decorations to performance reports to fitness,

Guard members alone rate Guard members. The challenge

comes when a supervised ANG member requires discipline

from the active duty command chain. In such a case, the active duty commander or supervisor would speak to the ANG

commander to resolve the issue. If a UCMJ action were warranted, the ANG commander on G-series orders would levy

the action against the Guard member. This issue only occurs

in this model when the member supervised requires some sort

of administrative discipline. Simply put, the commander with

administrative authority, either ANG or active duty Air Force,

always retains administrative control (ADCON) over his or her

members. Some of the best practices of the Integrated Model

will be incorporated in the Multimission Framework.

The Multimission Framework 

and the Way Ahead

The Multimission Framework for operational integration

is a synthesis of the various constructs currently utilized

throughout the Total Force. Each case discussed possesses

positive and negative characteristics. However, there are

common threads of policy, procedure, or programs that successfully resonate within each case, which are incorporated

into the Multimission Framework. Figure 4 depicts the clear

lines of command and operational supervision necessary

for the notional Multimission Framework to be successful,

while breaking out the administrative requirements of Titles 10 and 32. This new framework for integration includes

the following successful threads of commonality: a robust

CONOPS, an ethical and legal chain of command, proper

human resourcing (the right people and the right leaders),

clear ADCON, a clear operational direction chain, HRO supervisory training, JAG approval, volunteerism, recruiting,

and the mobilization hammer.
25

The first thread considered is the robust concept of operations. All good CONOPS contain both a scope and a

strategy to meet the desired end state. However, it is critical

to establish the CONOPS utilizing what consultant Mack

McKinney calls the “five key considerations in writing: Purpose, Audience, Content, Style and Mechanics.”71 When establishing a Guard–active duty integration effort, it is critical

to establish the purpose of the effort. In the 170th Group’s

integration, a clear purpose was to fill voids in experience

in the FTU and the OSS. Similarly, the audience must be

engaged prior to writing the CONOPS. If the governor of a

state is opposed to integration efforts in his or her state,

then it would be pointless to attempt such a move. Once

the audience is clarified, subject-matter experts can begin

engaging the content of the document. The style should be

clear and mechanically sound. As McKinney points out, “Do

not permit the concept of writing style to become an excuse

for poor writing.”72 An excellent CONOPS will include the

baseline of expectations for all leadership stakeholders and

will incorporate reasonable inputs.

The second thread of the Multimission approach focuses

on the ethical and legal understanding of the chain of command. According to Air Force doctrine, “Unity of command

ensures concentration of effort for every objective under one

responsible commander. This principle emphasizes that all

5"(

4UBUF

(PWFSOPS

4UBUF

)FBERVBSUFST

5JUMF

0($$

"%5JUMF

42$$

"%5JUMF

42$$

"%5JUMF

42$$

"%5JUMF

415$$

"%5JUMF

-($$

"%5JUMF

42$$

"%5JUMF

42$$

"%5JUMF

42$$

"%5JUMF

8JOH$PNNBOEFS

"DUJWF%VUZ5JUMF

"DUJWF%VUZ64"'	5JUMF
$PNNBOEFST

(VBSE	5JUMF
$PNNBOEFST

"%$0/-JOFTGPS(VBSETNFO

0QFSBUJPOBM4VQFSWJTJPO-JOFTGPS(VBSETNFO

(SPVQ$$

5JUMF

Figure 4. Multimission Framework example (ANG and active duty AF)
26

efforts should be directed and coordinated toward a common

objective. . . . Coordination may be achieved by cooperation;

it is, however, best achieved by vesting a single commander

with the authority to direct all force employment in pursuit

of a common objective.”73 In the Multimission Framework,

active duty Airmen fall under a different administrative commander than their ANG peers. To achieve unity of command,

operations need to be entirely under one commander. As

noted in the Integrated Model, best exemplified by the 55th

Wing, all officers follow the operational direction or orders of

those leaders placed over them. The 55th Wing commander

is an active duty officer whose operational leadership and direction to the wing is peerless in matters associated with the

active duty 55th Wing. The 170th Group (ANG) falls under

the operational direction of the 55th WG, but administratively

falls under the State of Nebraska. Ethically, the 55th Wing

commander’s orders would be accepted by any officer in the

55th Wing, active duty or Guard. Legally, those orders would

be accepted by all active duty officers. If a Guard member

found some order or direction untenable or not binding, he

or she would have to stand before the Guard commander to

explain the refusal of such an order from someone in the operational chain of command, regardless of title. In essence,

this practice would ensure unity of command while preserving the distinctly different titles served by Guard members

and active duty USAF members.

The third characteristic of the Multimission Framework

is appropriate human resourcing. Clearly, hiring the right

people for the nature of the model is essential. If the framework favors an Associate Model, then the personnel would

be similar in age and experience to the comparable Air

Force version. However, if the CONOPS specify that Guard

members would be integrated in areas specifically requiring

high levels of experience or unique identifiers (i.e., Weapons

School), then the ANG unit would need to be built with a

higher-grade structure, similar to the 170th Group at Offutt AFB, Nebraska. In essence, ANG units will hire the appropriate personnel for the Multimission Framework unit’s

design, construct, and purpose.

The fourth characteristic of the Multimission Framework

refers to hiring the right leaders for the integration construct. When a model is brand new, the leader needs to be
27

part visionary and part magician. A new unit sometimes

creates friction because of differences in ideas, culture, and

infrastructure. A more established unit requires an emphasis on standards and objective guidance appropriately

aligned under the parent wing’s major command. With the

integrated construct, the growth of ANG personnel and presence can also change the footprint of infrastructure needs.

Sensitivity to the needs of both sides will make the integration team stronger. Further, the right Guard leader will also

be patient with the frequent changes in active duty peer

leaders. Many active duty leaders have served with great

success in the AOR, but few have served in an integrated

unit within the CONUS. Therefore, an immersion process

should be initiated with new leaders to educate and develop

mission partners’ Guard knowledge.

Another thread to consider is the nature and strength

of ADCON. In an integrated construct, administrative control helps to keep supervisors and leaders rating under the

correct authority (either Title 10 for active duty or Title 32

for Guard members). The integrated model prevents either

community from inadvertently harming careers through

the use of inappropriate comments on performance reports.

For example, it might be appropriate to discuss a “citizensoldier’s” participation as a Little League coach on a report. However, on most active duty reports, such comments

take away perceived space from mission accomplishment.

Ultimately, both Guard members and USAF active duty

members desire to supervise subordinates effectively. The

key is to be understanding of the differences between the

two systems and to establish clear gatekeepers in charge of

quality control, mission feedback, and title safeguards for

each administrative community.

A clear chain of operational direction authority is another

important thread found in the Multimission Framework.

According to Air Force doctrine, “True integration of effort

cannot be achieved by merely carving up the battlespace.”74

Joint Publication 0-2, Unified Action Armed Forces (UNAAF),

takes the concept further: “Integration is achieved through

joint operation planning and the skillful assimilation of

forces, capabilities, and systems to enable their employment

in a single, cohesive operation rather than a set of separate

operations.”75 In other words, integration efforts must take
28

the whole team in the operational direction required for success. The importance of clear lines of operational authority

cannot be overemphasized. The Multimission Framework

ensures that whoever is charged with operational direction

gets the appropriate compliance from all personnel regardless of the organization in which they serve.

Another thread necessary for ANG and active duty personnel to supervise effectively together is HRO training. As

General Jones required for 116th ACW personnel per regulation, all frontline supervisors must attend the three-day HRO

course prior to entering supervisory roles, especially when

supervising ANG technicians.76 The unique requirements of

supervising a technician must be clearly spelled out to protect both the supervisor and the technician. Cervantes wrote

this maxim: “Forewarned, forearmed; to be prepared is half

the victory.”77 There is no excuse for not understanding the

rules and regulations associated with supervision of personnel in a different status. A frontline supervisor must understand the limitations of a technician to facilitate optimum

utilization of the member towards achievement of overall

wing goals. For example, a technician is paid for 40 hours of

work in a week. Time served in excess of the 40 hours must

be compensated. If the time is not compensated fairly, the

technician is being taken advantage of and the supervisor

could be at risk for discipline.

Perhaps the “deal breaker” in the thread of a new integration framework is the approval of the judge advocate

general. The JAG is required to coordinate on all models

at the National Guard Bureau. In fact, new unit concepts

associated with TFI must be coordinated on by the state

where the unit will reside, the NGB, and the USAF Air Staff,

as they ultimately can impact force structure. If the JAG at

any level rules that the structure of the model is incompatible with the current US Code or other laws, then the model

will never be embraced by ANG leadership at the NGB or

by the adjutant general from the state where the model is

being fielded. Furthermore, there may be Air Force instructions or ANG instructions which need changes or waivers

prior to introduction of the model.78

The last thread contains the triple strands of volunteerism, mobilization, and recruiting. For an integrated framework to work effectively, active duty commanders need to
29

be able to count on the Guard’s deployable volunteers to

achieve success in the “long war.” In general, volunteerism satisfies the requirements levied by active duty. However, there are times when a partial mobilization order is

required to fulfill crew lineup requirements for a combat

theater. This potential order helps encourage volunteerism

while also giving war-fighting commanders the increased

numbers necessary to fill out crew lineups.

However, utilizing such an order can hurt retention if it is

abused. Craig W. Duehring, the principle deputy assistant

secretary of defense for Reserve Affairs states it rather plainly:

“The Air National Guard is not a dash to the finish, but a

marathon. . . . Members sign up for permanent state service,

but are on loan to the Federal government . . . you cannot

sign up to a mission which you cannot recruit to.”79 In other

words, the state militias must demonstrate excellence in recruiting at all levels to help sustain the operational reserve for

federal activations and fulfill state missions simultaneously.

Ultimately, volunteerism, recruiting, and mobilization must

be considered together to effectively balance the ratio and deploy active duty and guard personnel together.

Conclusions and the Way Ahead

When placed in concert with one another, the threads of

the Multimission Integration Framework can build a richly

synthesized team. As General Jones eloquently explained,

“Failure is not an option. All of the models can work. The

key is working through the moral implications of leadership and the administrative challenges.”80 By weaving the

common threads of excellence in the various Total Force Integration models into the Multimission Integration Framework, the pathway to success comes into focus. Success

for the Total Force begins with a cultivated unit vision and

thoughtful, focused CONOPS. It grows through the careful

understanding of the ethical and legal aspects of command.

The right people and leaders coalesce to build an integrated

team capable of serving the nation more effectively and more

efficiently. When the entire Total Force team embraces operational unity for effect, yet understands and retains the

distinctive strengths of each component, operational and

strategic success for the USAF will be assured.
30

Notes

1.  Adam J. Hebert, “The Totally Integrated Air Force,” Air Force 

Magazine (June 2006): 36.

2.  Adam J. Hebert, “Total Force in a Search for Balance,” Air 

Force Magazine (September 2003): 34.

3.  Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (Readiness, Training, and Mobilization), Rebalancing 

Forces: Easing the Stress on the Guard and Reserves, 15 January

2004, 2.

4.  Charles J. Gross, The Air National Guard and the American 

Military Tradition: Militiaman, Volunteer, and Professional (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office [GPO], 1995), 115.

5.  Constitution of the United States, http://www.arachives.gov/

national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript

.html.

6.  Jacob G. Hornberger, “The Bill of Rights: Antipathy to Militarism,” Future of Freedom Foundation, http://www.fff.org/freedom/

fd0409a.asp.

7.  Constitution of the United States.

8.  Air National Guard History homepage, http://www.ang.af

.mil/history/.

9.  Breanne Wagner, “High Plains Lifters,” Air Force Magazine

(February 2007): 85.

10.  Gross, Air National Guard, 114.

11.  Lt Col Michael D. Doubler, “Dawn of a New Era—1980–

1999” http://www.ngaus.org/content.asp?bid=2501&ccIPage=l6

d09a10sP.

12.  Gross, Air National Guard, 113.

13.  Air National Guard: Unit home page (155th Air Refueling

Wing)http://www.goang.com/office/default.aspx?office=448197

d4-2e7e-448e-a3d1-2e00b47afd11.

14.  Lt Gen Craig R. McKinley, “National Guard 2008 Posture

Statement: Message from the Director,” http://www.ngb.army.mil/

features/2008PostureStatement/mckinley.html#ang3 (accessed

27 October 2007).

15.  USAF Core Competencies Web page, http://137.240.249.5/

coreval/corecomp.htm, (accessed 26 October 2007).

16.  Constitution of the United States.

17.  McKinley, “National Guard 2008 Posture Statement.”

18.  Ibid.

19.  Ibid.

20. Col Murray A. Hansen, “The Gross Domestic Product Factor,”

http://www.dod.state.ga.us/hqang/boarstale/pages/aug2007

boars.html.
31

21.  “U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet: AIR NATIONAL GUARD,” July

2006, http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=16

0&page=1.

22.  “Air Force Almanac,” 55.

23.  Ibid.

24.  US Code, Title 10, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/

getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC101.

25.  Col Laura B. Stevens, staff judge advocate, Tennessee

JFHQ, “Legal Issues for the Squadron Commander,” briefing given

at the 2007 Intermediate Development Course.

26.  US Code, Title 10.

27. Eric V. Larson and John E. Peters, Preparing the U.S. Army 

for Homeland Security: Concepts, Issues, and Options, appendix D:

“Overview of the Posse Comitatus Act” (Santa Monica, CA: RAND

Corporation, 2006), 243–44, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph

_reports/MR1251/MR1251.AppD.pdf.

28.  Ibid., 244.

29.  Stevens, slides 9–14.

30.  2006 Air National Guard Almanac (Falls Church, VA: Uniformed Services Almanac, Inc., 2006) 122.

31.  Ibid, 125.

32.  US Code, Title 10, Subtitle E, Part II, Chapter 1209, § 12301.

33.  2006 Air National Guard Almanac, 125.

34.  US Code, Title 10, Subtitle E, Part II, Chapter 1209, § 12304.

35.  Ibid., § 12302.

36. Lt Gen H. Steven Blum, “Vanguard Engagement Strategy:

Transforming the Air National Guard,” 10–11, http://www.ngb.army

.mil/resources/downloads/vanguard_engagement_strategy.pdf.

37.  Wagner, “High Plains Lifters,” 83.

38.  Ibid.

39.  Col Harold Reed, quoted in “30th Airlift Squadron Settles

in at Wyoming Air National Guard,” Air Force Print News Today, 12

December2006,http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=1230

33749.

40.  Lt Tim Lockwood, “Active Association Celebrates One Year

in Cheyenne,” Air Force Print News Today, 25 July 2007, http://

www.warren.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123062130.

41.  Wagner, “High Plains Lifters,” 84.

42.  Michael Peck, “Air Force, Air Guard Pilots Merge in F/A-22

Wing,” National Defense, July 2005, http://www.nationaldefense

magazine.org/issues/2005/Jul/air_force.htm.

43.  Ibid.

44.  Ibid.

45.  Ibid.

46.  David Axe, “Guard Airmen Boost F-22s”, Military.com,

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,127300,00.html.
32

47.  Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,

1976), 87.

48.  John A. Tirpak, “The Blended Wing Goes to War,” Air Force 

Magazine (October 2003): 28.

49.  Rebecca Grant, “Total Force Turbulence,” Air Force Magazine (October 2005): 46.

50.  Ibid.

51.  Ibid., 28–29.

52.  Brig Gen James J. Jones, 55th Wing commander and first

active duty commander of 116th ACW, interview by author, 28

August 2007.

53.  Ibid.

54.  Ibid.

55.  Ibid.

56.  Ibid.

57.  Ibid.

58.  Ibid.

59.  Ibid.

60.  Col Keith R. “Alf” Jones, former 116th deputy operations

group commander, interview by author, 20 November 2007.

61.  Ibid.

62.  Ibid.

63.  ANG Factsheet, http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet

.asp?fsID=160.

64.  Col Keith R. Jones, interview.

65.  Brig Gen Tom Lynn, quoted in Tirpak, “Blended Wing Goes

to War,” 31.

66.  Lt Col Braxton Eisel, “Leave It to the Guard,” Air Force 

Magazine (January 2007): 65.

67.  Ibid., 67.

68.  Blum, “Vanguard Engagement Strategy,” 11.

69.  Offutt AFB Web site, Unit Mission section, http://www

.offutt.af.mil/units/.

70.  Lt Col Rolland Janzen and MSgt Tyrone Bingham, “Total

Flight Time Report: 170th Group”, 20 August 2007, worksheet 1.

71.  Mack McKinney, “Writing a Document that People Will

Read,” Solid Thinking Corp., December 2006, http://www.solid

thinking.org/home/writingthetechnicalreport.html.

72.  Ibid. (emphasis in original).

73.  Air Force Doctrine Document 1, Air Force Basic Doctrine,

17 November 2003, 20.

74.  Ibid., 6.

75.  Joint Publication 0-2, Unified Action Armed Forces (UNAAF),

10 July 2001, III-15.

76.  Gen James J. Jones, interview.
33

77.  Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote de la Mancha, http://

www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/migueldece125059

.html.

78.  Stevens, slide 6.

79.  Craig W. Duehring, interview by author, 18 January 2008.

80.  Gen James J. Jones, interview.

Glossary

ABM air battle manager

ACW air control wing

ADCON administrative control

AEF air expeditionary force

AGR Active Guard Reserve (Title 32 guard

member on active duty)

ANG Air National Guard

ANGUS Air National Guard of the United States

(Guard members on Title 10 status)

AOR area of responsibility (as in a combatant

commander’s)

ART Air Reserve Technician

ASE airborne systems engineer on the RC-135

CMR combat mission ready

CONOPS concept of operations

CONUS continental United States

CTS combat training squadron (usually a

formal training unit)

EWO electronic warfare officer or Raven on the

RC-135

FTU formal training unit

GS Government Service or skill level, i.e. GS-7

GWOT global war on terror

HRO Human Relations Office

IOC initial operating capability 

ISR intelligence, surveillance, and

reconnaissance

JSTARS Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar

System

LD/HD low-density/high-demand

NGB National Guard Bureau

OFT operational flight trainer— full-motion

simulator for the RC-135

OG operations group; usually used in

reference to the commander of the group

OPTEMPO operational tempo

35
OSS operations support squadron

P-Plan personnel programming plan associated

with a unit stand-up

PRCA presidential reserve call-up authority

RJMT Rivet Joint mission trainer (simulator

for the RC-135 mission compartment)

SATAF site activation task force

TFI Total Force Integration

UCMJ Uniform Code of Military Justice

USAF United States Air Force

UTA unit training assembly, more commonly

known as a Guard drill

WSO weapon system operator

36
37

Bibliography

“30th Airlift Squadron Settles in at Wyoming Air National 

Guard.” Air Force Print News Today. 12 December 2006. 

http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123033749.

2006 Air National Guard Almanac. Falls Church, VA: Uniformed Services Almanac, Inc., 2006.

“2007 Air Force Almanac.” Air Force Magazine (May 2007).

Air Force Doctrine Document 1. Air Force Basic Doctrine, 17 

November 2003. 

Air National Guard. Unit home page, 155th Air Refueling 

Wing. http://www.goang.com/office/default.aspx?office= 

448197d4-2e7e-448e-a3d1-2e00b47afd11.

“Air National Guard History.” Air National Guard home page, 

http://www.ang.af.mil/history/.

Axe, David. “Guard Airmen Boost F-22s.” Military.com. http://

www.military.com/features/0,15240,127300,00.html.

Blum, H. Steven. “Vanguard Engagement Strategy: Transforming the Air National Guard.” http://www.ngb.army

.mil/resources/downloads/vanguard_engagement

_strategy.pdf, 10–11.

Cervantes, Miguel de. Don Quixote de la Mancha. http://

www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/migueldece 

125059.html. 

Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press, 1976.

Constitution of the United States. http://www.archives.gov/

national-archives-experience/charters/constitution

_transcript.html.

Doubler, Michael D. “Dawn of a New Era—1980–1999.” http://

www.ngaus.org/content.asp?bid=2501&ccIPage=l6d09a

10sP. 

Eisel, Braxton. “Leave It to the Guard.” Air Force Magazine

(January 2007): 65.

Grant, Rebecca. “Total Force Turbulence.” Air Force Magazine. 

(October 2005): 46.

Gross, Charles J. The Air National Guard and the American 

Military Tradition: Militiaman, Volunteer, and Professional. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1995.
38

Hansen, Murray A. “The Gross Domestic Product Factor.” 

http://www.dod.state.ga.us/hqang/boarstale/pages/

aug2007boars.html.

Hebert, Adam J. “The Totally Integrated Air Force.” Air Force 

Magazine (June 2006): 36.

———. “Total Force in a Search for Balance.” Air Force Magazine (September 2003): 34.

Hornberger, Jacob G. “The Bill of Rights: Antipathy to Militarism.” The Future of Freedom Foundation. http://

www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp.

Janzen, Rolland, and Tyrone Bingham. “Total Flight Time Report: 170th Group.” (Spreadsheet available upon request)

Joint Publication 0-2. Unified Action Armed Forces (UNAAF), 

10 July 2001.

Larson, Eric V., and John E. Peters. Preparing the U.S. Army 

for Homeland Security: Concepts, Issues, and Options, 

appendix D: “Overview of the Posse Comitatus Act.” 

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2006. http://

www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1251/

MR1251.AppD.pdf.

Lockwood, Tim. “Active Association Celebrates One Year in Cheyenne.” Air Force Print News Today, 25 July 2007. http://

www.warren.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123062130.

McKinley, Craig R. “National Guard 2008 Posture Statement: Message from the Director.” http://www.ngb

.army.mil/features/2008PostureStatement/mckinley

.html#ang3.

McKinney, Mack. “Writing a Document that People Will Read.” 

Solid Thinking Corporation, December 2006. http://

www.solidthinking.org/home/writingthetechnical

report.html. 

Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (Readiness, Training, and Mobilization). 

“Rebalancing Forces: Easing the Stress on the Guard 

and Reserves.” 5 January 2004.

Offutt AFB Web site, Unit Mission section. http://www.offutt

.af.mil/units/. 

Peck, Michael. “Air Force, Air Guard Pilots Merge in F/A-22 

Wing.” National Defense (July 2005). http://www.national 

defensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Jul/air_force.htm.
39

Stevens, Laura B. “Legal Issues for the Squadron Commander.” 

Briefing, 2007 Intermediate Development Course. (CD 

Rom available upon request).

Tirpak, John A. “The Blended Wing Goes to War.” Air Force 

Magazine (October 2003).

USAF Core Competencies Web page, http://137.240.249.5/

coreval/corecomp.htm (accessed on 26 Oct 07).

“U.S. Air Force Fact Sheet: Air National Guard (July 

2006)” http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet_print

.asp?fsID=160&page=1. 

US Code. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc

.cgi?dbname = browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC101. 

Wagner, Breanne. “High Plains Lifters.” Air Force Magazine

(February 2007).

Wynne, Michael W. “Letter to Airmen: Recognizing the Total 

Force.” 7 July 2006.