Considering a Cadre Augmented Army - RAND Corporation

-188- An Operational Analysis of Cadre
Figure 3.3—Cadre Peacetime Duty Comparisons
Separate Cadre Units
Maintenance
Domestic Training
Foreign Training
Cadre in Existing Structure
Surplus AC
Surplus RC
Senior IRR
Increase TTHS Acccount
Rotating Cadre Units
Ready-Standby Organization
Proficiency Cost Risk Leader Develop. Mission Focus Flexibility Reorganization
Although the coloring on the chart shown above is approximated based on
comments in this paper, it provides a visual summary of the pros and cons of each cadre
organization described in this chapter. In terms of maintaining leader proficiency, the
maintenance cadre unit and senior IRR is the worst. Cadre organizations that provide
opportunities for leaders to hone their skills rank better in proficiency. The cadre
organizations with the lowest cost are those that either retain cadre leadership in reserve
status, or those with dual-hatted cadre leaders. Risk is only a concern for those cadre
organizations that might require additional manpower to backfill their peacetime duties
during wartime or which depend on IRR activation. Leader development is a concern for any
cadre organization that maintains leaders on active duty and provides little opportunity to
lead junior personnel in unit maneuvers. Mission focus is a concern for any cadre leaders that
are dual-hatted and are not solely focused on their wartime tasks. The cadre force structures
with the most flexibility are those that maintain cadre within the existing force structure. The
separate cadre units are the second most flexible because they could be easily dismantled and
redistributed. The rotational cadre force provides the least flexibility because the cadre units
are intertwined with AC units. Reorganization is an issue for almost all the forces; they would
all require significant changes to force structure and personnel policies, though some would
require more significant changes than others.