Considering a Cadre Augmented Army - RAND Corporation

-368- A Historical Analysis of Cadre
This paper has discussed the history of previous cadre proposal. This history is
important for two reasons. First, it distinguishes the cadre forces analyzed in this dissertation
from those that have been rejected in the past. Second, it shows that there are some
similarities between the cadre forces analyzed in this dissertation and past proposals.
10.1—DIFFERENCES
In this paper, we have seen that cadre units are not a new idea but a concept that
have been part of American military policy from the very beginning. However, many of
these cadre proposals never gained wide support. It is important to understand the
differences between previous cadre proposals and the cadre forces analyzed in this
dissertation so as not to immediately dismiss the possibility of cadre forces because they
have failed to be adopted in the past.
The first distinguishing feature of the cadre forces analyzed in this dissertation is that
they are not justified by a mistrust of the militia. The cadre proposals of Calhoun and Upton
were based on a mistrust of the militia. In this dissertation, cadre units are proposed as an
additional component of the total force and not as a replacement for the National Guard.
The argument for integrating cadre units is based on the desire to minimize costs given a
required level of readiness and says nothing about the readiness of the National Guard. It is
important to make this distinction because cadre forces are often associated with a mistrust
of the militia, and this dissertation does not argue that the National Guard is ineffective.
The second important difference is that the cadre forces analyzed in this dissertation
are cadre augmented forces while the cadre forces proposed by Calhoun and Upton were all
cadre forces. Calhoun and Upton proposed cadre units as the nation’s primary fighting force.