then Add to Home Screen.
A Conversation with Maj. Gen. John Harris
Some organizations are small in numbers but large in stature. Maj. Gen. John C. Harris Jr. presides over such a group.
The 54 members of the Adjutants General Association of the United States are collectively responsible for the training and readiness of nearly half of the Army’s combat power and more than a third of the Air Force’s aerial refueling, strategic lift and fighter capabilities. Then there is their role of providing the first military responders in the homeland during disasters.
These multiple responsibilities give AGAUS significant clout in many quarters of the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.
NATIONAL GUARD sat down with Harris, the adjutant general of Ohio and the newly elected president of the group, to discuss AGAUS and its perspectives on some of the issues that confront the entire force today.
The TAGs have a channel of communications to the Defense Department in the chief of the National Guard Bureau. Your bosses have a conduit to Pentagon leaders in the Council of Governors and you have NGAUS to work Capitol Hill. Why is it important for the adjutant generals to have their own national voice?
I think it’s important that TAGs have a voice because they are unique. They have to simultaneously represent state and federal equities. They are often expected to reconcile the differences, if there are any, or at least operate in that space of complexity. There’s really nothing to compare the role to. There’s nothing analogous to a TAG anywhere else in the world except in the 54.
So, I think that having that voice to talk about the impact of policy is important. We need to continuously educate, reeducate and inform members of Congress and our own elected officials as well as educators about the role of the Guard. This is something I think only TAGs can do in a consistent and effective way.
How does AGAUS forge consensus when the priority of each adjutant general is the distinct needs of their own state or territory?
We first must recognize that we all work for elected officials, and those elected officials may agree or disagree on different issues. But we have a responsibility to provide the best military advice. Also, when we are in a room together as adjutants general, as the 54, we have to express those diverse opinions. So, when we’re in meetings, we use Robert’s Rules of Order, realizing we will never get to 100% agreement. We know that that’s almost impossible because the 54 states are so different. We have 54 governors with very different interests, geographic differences, as well as the size of their Guards being different. So, we reach the majority opinion. And we get as close to unanimity as we can. That becomes the position of the Adjutant Generals Association of the United States on those issues.
About 15 states and territories have transitioned to new adjutants general in the last year or so. What effect does this have on AGAUS as a collective body?
It makes us recognize that we are always in the business of informing and educating even our own internal audience. As I mentioned, the role of the adjutant general is unique. So is the transition from one adjutant general to another. Some come in with a great understanding of the challenges of being an adjutant general and others join us needing a higher level of mentorship through that process — how to balance that state, federal role or to meet readiness requirements amid those competing demands and priorities. We often help each other understand how to meet the demands of our commanders in chief, the governor, while fulfilling our federal requirements.
A group we refer to as Distinguished Leaders are also helpful in that effort. They’re former NGB chiefs, former Army and Air Guard directors and select former adjutants general who volunteer their time to help us understand the historic basis of many of the issues we grapple with today. I’ve personally received calls from them to give me insight on topics that have come up during meetings or conversations.
AGAUS typically has a few priorities, what are your collective priorities at this time?
First and foremost is to establish a Space National Guard. This is one that we think is critical for our future, not only to protect the National Guard as a combat reserve for our nation, but also to fulfill what we see as our requirement as an association to debunk myths and misinformation that exist about a Space National Guard. We need to ensure the stakeholders move forward with a valid set of facts that make clear that the Space National Guard makes sense for the people of America and their National Guard.
Second is no-cost medical insurance for members of the reserve components. The third is concurrent and proportional modernization and recapitalization of the Total Air Force. The last is getting duty-status reform right.
The idea of duty-status reform has been around for several years, but it has yet to make its way to Congress. Where is the issue right now?
It’s still stalled. We hope OMB [the White House Office of Management and Budget] will move it across the [Potomac] River [from the Pentagon] this year. We’re not sure about that yet. This is a place where AGAUS is crucial in educating members of the administration about the impact duty-status reform will have on our ability to continue building readiness for this modern military environment. That is, as all the services look to modernize equipment and infrastructure, duty-status reform is an important step in modernizing the policy that’s required to maintain the talent we need to keep up with modern demands.
So again, I think this is a very suitable and fitting role for the adjutants general. We have an obligation to keep our elected officials and our stakeholders informed.
What should duty-status reform look like?
I’d love to see duty-status reform implemented in its current form. I know there are associated costs, particularly with reducing the number of duty statuses, simplifying many of our processes and procedures, and, most importantly, bringing benefit parity for members of the reserve component. But it’s vital. If a Guard pilot dies in an accident, he or she should have their pay and their family should be entitled to the same benefits as a pilot who is on active duty who suffered the same fate.
AGAUS does not have a continuing presence in the nation’s capital. You also have no full-time staff or resources. How do you convey your concerns and priorities to decision makers in Washington?
We do it a couple of ways. One of the greatest benefits of AGAUS is that the 54 adjutants general have strong relationships with our congressional delegations from our states. Those long-standing relationships give us the opportunity to sit down with our officials and help them understand the issues. So, we do that individually as adjutants general. Occasionally, we may exert the opinion of the association, through what we call a Letter of 54, which is all 54 adjutant generals co-signing a letter. Finally, as president, I may send a letter to stakeholders explaining our position on the issues, and the impact those issues will have on the National Guard. But most importantly, it’s through personal relationships.
A letter signed by all 54 adjutants general is a pretty powerful letter. Is that kind of your silver bullet?
That’s exactly what we refer to it as — our silver bullet. It’s a tool. It’s not something we take lightly. As I mentioned before, getting all 54 adjutant generals to agree on anything is very difficult. So, it needs to be an important issue; something that all of us feel compelled to address. We don’t use it very often, because we don’t want to dilute the impact of what we’re trying to do.
I like to say we keep our powder dry with the Letter of 54 and we only use it on those issues that can have a damaging effect on the National Guard or a profound positive effect. It’s a tool that gets used very rarely, because we reserve it for those critical issues that will create long lasting and profound impacts to the National Guard.
Much of the U.S. military is struggling with recruiting. Some say this generation of young people simply doesn’t have the same propensity to serve as previous generations. AGAUS has eyes and ears in all 54 states, territories and the District of Columbia. Certainly, your group has talked about this. Why is recruiting down and what must be done to improve it?
Right now, we are facing the perfect storm, the confluence of three important factors. The first is changing demographics. In Ohio, the population is aging. The 16 to 34-year-old recruiting age population is getting smaller as the population gets older, and within that, we have significant changes in attitudes about military service. I think many states are facing this. Young people have very different attitudes than previous generations about military service. Many base their opinions on pieces of information focused only on bad things that could happen to them as a result of military service. We have some messaging work to do to reverse this perception.
Additionally, an increasingly smaller portion of the population serving in the military is leading to fewer influencers in the household. Fewer parents and family pointing young people towards military service. Worse yet, when there is misunderstanding about what military service is, there’s nobody close for those young people to get valid information from.
How do we move forward?
First of all, it’s very important that we all work to show them this country is full of service members and veterans — people who’ve served and are better for that service. It’s important those people tell their story about how the military has positively impacted them, whether they’re elected officials, captains of industry, retired military or anyone else for whom the military has had a positive impact on the trajectory of their life. They need to talk about that. Young people need to hear them and their compelling stories.
Also, we have to adjust how we communicate with our youth. When we promote incentives like scholarships, we need to understand there are fewer people interested in four-year college programs. Are we understanding them? If what they are seeking are quicker paths to the job market through certifications, credentialing or programs like that, we must be delivering on those types of incentives.
Most importantly, we have to listen to our young people on how to better communicate with them. I don’t profess to understand social media and its impact. I don’t profess to understand how we should be using it. But there’s a tool that we certainly haven’t optimized in terms of actually measuring attitudes of young people and learning from them. I believe we need to better understand what can turn them on and encourage them about military service. We need to know how to reach out to them and communicate with them in a way that’s most positive. That’s something that we’re working on in my state and I know a number of other states are doing the same.
Some say today’s divisive politics play a role. The country does seem to be divided into red states and blue states or even with some states, red areas and blue areas. But they’re all Guard states. How do the adjutants general navigate the political divide?
Every one of our members has opinions about the issues of the day. Those issues become more polarizing and divisive based on the biases that are perpetuated through social media and the 24-hour news cycle. We have to face reality: Our members come to us with strong opinions on most issues, and our job is to build them into cohesive teams in spite of that.
I like to say that our leaders’ responsibility is to take a person who believes that MAGA is the best thing that ever happened and on the other side of their squad is a person who believes that BLM is the best thing that ever happened in this country. That leader must meld those people into a cohesive fighting team. So, we must make teamwork more important than those attitudes. We do that by training and building trust, creating cohesive and resilient teams.
When it comes to opinions outside of the organization, we answer to our elected officials. It’s important that we, as adjutant generals, give our best military advice about the impact of policies and decisions, and some of the social issues influencing our ability to maintain the readiness of our forces.
We are never going to move away from the red state/blue state paradigm. And, adjutants general recognize that every one of us is one phone call away from retirement. So, we give our best military advice to our elected officials, we execute the orders that are placed before us. If that causes strife, it’s our job to make sure politics stays with elected officials, while adjutants general and our military leaders remain focused on readiness. It’s the adjutant general’s job to make sure that that happens.
Can the Guard help bridge some of these divides, or is that just wishful thinking?
I think that the Guard is probably in the most difficult position when it comes to those divides. Sometimes, the way governors utilize their National Guard creates tension within the Defense Department. That tension can place TAGs in a tough spot. I think it’s the adjutant general’s job to reconcile those tensions and to mitigate or overcome the divide as much as possible. It’s never going to go away.
As the Guard is the only entity that exists as a federally funded military force under the control of governors. There are people in and outside of government who don’t like that model. We know that there isn’t always going to be agreement. The modern National Guard has existed and thrived for many years. It is the dual role of the Guard that creates the tension. It is also that dual role that makes the Guard one of the most versatile forces in the world, as well as an incredible value for the people of America.
The Army and the Air Force ask a lot of the Guard, and so do the nation’s governors. Do you ever think too much is asked of our force?
I think it varies from state to state. I believe there are some states that have an incredible operational tempo. Many governors are using their National Guard in creative and useful ways; there’s certainly potential that their Guard could be overtaxed. But again, I think the adjutants general need to be the rheostat for OPTEMPO and to communicate concerns. TAGs are very vigilant in ensuring their Guard maintains the ability to meet federal demands. It’s something that has to be monitored.
The only question I would ask is, is your Guard still ready for federal missions if called? And if the answer is yes, then as TAG you have met the litmus test of meeting your governor’s intent and the intent of fulfilling the Guard’s obligation to be a ready operational reserve.
The National Guard Empowerment Act of 2011 certainly raised the profile of the NGB Chief and the rest of the Guard Bureau. What impact has Guard empowerment so far had on the Guard in the 54 states, territories and the District of Columbia?
It has certainly given the National Guard a voice as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General [Daniel R.] Hokanson has a voice that did not exist prior to that position being elevated. I think one of the unintended consequences is that the National Guard Bureau starts to look more and more like one of the services. As a result, there are people who expect the National Guard Bureau to act like a service headquarters. Those attitudes come from people who don’t understand the essence of the National Guard. This is another reason we have to work tirelessly to inform and educate them about how the National Guard works; how we are a very unique component of national defense.
So, that’s another job for you and AGAUS?
Yes, sir.
AGAUS PRIORITIES
● Establish a Space National Guard
● Zero-cost TRICARE Medical Coverage
● Concurrent and Proportional Modernization and Recapitalization of the Total Air Force
● Duty-Status Reform
