| Opinion/The Review

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Reservists a bargain

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or

Daily Photo Galleries

Letter to the Editor
Friday, Jan. 11, 2013, 8:58 p.m.

Last month, the Reserve Forces Policy Board issued a report to the secretary of Defense on the cost of military personnel. It's the first official report from a Defense entity that makes it clear that the cost of a National Guard/Reserve member is much less than that of an active-component member.

The report shows that in fiscal year 2013, the annual cost to the federal government for a reserve-component member is $123,351, while the cost of an active-component member is $384,622.

I highlight this because as part of the president's 2013 Defense budget, the Air Force proposes to reduce the size and capability of its most efficient and cost-effective forces — the reserve component. More specifically, it plans to close the Air Force Reserve's 911th Airlift Wing based in Pittsburgh this year.

Gov. Corbett and I support a 2013 budget that honors national security yet promotes fiscal responsibility. But based on the Defense Department's own report, it would make the most sense to take a small cut in the active component in order to maintain or expand Defense capabilities by shifting forces to the reserve component. It's a 3-to-1 cost savings that the Air Force must seriously consider.

Maj. Gen. Wesley

E. Craig

Fort Indiantown Gap

The writer is the adjutant general of the Pennsylvania National Guard.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Letters

  1. Can’t believe ATI statements
  2. End ‘lookism’
  3. Pipelines to the future
  4. WQED beyond repair?
  5. Updated paving needed