You mean like when President Bush was in the Guard?
There was a specific reason for doing that. The Joint Chiefs set it up that way so that, the next time some damn fool politician wanted to send a bunch of troops somewhere in the name of "doing something," he'd have to call up the Guard, and thus be forced to explain exactly why Joe the barber and Bob the auto mechanic were being sent to some place nobody had ever heard of.
Nice try, but not even close. The Joint Chiefs didn't change anything except increasing the funding to the Guard. The Federal government now pays close to 95% of the costs of training and equipping the National Guard. The reason for the increased funding was to create and maintain a pool of reasonably well-trained and well-equipped troops that could be called up in short order (90 days) to fill out the active duty. That's why 52% of the combat power of the US Army is in the National Guard - it's way cheaper than having *another* ten divisions on active duty. It's simple cost-benefit analysis.
"You mean like when President Bush was in the Guard?"
Let's not forget Vice President Dan Quayle and a whole boatload of Democrats, too.
I went to 'Nam. I wasn't a fortunate son. I guess you want to restore the Guard to its former position of prominence as a hangout for fortunate sons of the rich and prominent--hell, the local NG unit roster was a generation back of the local country club roster.
"Nice try, but not even close. The Joint Chiefs didn't change anything except increasing the funding to the Guard."
They also realigned the Army so that most of the combat service support is in the Guard and Reserve.