PDA

View Full Version : What's your opinion of soldiers who've never deployed?



FatCat40
05-20-2010, 10:11 PM
In almost 10 years of war, do you believe there legitimately are soldiers out there who want to deploy and through absolutely no effort on their part to avoid it simply have not had the opportunity to do so at this point?

Hawk Driver
05-21-2010, 02:05 AM
If the Soldiers have not been actively avoiding deployment, there are many instances where they may have been put into positions that did not allow them to deploy. Many AGR's fall into this category, or those in staff, TRADOC, or having an obscure MOS that may not be in demand by the current conflict.

And really, it's not my business what the deployment record of another Soldier is.

CPT(P)
05-21-2010, 10:35 AM
Short answer is NO, I don't believe that there legitimately are Soldiers out there who want to deploy and through absolutely no effort on their part to avoid it simply have not had the opportunity to do so because anyone who has been in the Army for awhile knows that if you voluntary you will get it. I do believe there is a population that may not be avoiding it, but they not voluntarying either . . .the "they haven't called my number" crew.

MCGYVER
05-22-2010, 01:30 AM
In general, NO! There are, I'm sure, a few exceptions but for the most part, those that haven't deployed (AT LEAST) once are shamming, shirking cowards. I honestly think that if you don't have a combat patch you should NOT be eligible for promotion beyond SPC (No selection by DA boards either).
This is, of course, only my personal opinion.

ECKSRAY
05-22-2010, 06:37 PM
In general, NO! There are, I'm sure, a few exceptions but for the most part, those that haven't deployed (AT LEAST) once are shamming, shirking cowards. I honestly think that if you don't have a combat patch you should NOT be eligible for promotion beyond SPC (No selection by DA boards either).
This is, of course, only my personal opinion.[/QUOTE]

The Army is BIGGER than a "Combat" or more appropriately named "Deployment" patch is some cases. I would suggest that hanging out on the FOB at "Green Beans" coffee didn't involve a lot of combat. It is also ridiculous to suggest that promotion eligiblity be tied to a "Combat Patch". That patch only represents a percentage of the total Soldier. Deployments don't necessarily provide the experience and lessons that individuals need to be successful leaders for the long haul. From my time on "deployments" one common theme exist. Most of the "Standards" and doctrine go out the window...especially with the NCO's (SSG-SFC) and officers (1LT-CPT) who should know better. As for cowards...it probably takes one to call one.....IMO...of course

MCGYVER
05-23-2010, 06:02 AM
Ecksray, I guess we know what's NOT on your right sleeve. :)

Oh, I guess it's possible that from your "experience sitting at Green Beans" you don't see much value in a Combat patch but the bottom line up front is there have been plenty of Soldiers killed sitting on a FOB minding their own business and not too many of the REMF biotches sitting stateside (or in Kuwait) at Starbucks waiting for mortars to drop on them so I have 1000 times more respect for a POGUE (perhaps like you, not saying though) that sat his fat ass on a FOB in Iraq or Afghanistan than some turd that did whatever he/she could to get or stay in a non deployable unit or TDA assignment. That's just my opinion though.

ECKSRAY
05-23-2010, 02:23 PM
Ecksray, I guess we know what's NOT on your right sleeve. :)

Oh, I guess it's possible that from your "experience sitting at Green Beans" you don't see much value in a Combat patch but the bottom line up front is there have been plenty of Soldiers killed sitting on a FOB minding their own business and not too many of the REMF biotches sitting stateside (or in Kuwait) at Starbucks waiting for mortars to drop on them so I have 1000 times more respect for a POGUE (perhaps like you, not saying though) that sat his fat ass on a FOB in Iraq or Afghanistan than some turd that did whatever he/she could to get or stay in a non deployable unit or TDA assignment. That's just my opinion though.

Not that it matters, I have combat patches. Again, requiring a combat patch for promotion eligiblity through SSG or on DA boards doesn't seem to be the best way to groom leaders. Time spent on deployment is only a percentage of a well-rounded Soldier..enlisted, NCO or commissioned officer. They still need to develop the ability to deal with the assortment of Soldier issues from financial to domestic to general counseling. Does time on deployment prepare them for this? Yes..for some it does, but not all. From that prespective, I am pretty sure combat time/ time spent deployed is considered by these promotion boards, but the lack of it shouldn't penalize an otherwise outstanding Soldier.

Also, my previous comment "Green Beans" comment was not meant in any way to disrespect the memory of any of the brave men and women that have given their lives for this country.

JD2780
05-23-2010, 03:34 PM
What I do get a kick out of is, I being an AF guy being told at jump school hey AF i know you dont know what combat is but when the bullets fly its intense dont be afraid to find the nearest soldier on the DZ and he'll get you out of there. I was like are you serious. I've gone on more raids and more patrols than this guy. I've got "combat patches" from 2ID, 25th ID, 1ID, and 1SFG. I was sure to wear the 1SFG one the next day and wear the rest through out the course. There were only 3 black hats at jump school who didnt have the right shoulder sleeve insignia. Those that did, didnt really talk smack about combat. One of the cadre was my 6's driver with I was with 2-3 INF in Mosul. It just baffles me how people can talk smack and have done so little.

MCGYVER
05-23-2010, 04:55 PM
If your primary job is to train Soldiers for combat but you've never been to combat then you are NOT the best person to train those Soldiers. If your primary job is to train kids to ride bikes but you've never ridden a bike then you are NOT the best person to train those kids.

Perspective.

JD2780
05-23-2010, 05:00 PM
Perspective shared by many.

Hawk Driver
05-25-2010, 12:03 AM
But not one that makes a lot of sense. Or how do you explain how well our Army performed in 2003?

realmanofgenius
05-25-2010, 12:40 AM
When you have extreme air superiority, conventional weapons that dwarf your enemy's weapons, professional Soldiers against rag tag (national guard type) soldiers and intelligent military leaders that don't bank on "allah" keeping them safe from the infidels, it's pretty easy to stomp the shiite out of a muslim.

JD2780
05-25-2010, 01:14 AM
But not one that makes a lot of sense. Or how do you explain how well our Army performed in 2003?

Ground forces trained by men who been to combat such as Desert Storm, Somalia, any other beautiful landscapes.

Hawk Driver
05-25-2010, 01:22 AM
Ground forces trained by men who been to combat such as Desert Storm, Somalia, any other beautiful landscapes.

All 100 hours of combat seen by the Desert Storm folks?

and other than the firefight during the Black Hawk Down incident, how many of the troops actually did any fighting?

JD2780
05-25-2010, 01:34 AM
Yes all 100 hrs of desert warfare at which you can still develop sound TTPs. Also it may not have been many troops but those that did fight in in Somalia, which more went on than Black Hawk Down, helped develop TTPs for urban fights also.

ChiefB
05-25-2010, 04:02 AM
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." Martin Luther King

Many a Soldier, Sailor, Marine and Airman will never see combat or be deployed to the AOR or be "outside the wire".. this does not detract from their willingness to serve. Condemning the unknown or the non-comprehensible circumstances of any service person's career happenstance is unfair, shallow and needlessly cruel.

ChiefB

MCGYVER
05-28-2010, 12:50 AM
Your quote my Mr. King contradicts your statement. I am pretty sure that during times of challenge and controversy that if you aren't near the controversy or being challenged then you fall into the category of boy, not man. So many can come up with all kinds of excuses of why they haven't deployed but the bottom line is that we've been at war on two fronts for at least 7 years now and if you haven't deployed yet when others have deployed 3 or 4 times you are either non-deployable (sick, lame or lazy) or you are shamming. There are, I admit, some exceptions but they are just that, exceptions. The vast majority of those that haven't deployed haven't wanted to and are in jobs where they can get away with not doing so. Just like some Soldiers know how to play the system to get out of doing their jobs. Well, guess what? The more TIS/TIG you have the more you know about how to get over and not deploy.

Just my opnion and I'm "just sayin". If the boot fits, wear it. If not, drive on.

ChiefB
05-28-2010, 05:31 AM
Your quote my Mr. King contradicts your statement. I am pretty sure that during times of challenge and controversy that if you aren't near the controversy or being challenged then you fall into the category of boy, not man. So many can come up with all kinds of excuses of why they haven't deployed but the bottom line is that we've been at war on two fronts for at least 7 years now and if you haven't deployed yet when others have deployed 3 or 4 times you are either non-deployable (sick, lame or lazy) or you are shamming. There are, I admit, some exceptions but they are just that, exceptions. The vast majority of those that haven't deployed haven't wanted to and are in jobs where they can get away with not doing so. Just like some Soldiers know how to play the system to get out of doing their jobs. Well, guess what? The more TIS/TIG you have the more you know about how to get over and not deploy.

Just my opnion and I'm "just sayin". If the boot fits, wear it. If not, drive on.

My quote was appropo.....those that were standing up and willing to go are no less men because they were not selected.

BTW, incidental stats show that in 2007 less than 60% of servicemembers had ever deployed to either AOR.



According to recent statistics from the
Army’s Human Resources Command, 40.6 percent of soldiers
have never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.19 However, that figure
alone is misleading. For instance, this group includes soldiers
in basic training, serving in critical nondeployable jobs like
recruiting, or who are medically ineligible to deploy.20 Nevertheless,
the command found that 37,000 of these soldiers, some 7
percent of active duty soldiers, appeared to have no immediate
excuse from deployment. A quarter of those troops work in medical
services while the rest come from space operations, telecommunications,
and similar support specialties.21 While the Army
works to reduce its nondeploying population, the other services
appear to have even higher rates of nondeploying personnel.
According to October 2007 Air Force figures, 63 percent of Army
personnel have deployed, 55 percent of the Marine Corps, 51
percent of the Air Force, and 50 percent of the Navy.22

http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Marttala-WP13.pdf ---Background

ChiefB

MCGYVER
05-28-2010, 01:06 PM
Okay, so AHRC (not a scientific organization by a longshot) does some review and publishes some stats. Let's break them down. If 7% of those Soldiers had no excuse that means we should have seen about 67% of all Soldiers (instead of 60%) having been deployed. Since when are "telecommunications" Soldiers not needed in a war zone? Wow! As for the other services, I am not that concerned, nor surprised at their stats. Most of them (yes, I know there are exceptions) are not placed in positions of imminent danger from direct fire as Soldiers are. Oh, the study doesn't count trainees, profiles and several others either. WTF?!?!?! Why not? How about an actual break down of the different groups? Then we could zone in on the problem areas and attack (fix) them.

shortimer52
05-28-2010, 03:54 PM
Over the years I have had a few Soldiers volunteer to go, id say around 6. Only one has been given the chance. I have volunteered four times since 2002. 1st it was “we need a SSG, not a Sgt”. 2nd I volunteered to stay in Iraq after the invasion and I was told “the unit needs you back home”. 3rd and 4th time I volunteered I never heard anything back. I was asked if I wanted to go back over in November, I said id think about it. The next day I found out the girl was preggers so that was an easy answer.

I’m not going to sit there at judge any SM just because they didn’t deploy, who knows why they didn’t deploy. Their MOS my not let them or their MOS may not be needed over there (yes they do have those MOS’s that are not needed over there), their unit may not have been called on or their unit may be doing stuff here in the states so they can’t be called on, they may have volunteered but never got the call. OR, they might be trying to dodge a deployment.

FatCat40
05-28-2010, 07:02 PM
I just don't understand how it is even possible that in 10 years, one simply has not had the opportunity while others have had the opportunity 3,4,5, times. IF this is indeed the case, HRC or someone needs to seriously take a look at how these "opportunities" are being handed down. JMO.

I also find this quote contradictory:
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." Martin Luther King

If a man....ie a SOLDIER has not stood in either Astan or Iraq during this time of chanllenge and controversy over the past 9 years, then clearly they have chosen to remain in comfort and convenience (CONUS). That being the case, I think it is pretty easy to measure said man's character. Again JMO.

MCGYVER
05-28-2010, 09:58 PM
I totally agree with FatCat40 on this. I have only been deployed to Iraq twice and I tried to get out of my current assignment (non deployable) so that I could get into a deploying unit for Afghanistan but my branch wasn't trying to hear it. Only two more years and I'll be back in a regular unit getting ready to do what I've trained all these years for. That's what Soldiers do. We train to fight and when there's a fight we go fight it. How hard is that to frigging understand. Wow!

ChiefB
05-28-2010, 10:45 PM
"A Little Historical Perspective
DoD estimates that about 31 percent (about 1,790,000) active duty members served in the combat theater during the Korean War, from 1950 to 1953."

"About 3,400,000 military members (about 39 percent of active duty) served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, from 1955 to 1975."
"During the first Gulf War, DoD statistics show that 584,342 active duty members and 110,208 National Guard and Reservists deployed to the Gulf during DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM. That represents about 26 percent of the 2.2 million on active duty at the time."
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/terrorism/a/deploymentrates.htm

Other requirements: "The military of the United States is deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, with more than 369,000 of its 1,379,551 active-duty troops serving outside the United States and its territories." Wikipedia

Conclusion: Most servicemembers DO NOT Deploy to or during most wars or conflicts.

Not serving in a combat zone during the above conflicts/wars was not a sign of cowardice or avoidance, it is no different during these conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan. Many are willing but because of circumstances/specialties/other requirements do not deploy. Because some have deployed multiple times does not mean those who have not are goldbricks, malingerers or deployment dodgers, albeit there are many.

ChiefB

MCGYVER
05-29-2010, 06:09 AM
Using desert shield/storm is not comparable. Neither of those lasted long enough for everyone to rotate through. Apples and oranges.

JD2780
05-29-2010, 03:24 PM
Did Vietnam last long enough for you?

MCGYVER
05-29-2010, 04:50 PM
If we had over 7,000,000 military members (like we did during Vietnam) the percentages wouldn't matter nearly as much as now when we have about a third of that number (2.7 Million). When you trim the pool of available people those people have to pull more duty. Do you not understand that simple logic?

FatCat40
05-29-2010, 08:50 PM
If we had over 7,000,000 military members (like we did during Vietnam) the percentages wouldn't matter nearly as much as now when we have about a third of that number (2.7 Million). When you trim the pool of available people those people have to pull more duty. Do you not understand that simple logic?

We're ><. Apparently some will use any non-existent logic or stats to justify not having deployed at least once during the current conflicts when there simply is no justification IMO. OK, I'll concede that one could have been assigned to a TDA unit but in my experience most assignments only last 2-3 years. Assuming one was in a TDA assignment at some point from 2003-2010, that still leaves 4 years in which they should've been deployable with an MTOE unit UNLESS they extended to remain in said TDA assignment.

MCGYVER
05-29-2010, 11:46 PM
FatCat40, I'm totally with you. There is absolutely NO excuse for the vast majority of those Soldiers who haven't deployed at least once in the last 10 years. Shameful, totally shameful. I'm not judging them ALL, just the majority of them and they know who they are. If the shoe (or boot) fits, wear that puppy. If not then drive on. Most of the ones that raise the biggest stink about my comments on this are the ones that haven't done the deed and want to try and justify it to me and others on here. They need to save their breath (typing) because I really couldn't care less about excuses and they are honestly trying to convince themselves that they aren't cowards. Like I said, if the boot fits, wear it, if not then drive on with your bad self.

ChiefB
05-30-2010, 06:45 AM
FatCat40, I'm totally with you. There is absolutely NO excuse for the vast majority of those Soldiers who haven't deployed at least once in the last 10 years. Shameful, totally shameful. I'm not judging them ALL, just the majority of them and they know who they are. If the shoe (or boot) fits, wear that puppy. If not then drive on. Most of the ones that raise the biggest stink about my comments on this are the ones that haven't done the deed and want to try and justify it to me and others on here. They need to save their breath (typing) because I really couldn't care less about excuses and they are honestly trying to convince themselves that they aren't cowards. Like I said, if the boot fits, wear it, if not then drive on with your bad self.

Ok, MCGyver, lets put the boot on your bad, Delta Ninja, self.... What would be the motivation of one who would condemn his fellow servicemembers for their circumstances that did not call them to serve in the AOR?

Those who really participate, past and present, have too much class to cast aspersions on others without knowledge of their circumstances.

I've given you statistics of studies by others that you have just chosen portions of to create a diversion in the discussion.

The bottom line is that service or lack thereof in combat zones is a crap shoot and not a given, some go, some don't. All that go are not necessarily happy to go, those that don't aren't necessarily dodging their responsibilities.

You have condemned others without knowledge but only based on incidental conjecture. You have provided NO background facts or stats.

You've sunk to a low level, in my book when you have the temerity to assume and judge those (whomever they may be) who don't agree with your invective as "the ones that haven't done the deed" and "trying to convince themselves that they aren't cowards".

I, for one, don't agree with you, but I've done the deed (at another time) and you wouldn't have the 'nads to call me a "coward", to my face, unless you wanted to go home with your nuts in a cup. So how about knocking off the name calling and the childish bragging.

Those who really do the "deed" don't use braggadocio to condemn others who haven't, on an anonymous forum.

You need to take a tip from your own, ironic signature line which describes yourself, perfectly.. The boot does fit...wear it!

In the future, I intend to follow the last sentence of your signature quote.

ChiefB

MCGYVER
05-30-2010, 01:13 PM
Chief, dense much? I stated several times that there are, of course, exceptions. I also stated that "most" of those having a problem with my comments are the ones that haven't done the deed. Obviously I wouldn't call you a coward because you've been to combat (so you say) so that's another silly statement. As for you putting my nuts "in a cup", that's pretty mature of you but a) this is an anonymous forum where people often say stuff they can't back up and b) I don't get intimidated by other men. Am I a badass, BJJ, UFC, MMA, Ninja? Nope, just a man like any other but I'll cower to no man. Have a nice day sunshine.

CORNELIUSSEON
05-30-2010, 01:55 PM
In almost 10 years of war, do you believe there legitimately are soldiers out there who want to deploy and through absolutely no effort on their part to avoid it simply have not had the opportunity to do so at this point?

Just so you know, the United States increased the size of its Military during World War Two to approximately 12 Million Men and Women, with the Women being 100% voluntary, and the Women were prevented from deploying to Combat Zones, which means that the Women deployed forward to locations AFTER they were declared combat-free. Of the Men, approximately 2 Million never left CONUS, and Alaska and Hawaii weren't considered within CONUS at the time. Also, there was very little use of the idea of time-definite Tours, with ALL Enlistment Contracts written during the conflict "For The Duration of the Conflict Plus Six Months", which means that the longest contracts written between "Pearl Harbor Day" and "Victory in Japan Day" lasted 3 Years, 36 Weeks, and 4 Days, and persons who were already in the service when "Pearl Harbor" took place experienced the equivalent of "Stop Loss", many of whom did not get out or have to reenlist until 1946. On the other hand, a Lottery system was put into place on "Victory In Europe Day" where points were awarded for many different categories so that persons who served all their Post Basic/AIT time in a Combat Zone, and had their "ticket" pinched properly, got out sooner than those who didn't. Thus, those who remained in CONUS for the Duration tended to get out last because they didn't have enough Lottery Points. Another difference was the fact that very few who served in Combat remained in-Country past the end of the war for the full Occupational period. They were replaced by "Fresh Troops" from CONUS who performed Occupational Duties. Still lots of troops never made it out of CONUS, with the record being some Navy guys finishing Boot Camp and Specialty Training, and then processing out because they were declared "Surplus To Current Needs".

The point here is that things like this have - and will continue to - happen in the US Military.

MCGYVER
05-30-2010, 06:40 PM
corneliusseon, so you are saying that the government actually "punished" those that hadn't deployed by making them serve longer? Wow! What a concept. Very interesting.

CORNELIUSSEON
05-31-2010, 02:11 PM
corneliusseon, so you are saying that the government actually "punished" those that hadn't deployed by making them serve longer? Wow! What a concept. Very interesting.

The US Military realized that the majority of service personnel were going to serve unequal periods of service, and a measure of equality was necessary.


World War Two ran from 12/07/1941 through 09/02/1945, and lasted 3 Years, 38 Weeks, and 3 Days.

The Air Combat period in the European, African and Middle Eastern Theater ran from 07-04-1942 through 06/05/1944, and lasted for One Year, 48 Weeks and one day.

The Ground Combat Period in the European, African and Middle Eastern Theater ran from 05/11/1942 through 05/08/1945, and lasted 2 Years, 51 Weeks, and 5 Days.

The Air Combat period in the Pacific Theater ran from 04/17/1942, through 09/02/1945, and lasted for 3 Years, 19 Weeks, and 5 Days.

The Ground Combat period in the Pacific ran from 12/07/1941 through 09/02/1945, and lasted for 3 Years, 38 Weeks, and 3 Days.

The China, Burma and India Theater did not have a dedicated Air Combat period, but shared Air Forces with the Pacific. The Ground Combat period ran from 12/07/1941 through 09/02/1945, and also lasted 3 Years, 38 Weeks and 3 Days.

The CONUS Theater ran from 12/07/1941 through 08/14/1945, and lasted 3 Years, 35 Weeks and 5 Days.
With those parameters set, the three Theaters were divided up into discrete Campaigns. European Campaigns tended to dovetail end-to-end in Serial fashion, whereas Pacific and C-B-I campaigns tended to overlap with discrete areas of operations and manpower pools. CONUS was declared a “Combat Zone” because of Pearl Harbor, the German submarine attacks along the Atlantic Coast, and Japanese Pacific Coast Balloon Bombing, and because it proved expedient when defending the Panama Canal and Alaska.

Since the Theaters – with their discreet periods of time – resulted in all sorts of tour durations, and the lessons learned in World War One where the US Military tried to demobilize at the end of the war as close to simultaneous as possible, with resulting chaos, it was decided for World War Two to phase people out over time, releasing those with the most time Deployed, and the most points going first. The Point system worked like the Point system does today for Promotion. If you won the Medal of Honor, for example, you got a huge head start in accumulating points. The National Guard had been called up in 1939 for a One year period, which was extended to Two Years, which was extended to Three, which was extended to “Duration Plus 6 Months” because of Pearl Harbor, so they had absolute priority over the Draftees, and were on Par with the Regular Army. The result is that you had all sorts of groups with all sorts of deployment durations and call-up durations, so the Lottery system tended to even things out over time. A word needs to be said here about the Baby Boom. The start of the Baby Boom reflects the start of the release of the troops, whereas its end reflects the subsidence to Peacetime Strength, so you can see how long the troopers had to serve to even things out.


It was Korea that introduced the Set Tour Duration system you know today.


The idea of the World War Two system wasn’t to “Punish”, but to even things out so everyone would serve equitable tours, with the additional motivation that the more you put into your service, the earlier you could get out. The Point System wasn’t announced until it was ready to be put into place, so it came as a surprise to everyone, and achieved its additional purpose of avoiding the rush to the Exit Gates that had happened at the end of World War One, and avoiding any possible service time fraud to beat competitors to the exit gates. Most of all, if that system were in place today, there would be no anxiety as to when you got to leave, and the acknowledgement that you weren’t getting out until the war is over.

martint
06-01-2010, 05:44 PM
I'm not from the US military, so I might be missing some things here,
but as a reserve manteinance company commander in the IDF, I know there are many things my unit can't fix, baecuse thay cant be fix in field conditions, you need labs. So I know I better have some very good fat asses sitting in a lab far away if I want these things to be fixed quickly to return them to the boys doing the durty work, and I do give them the respect they desrve when they work day and night to fix those things.
Oviussly we have a lot of soldiers who escape the field also in the IDF (ubfrotunatly) but it hardly means that all soldiers who have not been in combat are doing unimportant jobs and should recieve less respect.
If they are doing a good job, you will never know why you need them :)

CORNELIUSSEON
06-01-2010, 09:33 PM
I'm not from the US military, so I might be missing some things here,
but as a reserve maintenance company commander in the IDF, I know there are many things my unit can't fix, because they cant be fix in field conditions, you need labs. So I know I better have some very good fat asses sitting in a lab far away if I want these things to be fixed quickly to return them to the boys doing the dirty work, and I do give them the respect they deserve when they work day and night to fix those things.
Obviously we have a lot of soldiers who escape the field also in the IDF (unfortunately) but it hardly means that all soldiers who have not been in combat are doing unimportant jobs and should receive less respect.
If they are doing a good job, you will never know why you need them :)

Conditions for the US Military are very much different from the IDF. We are used to wars with very long supply and maintenance lines. Most of our heavy equipment would take two months to perform a round trip between the Continental United States and Iraq/Afghanistan, not to mention the time necessary to perform a Fifth Echelon Depot Rebuild, which is the only level of maintenance where we would even consider shipping equipment for maintenance that far away.

World War Two and Vietnam were the two previous conflicts where we performed a regularly scheduled Fifth Echelon Maintenance program on an on-going basis where the finished product was returned to the battlefield. In both cases the equipment sent on such a round trip program was equipment that not only required Depot Rebuild, but Scheduled Upgrade as well, so that in Vietnam a damaged M-60 Tank that was sent back for Depot Repair would come back as an M-60A3.

For that reason, we have always pushed maintenance as far forward as possible to limit or eliminate unnecessary downtime for equipment that was absolutely necessary In Country. For equipment that requires a clean environment for disassembly/assembly, we can set up sealed tents with positive pressure environments.

For extremely high value end items, such as Medical, Communication Security, Aircraft and Airdrop items, there is no reason why maintenance cannot be pushed forward as far as possible, not necessarily In-Country, and Electronic equipment – more and more - is simply being replaced, and recycled, not repaired.

MCGYVER
06-02-2010, 03:13 AM
Um, this is why we ALWAYS have plenty of extra equipment (ORF/Float) in theater so that if one gets blown up or fried we can just swap it out.

martint
06-02-2010, 05:33 AM
Very interesting. I guess with such a big army fighting that far a way I should have thought this is the way you work.
It pretty much revokes all my point.

Here we don't have much money, which means (specially in electronics) we need to have very good technicians to fix things fast. Since most of our army is reserve it is not such a problem, many of those technicians are actually top gun engineers while off duty, so they are very capable.
Also here in a war is like the whole country is in war (most of that times that actually is the situation). So even someone sitting back in an office can be bombarded.
very interesting to see the differences.

CORNELIUSSEON
06-02-2010, 02:09 PM
Very interesting. I guess with such a big army fighting that far a way I should have thought this is the way you work.
It pretty much revokes all my point.

Here we don't have much money, which means (specially in electronics) we need to have very good technicians to fix things fast. Since most of our army is reserve it is not such a problem, many of those technicians are actually top gun engineers while off duty, so they are very capable.
Also here in a war is like the whole country is in war (most of that times that actually is the situation). So even someone sitting back in an office can be bombarded.
very interesting to see the differences.

50% of the US Military is Reserve and National Guard, with the mix of the two being 50-50. The other 50% is Regular. The difference between the three is very significant. The Regular forces consist of the US Army, US Navy, US Marine Corps, US Air Force, and US Coast Guard, although the Coast Guard is considered a military organization only when they are called up in Wartime. Otherwise, the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security, and functions as a combination of Maritime Police, Maritime Safety, and Maritime Rescue organization. The first four are the Full Time federal military. The Reserves are the part-time backup force for the Regular forces, and there is one for each fulltime force, including the Coast Guard. The National Guard forces are the Militia Forces of the 50 States and 4 Territories. They date back to before the Union was formed or the States/Territories joined the Union, and would be considered National Armies, Air Forces and Navies if the Union were dissolved. In your system, the National Guard would be what you would have if Israel and the Palestinians were ever to set up a Federal Government, with the IDF and the Palestinian forces retained as separate organizations with a new Federal military superimposed.

Getting back to your Maintenance questions, what about the materiel you buy from us? I can see you buying sufficient repair part kits and upgrade kits for First through Fourth Echelon Maintenance, but do you do your own Fifth Echelon Depot Rebuild? We do Depot Rebuild for some other nations that buy our equipment because that saves them lots of money, and increases our Economy Of Scale as well.

martint
06-02-2010, 03:01 PM
Here reserves are at least 80% of the whole IDF, mainly the Army , but much less than 50% in IAF and Navy.

In the Army we do all repairs and maintenance of heavy equipment and cars our selves (not field units like mine of course), excluding D9 (I think) which is done by Caterpillar.
Regarding electronics for some equipment we fix all by our selves, for other things the final destination in case of total rebuild or very complicated equipment with complicated problems (not maintenance) we send back to the vendor.
This is no big problem in the IDF. Remember we make our own tanks (still built by the Army it self) and most of the electronics is developed by Israeli companies, so we can send back to the vendor and still get a quick service. Even the engines, though they are american, are fixed completely and rebuilt within the Army.
In general we have 4 levels of maintenance. 1 is very basic and is done by the maintenance platoons in the field units (I use to be a maintenance officer in an infantry unit commanding such platoon). 2 is almost every kind of repair and is done by regular army maintenance bases and by reserve maintenance companies with mobile garages (like the unit I command while in duty). 3 is deep periodical maintenance or fixes that require almost dismantling the equipment and it is done by the same maintenance bases. 4 is total rebuild or in chip maintenance and it is done by specialized military installations or by the vendor.
I can't imagine anything but air fighters and choppers engines that needs to go back to the US for any reason.

BTW, we call maintenance units here "armament" units with "armament" personal of the "armament" force.(even though we fix everything but telecommunications), how are they called in the US Army?

sergeant_a
06-02-2010, 09:51 PM
McGyver has changed my opinion of him with every post I read. I used to like many of his comments that I read in the Times, but now must admit to myself that he is a narrow minded individual that refuses to look at anything other than his narrow experience.

The military is full of people that want to deploy that have been unable to do so, or that circumstances have been such as that they have done many things that did not last long enough to earn a combat(deployment) patch. I am an example of one of those. I have been in since the end of Desert Storm but I got out of training too late to be deployed there even though that was my intent when I enlisted. I was in a high depoyable unit when these wars kicked off. That unit deployed but I was promoted and moved out of the unit before I could go with them. I was not upset though as I went to another unit that were supposed to go. Unfortunatly, when Turkey said no we lost our mission and sat at FT Carson for a year. I was then moved to a BN level position and as soon as I got promoted out of that position they got deployed. I was moved from there into another unit as was getting ready to go with them when I was Voluntold to go into recruiting. I am now leaving recruiting and specifically asked to go to a deploying unit and am being sent to one that just got back instead. Keep in mind I have clicked on the stupid volunteer button four times since the Operations have begun and have never once been called or e-mailed about my volunteer status.

I personally know of at least 4 other NCO's with stories similar to mine. We all want to go and do our part desparatley but have been told no. Before you judge others you need to know their stories, and seeing as how there are 2.7 million in the services I seriously doubt that you even know 1/10th of 1 percent of them personnally. If you wish to test who is cowardly and has no gumption I would personalley invite you to e-mail me and come to my doorstep, I will educate you.

By the way I served in many types of situations that were not long enough to get a combat patch but I will bet if I add them together I will outweigh your 2 deployments.

I have seen many different people in our uniforms and now seeing what is in the community that cannot or will not join I respect all that serve regardless of where it is as long as they show that they can do the job they are assigned and requested by Uncle Sam to do.

MCGYVER
06-02-2010, 11:20 PM
sergeant_a, you obviously have a guilty conscience because I said MANY times that there are, of course, exceptions and if you fall into those exceptions then my words don't apply to you. You and a couple others that aren't so bright choose to ignore that and purely focus on the other part of my statement. I stand by my words and will say them to any mans face. "Most" people that have been in the Army for the last 10 years and not deployed haven't deployed because they didn't want to. Wow! You know 4 other people who fit your category! Wow! As of 2005 (yeah, 5 years ago) there were over a million that had deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/12/troops_numbers/index.html

Ghost1s
06-18-2010, 01:31 PM
I'm a National Guardsman on active duty and I have yet to deploy as an Army Soldier. But I have, as a Marine Infantryman, been to Somalia, Sierra Leone, Bosnia (etc). If my number is called I'm Gone. POOF. But I am not going to sit here and lie and say I am waiting with baited breath to be sent to support and defend another country. Leave my wife, and children to either go get shot at. And spend the next 12 months sitting in a FOB playing XBOX and watching every DVD known to man just so I can walk around with a patch on my arm.

I will be leaving in January and I can tell you this. The only place that combat designator will be worn is on my dress blues.

Ghost1s
06-18-2010, 01:40 PM
As far as what do I feel. This is what I know. You went down range, you did your job OUTSTANDING. If you didn't go OUTSTANDING. What are you doing in garrison whether you went or not. Are you taking care of Soldiers. Are you leading them, are you mentoring them. Are you setting the standard, and more importantly are you enforcing the Standard. When you are down range a great deal is removed form you. You scope of mission becomes very narrow. You do A, B, C, (etc). But when you return that focus become vastly more broad.

...no way in hell am I going to look down on any that serves, that makes no sense to me at all. My guard unit was reverted to Armenia, and every time we needed something from the rear that was a young SPC on the other end that DID IT ALL. What issue we had, whatever problem. The young warrior gave out his person home phone and did a lot of what we needed at work, answering calls on his way him, taking notes at his kitchen table.

We landed and didn't have any weapons, ammo, FOOD. Paper work was wrong so we end up having our Sniper System sent to Russia. And it was the young SPC that got us everything we needed. When we returned I found out that the young Soldier had gotten an Article 15 for disrespect to Senior NCO. Apparently upon finding out that someone screwed up and didn't send what we needed the young Warrior WENT OFF and lost his bearings. Angry because (what he called) HIS Guardsmen were failed. We didn't have one pay issue, not one paper work issue, not one problem that this young warrior didn't take care. Even things that were not in his lane.

THAT is what I want. CAN YOU DO YOUR JOB! I don't care where you have been, or where you are CAN YOU DO YOUR JOB!?!?!? I would take 100 of that SPC. Never been deployed, but did his job. The Warrior left the Army......and the Army is worse for it.

MCGYVER
06-19-2010, 03:27 PM
You went somewhere without weapons? Wow! Why would you do such a thing? Just a caveat to your story, that SPC was in his first unit (most likely) and hadn't had the opportunity to deploy yet. I think what most in the thread are talking about is more senior Soldiers who've been hiding out (for the most part). Your SPC would fall into the "exception to the rule" category.

CORNELIUSSEON
06-19-2010, 05:15 PM
You went somewhere without weapons? Wow! Why would you do such a thing? Just a caveat to your story, that SPC was in his first unit (most likely) and hadn't had the opportunity to deploy yet. I think what most in the thread are talking about is more senior Soldiers who've been hiding out (for the most part). Your SPC would fall into the "exception to the rule" category.

Actually, this problem is being fixed as we speak. The Army is starting to reorganize itself so that no one will be out of the mix. Of course, they don't expect to complete the reorganization until 2017, but, we'll see.

Ghost1s
06-23-2010, 01:26 PM
You went somewhere without weapons? Wow! Why would you do such a thing? Just a caveat to your story, that SPC was in his first unit (most likely) and hadn't had the opportunity to deploy yet. I think what most in the thread are talking about is more senior Soldiers who've been hiding out (for the most part). Your SPC would fall into the "exception to the rule" category.
I don't know man. I think far far too much is put on deploying. Really unless you are out conducting patrols or are at a FOB that is constantly under fire or attack, than mostly what you are doing is what you would be doing in the rear.

...the question shouldn't be have you deployed, but "can you do your job" Deployed or in the rear.

Household 6
06-28-2010, 08:09 PM
Before "judging" anyone on any issue, everyone should get their facts straight first. My husband has 15+ years - a combination of Guard, Active Duty, and Guard. He has not deployed downrange - but not by his choice. While on AD, he was told twice that he would deploy - twice the Army changed the orders, once due to a change in mission and once due to a new unit's iminent demobing. During his time with the NG, he has not deployed, but again not by his choice -once was a medical issue, once was a request to postpone due to family crisis. Once the crisis was over, he reported and requested deployment. He was mobilized, but on a domestic mission which required him to dress out in full battle rattle each day and face potential enemy fire (for over 16 months), but that mission issued no combat patch. (It doesn't count if you get shot at state side.) He has faced over seven potential deployments, ready and willing, and still awaits his turn. It looks like next summer or fall may be his time, but again it is in the hands of others. He is willing, has been since the start, but many simply judge his willingness by the empty shoulder area. Don't! Everyone in the military answers to someone higher in the chain of command, everyone.

ChiefB
06-28-2010, 08:57 PM
Before "judging" anyone on any issue, everyone should get their facts straight first. My husband has 15+ years - a combination of Guard, Active Duty, and Guard. He has not deployed downrange - but not by his choice. While on AD, he was told twice that he would deploy - twice the Army changed the orders, once due to a change in mission and once due to a new unit's iminent demobing. During his time with the NG, he has not deployed, but again not by his choice -once was a medical issue, once was a request to postpone due to family crisis. Once the crisis was over, he reported and requested deployment. He was mobilized, but on a domestic mission which required him to dress out in full battle rattle each day and face potential enemy fire (for over 16 months), but that mission issued no combat patch. (It doesn't count if you get shot at state side.) He has faced over seven potential deployments, ready and willing, and still awaits his turn. It looks like next summer or fall may be his time, but again it is in the hands of others. He is willing, has been since the start, but many simply judge his willingness by the empty shoulder area. Don't! Everyone in the military answers to someone higher in the chain of command, everyone.

Your husband's service is just as honorable as any who have deployed.... the essence of military service is to be willing... and able.

The luck of the draw is not within anyone's power. i.e. ... General Patraeus was a two star before ever being deployed in combat. ( "In 2003, Petraeus, then a Major General, saw combat for the first time when he commanded the 101st Airborne Division during V Corps's drive to Baghdad.") WP

ChiefB

Household 6
06-28-2010, 09:03 PM
ChiefB,

Thank you.

Let me say your posts seems to come from a Gentleman - from a Southern, that is a high compliment.

ChiefB
06-28-2010, 09:12 PM
ChiefB,

Thank you.

Let me say your posts seems to come from a Gentleman - from a Southern, that is a high compliment.

You're welcome...and thank you......My Frau, an Alabama lass and long time military wife...... says you have great insight!:nod

ChiefB

Measure Man
06-29-2010, 12:00 AM
He was mobilized, but on a domestic mission which required him to dress out in full battle rattle each day and face potential enemy fire (for over 16 months), .

Just curious...where did we have enemy fire in the CONUS for over 16 months?

Oh, and I'm with Chief...if you are ready and willing, you have served honorably.

ChiefB
06-29-2010, 12:53 AM
Just curious...where did we have enemy fire in the CONUS for over 16 months?

Oh, and I'm with Chief...if you are ready and willing, you have served honorably.

To be fair, MM, she wrote "potential" enemy fire and I can think of a situation...Post 9-11... for reservists.... we saw many of them patrolling NY, Wash and etc.

ChiefB

Household 6
06-29-2010, 01:50 AM
Just curious...where did we have enemy fire in the CONUS for over 16 months?

Oh, and I'm with Chief...if you are ready and willing, you have served honorably.

The area was the Southwest Border Mission which covered an area from CA to TX. Gunfire was not a daily issue, but there wasn't much "publicity" about the dangers faced there. I imagine that most US citizens have been unaware of the dangers faced in the border mission. (No declared enemies, so no "war".) Believe me you wouldn't want to wear battle gear in that hot area without good reason, but based on what I know, there was reason. If you enjoy reading, read Reaper's Line to discover more about the environment that the soldiers worked in out there - it was written by someone in the Border Patrol. In an area of contention between druglords, coyotes and their human prey, and with the US beginning to make border crossing more difficult, there were dangers to anyone impeding border crossing.

Thanks for your thoughts on the "undeployed" tho.

SSGArtillery
06-29-2010, 02:28 AM
The area was the Southwest Border Mission which covered an area from CA to TX. Gunfire was not a daily issue, but there wasn't much "publicity" about the dangers faced there. I imagine that most US citizens have been unaware of the dangers faced in the border mission. (No declared enemies, so no "war".) Believe me you wouldn't want to wear battle gear in that hot area without good reason, but based on what I know, there was reason. If you enjoy reading, read Reaper's Line to discover more about the environment that the soldiers worked in out there - it was written by someone in the Border Patrol. In an area of contention between druglords, coyotes and their human prey, and with the US beginning to make border crossing more difficult, there were dangers to anyone impeding border crossing.

Thanks for your thoughts on the "undeployed" tho.

when does this movie come out? if only the movie preview guy narrated this i would be a happy man...

MCGYVER
06-30-2010, 12:33 PM
I see a few people posting logical explanations as to why their loved ones haven't deployed. That's great but those are not the individuals we are talking about (in general). There are exceptions to every rule. The big picture is what we are talking about. How a LOT of individuals are hiding out and avoiding deployment, not the 1-2% who just didn't get the opportunity to serve.

CORNELIUSSEON
06-30-2010, 02:05 PM
I see a few people posting logical explanations as to why their loved ones haven't deployed. That's great but those are not the individuals we are talking about (in general). There are exceptions to every rule. The big picture is what we are talking about. How a LOT of individuals are hiding out and avoiding deployment, not the 1-2% who just didn't get the opportunity to serve.

Did you include the MOSes that CAN'T deploy, and the Units that haven't deployed yet? How about units that are already Deployed elsewhere? how about units that are permanently Deployed to other countries? With the USARS system in place, lots of people go where their units go, and not before. The same is true of the National Guard.

MCGYVER
06-30-2010, 10:59 PM
I actually don't even think the NG and Reserve should be involved in this conversation. They don't enlist (for the most part) to deploy. I know full well that they deploy quite a bit (more than some Active Duty Soldiers sometimes) but that's not the point. MOS's that cannot deploy? Like what? If they can't deploy then outsource their jobs to contractors and send them packing.

Stuntman
07-01-2010, 03:13 AM
MOS's that cannot deploy? Like what? If they can't deploy then outsource their jobs to contractors and send them packing.

Wow. There's just not that much you can say to counter such an ignorant statement.

MCGYVER
07-01-2010, 11:33 AM
If you had an employee that could not travel but travelling was a major part of your business would you keep them? If I don't agree with someone's opinion I don't call them ignorant, I simply realize that we disagree. To each their own.

Stuntman
07-01-2010, 11:49 AM
If you had an employee that could not travel but travelling was a major part of your business would you keep them? If I don't agree with someone's opinion I don't call them ignorant, I simply realize that we disagree. To each their own.

Not every MOS is supposed to travel. Many are. Some are useless in the field but vital back home. To suggest out-sourcing them (especially in these economic times where out-sourcing has proven to be the punchline of many jokes about what's wrong with this country) is ignorant.

By the way, if you'll read my original reply, I said the STATEMENT was ignorant. Never said you were. There is a difference (unless you're using a woman's logic....which is to say 'none.')

SSGArtillery
07-01-2010, 02:08 PM
How many times does the guy have to explain that hes talking about certain MOS's... I.e.: COMBAT ARMS... and if he wont say it then i will, if you're combat arms and you haven't deployed in the last almost 10 years then theres something seriously wrong with this picture... and to say you never had the chance to do so because your unit has some sort of lock on your career in the last 10 years then you are poorly misguided... It's not hard, if you are staying in that long then you should have at least 1 or 2 re-enlistments under you belt as well as the choice to say "hey i wanna go to so and so unit because they go to combat"... I could care less about the soldiers that are medical and non-combat because they do their own thing in my opinion. But "Combat" soldiers that don't deploy because the army somehow dictates every single one of their duty assignments without a deployment within the span of a decade is ridiculous and is a cop out.

Now that the wars are somewhat winding down you have all these "fast tracking" senior ncos and officers that are coming out of Korea (2 tours), Tradoc, Schools, and various other non-deployable units and putting their 2 cents into our business... For me to pretend like these people didn't just come out of the woodwork and I have to respect them? (which I will regardless because I respect the rank, not the person) is just disgusting!

Read this post carefully and make sure you fully understand the point im trying to make before you even attempt to respond with a critique to what I say, no im not talking about national guard or reserve so if you are household6 then bite your tongue because im not talking to you or anyone that thinks i'm bad mouthing that group because im not. What is said is said and thats how it is whether you like it or not..

Thank you for your time ;)

CORNELIUSSEON
07-01-2010, 10:01 PM
I actually don't even think the NG and Reserve should be involved in this conversation. They don't enlist (for the most part) to deploy. I know full well that they deploy quite a bit (more than some Active Duty Soldiers sometimes) but that's not the point. MOS's that cannot deploy? Like what? If they can't deploy then outsource their jobs to contractors and send them packing.

Speaking as a person who spent time in both camps (RA and NG), you couldn't be further wrong. In the first place, the enlistment program for the National Guard is different from that of the Regular Army specifically because the National Guard is designed around long-term service. Yes, they both use the same rules concerning how long an enlistment may last, but - whereas the Regular Army solder must deliberately express interest in re-enlisting, and must deliberately go through the process, the National Guard does the exact opposite. When I transferred from the Regular Army to the National Guard in 1974, I enlisted for Six Years. From then on, if I had decided that I didn't want to continue, it would be my obligation to announce that. Otherwise, I was automatically re-enlisted three more times, and then transferred to the Retired Reserve when I had completed 20 years in the National Guard. The only thing I had to do was to sign the Enlistment Form when it was presented to me, and I was given a copy of both the form and the orders, and that was that. We didn't bother with Re-enlistment Ceremonies, because we looked at each re-enlistment as being nothing more than an Extension of the initial enlistment. The rationale behind this was the fact that - in order to accumulate sufficient Points in order to qualify for a full Pension - a National Guardsman must serve 20 Years with the Guard, never mind how many years you served with the Regular Army prior to transferring, and never mind the fact that you had to be Age 60 in order to start collecting. The reason I mention this is because we were all there for whatever assignment came down the pike, and few of us thought otherwise. Those that did found out what happens when we Deployed to Saudi Arabia in 1990. We had some who complained about deploying, and they were interviewed by the Battalion Commander, Company Commander, Sergeant Major and First Sergeant. When it was certain that they understood the consequences of not deploying, they were summarily administratively discharged, and told they would not be welcome to return. They didn't contest the discharge because they got what they wanted - they remained behind - and we were rid of unreliable persons. BTW, we filled their spots from a list of Volunteers from other units who jumped at the chance to deploy. The idea that National Guard didn't deploy came from the fact that - after actually deploying a few units to Vietnam - the Regular Army decided that it was too much trouble to bring Guardsmen up to full speed before deploying them. That was based on the fact that - at the time - the training of the Guard by the Regular Army was based on the idea that any conflict that came along would take long enough to allow the Guard to be have the training updated prior to deployment, and this took one Year during the Vietnam War. This flaw was changed as a result, and the Guard continually trained on an annual basis so that we could deploy within 90 Days from the receipt of Alert Orders. The only Guardsmen you hear about these days not deploying are those who are in Non-deployable MOSs, or in units not ordered to deploy by the Regular Army. In the case of non-Deployable MOSs, some of them fulfill various Security and Support jobs for the State they belong to. If they were to take your suggestion seriously, what they would do would be to retract those persons from the Federal Recognition List for the duration of whatever State assignment they were fulfilling, and then return them to the Federal Recognition List when the State could replace them with others. As to the idea of Contractors, the National Guard doesn't use Contractors because it would cost the State more to use Contractors than to use Guardsmen in State Active Duty between Drill Periods, or else Guardmen who have been withdrawn from the Federal Recognition List for the duration.

Incidentally, the Regular Army gets a very interesting benefit from the use of Guardsmen instead of Contractors in some short-term jobs. The Army annually gets to train NG Engineer Battalions and get the benefit of their labor - for example - when they bring them to a base to participate in a construction or rehabilitation project. You would be surprised at how many buildings they have rewired, replaced plumbing, laid concrete, etc. My own Transportation Company used to annually support Tobyhanna Army Depot by delivering parts and supplies to Guard and Reserve units throughout Pennsylvania in the 1980s.

MCGYVER
07-02-2010, 11:15 PM
Okay. So let me get this straight. I state what I "think" and you tell me I "couldn't be more wrong"? What part of that equation doesn't make sense to you? It's my opinion based on current events and simply that. A 683 word paragraph based on your experience from the 70s is not likely to change my opinion but thanks for playing. btw, I do appreciate your service to our Country, and I don't really see where we need to disagree as on most situations I think we are more in line than out of line.

Stuntman
07-03-2010, 12:34 AM
Okay. So let me get this straight. I state what I "think" and you tell me I "couldn't be more wrong"? What part of that equation doesn't make sense to you? It's my opinion based on current events and simply that.

How did you get so sensitive? Why is it you feel the need to regulate how people speak and argue? When two people have differing opinions, it's inevitable that one (or both) will say "you're wrong." Because person A has a certain opinion and person B's "opinion" is that person A's opinion is wrong.

Just deal with it and carry on.

MCGYVER
07-03-2010, 02:53 AM
Okay, LOL, I guess in your mind the word sensitive is synonymous with the word logical. Why would you feel the need to interject your illustrious opinon between myself and cornelius? I mean it's not like it's against the rules or anything, just sort of odd. I'm not trying to regulate anything, If you had a little bit better reading comprehension you might have noticed that I was asking "him" why he would want to regulate my thoughts. Wow! Already getting your 4th of July drink on?

Stuntman
07-03-2010, 04:14 AM
Okay, LOL, I guess in your mind the word sensitive is synonymous with the word logical.

Not really, because logic would dictate that he's going to say what he wants to say and you will do the same. Trying to attack his choice of words is illogical because he's not you. You're not him. You both speak how you both speak and that probably is going to be different since you're two different people.


Why would you feel the need to interject your illustrious opinon between myself and cornelius?

Because I can. This is an internet message board so the conversation is quite public. If you wanted it more private, you'd send a private message. Since you did not, it's fair game for anyone who wants to interject.


If you had a little bit better reading comprehension you might have noticed that I was asking "him" why he would want to regulate my thoughts.

I comprehend just fine. You asked him. Now I'm asking you.

MCGYVER
07-03-2010, 05:42 PM
Platoon Daddy, like I stated (but you left out), you are totally authorized to interject your opinion and it has been duly noted. I am still a bit confused as to how you perceived my comments as "sensitive" but to each his own.

VIVIDEMAGE
07-08-2010, 10:27 PM
After having my older brother deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, I join as well on and was assigned to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. I didn’t want to go there, but I was “Needs of the Army” and the Army “Needed” me there. Next the Army “Needed” me at the National Training Center in Ft. Irwin, CA (Also Non-deploying). In August of 2006 I volunteered along with over 60 other first term soldiers to join the 1st Infantry Division that was trying to send new Military Transition Teams (MTT), but all of us were turned down at the Regimental level thinking that we would receive deployment orders by the end of the year. We didn’t. After Reenlisting I was assigned where the Army, once again, “Needed” me most; South Korea. Once there I came down on orders for my fourth assignment; three years of recruiter duty. Thankfully I had already been accepted by USASOC to reclass to 38B and was able to get my orders deleted, but not until after a lot of hassle from Recruiting command and a complete lack of support from my branch. Oh, and I’m an 11B3O. The Army keeps sending the same people for four or five tours, but tells me they “Need” me for recruiter? The Army’s assignments are NOT keeping deployments into account and while I’ve met my fair share of “Dodgers” (10 years at the same duty station is ridiculous), assuming that everyone has had “A chance to go” and have been “Dodging the bullet” is not a very accurate representation.

CORNELIUSSEON
07-08-2010, 11:12 PM
After having my older brother deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, I join as well on and was assigned to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. I didn’t want to go there, but I was “Needs of the Army” and the Army “Needed” me there. Next the Army “Needed” me at the National Training Center in Ft. Irwin, CA (Also Non-deploying). In August of 2006 I volunteered along with over 60 other first term soldiers to join the 1st Infantry Division that was trying to send new Military Transition Teams (MTT), but all of us were turned down at the Regimental level thinking that we would receive deployment orders by the end of the year. We didn’t. After Reenlisting I was assigned where the Army, once again, “Needed” me most; South Korea. Once there I came down on orders for my fourth assignment; three years of recruiter duty. Thankfully I had already been accepted by USASOC to reclass to 38B and was able to get my orders deleted, but not until after a lot of hassle from Recruiting command and a complete lack of support from my branch. Oh, and I’m an 11B3O. The Army keeps sending the same people for four or five tours, but tells me they “Need” me for recruiter? The Army’s assignments are NOT keeping deployments into account and while I’ve met my fair share of “Dodgers” (10 years at the same duty station is ridiculous), assuming that everyone has had “A chance to go” and have been “Dodging the bullet” is not a very accurate representation.

You have run into the "Sullivan Brothers Deployment" issue. The Sullivan Brothers were five Brothers who all signed up to the US Navy during World War Two, and all served on the Light Cruiser USS Juneau CL-52. At the time, the US Navy had a policy against letting siblings serve on the same vessel, but they made an Exception To Policy in the case of the Sullivans because they joined on January 3, 1942, not quite a month after Pearl Harbor, and the Navy - like the rest of the US Military - was expanding at a record pace, and so used expediency instead of Common Sense when they were all assigned to the same ship. The Japanese sunk the USS Juneau on November 13, 1942, when the ship was on its way East from Guadalcanal to go through some Combat Maintenance. All five Sullivans - almost their entire Generation - were lost. This disaster resulted in the War Department and the Navy Department jointly adopting the "Sole Survivor Policy", which was the policy that was behind the story presented in the movie "Saving Private Ryan". According to that policy, no family should be represented by more than one member in any specific Theater at the same time, and - where possible - no family who has lost a member in Combat should be forced to possibly lose another of the same Generation in Combat when that person is the last of that Generation. I can speak personally of this policy because my older Brother was killed in World War Two in 1945. I was sent to Vietnam in 1967, and was visited by an NCO who was sent to evacuate me from Vietnam - just like Ryan - but I refused to leave, and had to sign away my right to stay out of a Combat Zone. Since then I Deployed to Saudi Arabia in 1990, and actually made it to the Iraq Border when the STOP was ordered. The point is someone with some brains probably noticed you and your Brother were of the same family and placed the Waiver in your 201 File and your Form 20. If you REALLY want to serve with your Brother, then go check with your Unit Clerk and ask him to check your 201 File and find out WHY you two are being kept apart. "Needs of the Service" can be a viable reason, but it often is used as a way to stop you from inquiring further into what the problem is.

MCGYVER
07-10-2010, 12:06 AM
I'm continuously amazed at the number of people who refuse to read before posting. This thread is NOT, I say again NOT geared towards those that have not had the opportunity to deploy, it is geared towards the 98% of the others who have been hiding out in the schoolhouses, TDA assignments and just riding the system. They know who they are. I'm also amazed at just how many of those that simply "could not get to deploy" come on this forum and explain themselves. The odds are astronomical but I guess it is possible. :)

Stuntman
07-10-2010, 12:40 AM
I'm continuously amazed at the number of people who refuse to read before posting. This thread is NOT, I say again NOT geared towards those that have not had the opportunity to deploy, it is geared towards the 98% of the others who have been hiding out in the schoolhouses, TDA assignments and just riding the system. They know who they are. I'm also amazed at just how many of those that simply "could not get to deploy" come on this forum and explain themselves. The odds are astronomical but I guess it is possible. :)

Well, when the original post in the thread reads:


What's your opinion of soldiers who've never deployed?

In almost 10 years of war, do you believe there legitimately are soldiers out there who want to deploy and through absolutely no effort on their part to avoid it simply have not had the opportunity to do so at this point?

You'll see it contradicts directly with your claim. It specifically asks people if they "believe there are soldiers out there who want to deploy and through absolutely no effort on their part to avoid it simply have not had the opportunity to do so at this point."

Ergo, many who fit into that very category will come in and say so. Honestly....is this rocket science or what?

MCGYVER
07-10-2010, 03:07 AM
The original post is not what the vast majority of posts following it are in reference to. Additionally, your "interpretation" of the original post may differ from others which is why you need to read on to gather "context". I took the initial posting to be tongue in cheek but you, apparently, did not. If 99% of cars are going the wrong way down a one way street and you need to drive down that street would you be the "one" to go the "correct" direction? I'm just saying.

Stuntman
07-10-2010, 04:13 AM
The original post is not what the vast majority of posts following it are in reference to. Additionally, your "interpretation" of the original post may differ from others which is why you need to read on to gather "context". I took the initial posting to be tongue in cheek but you, apparently, did not. If 99% of cars are going the wrong way down a one way street and you need to drive down that street would you be the "one" to go the "correct" direction? I'm just saying.

Dude, you make zero sense. It doesn't matter what the other posts are talking about. The original post -- the whole reason for this thread's existence -- is exactly the opposite of what you claim the thread is about.

MCGYVER
07-10-2010, 05:49 PM
Again, it's YOUR interpretation of the original post that leads you to believe what you do. It's not math where things are sterile and black and white, it's opinions where there is much more subjectivity involved. Like I said, we can argue semantics all day long but we'll just go in circles. Have a nice day.

Stuntman
07-10-2010, 06:28 PM
Again, it's YOUR interpretation of the original post that leads you to believe what you do. It's not math where things are sterile and black and white, it's opinions where there is much more subjectivity involved. Like I said, we can argue semantics all day long but we'll just go in circles. Have a nice day.

Well, since there are so many who come in to defend why they haven't deployed, I'd wager it's not just my interpretation. But you can go on thinking that all you like. I mean there are literally so many coming to explain their deployment situation that it actually annoyed you enough to complain about it.

That fact, coupled with how the OP is worded would seem to indicate that it's not just my interpretation.

FatCat40
07-12-2010, 10:05 AM
OK guys, I'm the originator of this post and I pretty much meant it the exact way that Mac took it. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone could defend a soldier's not having deployed in 10 years. It is even more inconceivable to me that there legitimately are soliders out there whom through absolutely NO maneuvering on their own just coincidentally have not had the "opportunity" to deploy,,,,,in TEN years?!!!! Give me a freaking break.

True story I was in a unit that afforded myself and everyone else assigned the "opportunity" to deploy (for me less than a year after arriving from a 1 yr tour of Korea...my third...which I had gone on less than 120 days after returning from Iraq). Anyways, this unit deploys to Iraq fronm 05-06. We return and a good friend of mine, a SFC looks me in the eye one day and sasy......I'm never going back, I have two kids who need me. Fast forward 2 years 08-09 this unit and everyone in it is again afforded the "opportunity" to deploy back to Iraq. This same SFC pulls every shenanigan known to man to dodge this deployment....it was a sickening sight to see coming from a "senior NCO" 1SG is adamant for a transfer to WTU and eventual medical chapter but is vetoed by the Cdr and CSM. The SFC is placed in a non deployable slot in the battalion and does not deploy. I ask the SFC who fought tooth and nail NOT to transfer to WTU "if you're really as broken as you claim to be to avoid this deployment why don't you WANT to go go WTU to get better"? You know what the reply was? "Because if I go to WTU that will remove me from standing promotion lists" :O So SFC refused to deploy yet still wanted to be promoted to E8!!!!

Fast forward 2 more years, SFC is STILL holding that non-deployable slot, the unit as I type this has been afforded yet ANOTHER (4th in 7 years) opportunity to deploy, this time to Astan and said SFC will once again remain in the rear and as they informed me as I final outed (due in part to crap like this) plan their retirement in as they said " 22 1/2 months....(not 2 years)" while the unit is in Astan.

THIS IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN THE ORIGINAL POST. I honestly feel there's more of THIS going on than simply not being afforded the opportunity as I could tell a few other non-deployed in 10 years related stories as I'm sure many others could. Point blank it's WRONG. The Army's entire purpose is to deploy, fight and win wars. If you can't do that then you are dead weight and need to go....end of story. It is absolutely obscene for a unit to return from combat and be greeted by their "comrades" who rode Rear D the entire time. IMO for whatever reason you can not/do not deploy you should be chaptered out for it and gone by the time the unit returns and whatever job you were GOING to do on Rear D should be outsourced to a civilian untill the unit returns.

That's just me and my humble 2 cents..............................

imported_INGUARD
07-12-2010, 11:13 AM
Before we dog the soldiers who supposedly trying to get out of deployments, what about the branch managers who are supposed to track this? Your dwell time will flag the system. I might be going on another 3rd one-year deployment but so is all the guys in my unit.

MCGYVER
07-12-2010, 01:12 PM
Thanks for clearing that up FatCat40, I completely agree with you. Although I understand that there ARE some exceptions to the rule they are simply that, EXCEPTIONS. The vast majority that haven't deployed (at least once) are no better than a draft dodger and, like you said, need to be out of the service by the time their unit returns from deployment. Thank them for their service and send them on their way. A few of them feel guilty and can rationalize it all in their minds and if that helps them sleep better at night then good for them. That's just my (and 95% of all warriors) opinion though.

soglejr
07-27-2010, 02:15 AM
Maybe if we stop calling the "Combat Patch" and refer to it properly as the SSI-FWTS (Shoulder Sleeve Insignia-Former War Time Service) we wouldn't be having this discussion.

soglejr
07-27-2010, 02:23 AM
If you are Regular Army you could be on a plane within a week or if you are in the ARNG as fast as you can get a TAG release memo. In the MI world we are scrapping the bottom of the barrell and the IRR has been picked pretty clean. The ARNG has a hyperlink on GKO to volunteer for a MOB/Deployment. Opportunities abound for the willing. Been twice myself and volunteered both times.

ARMY_GUNNER
10-07-2010, 01:59 AM
If you havn't deployed as an E-1 through E-3 Then it is ok. But if you are an E-6 through an E-8 and havnt been any where except for Germany,Korea or Instructor. Then you are really a true Shammer and or Riding the School system. And should not even be considerd to be a leader of troops.

CORNELIUSSEON
10-07-2010, 02:23 AM
If you havn't deployed as an E-1 through E-3 Then it is ok. But if you are an E-6 through an E-8 and havnt been any where except for Germany,Korea or Instructor. Then you are really a true Shammer and or Riding the School system. And should not even be considerd to be a leader of troops.

I must say the Army really has changed if Privates and PFCs haven't deployed. When I was on Active Duty, the goal was to have as many Privates deploy as early as possible so as to make them experienced as early as possible so that when they finally do start going to NCOES they have a practical background to act as an anchor for the theory they would get from NCOES. In my day, the problem with Germany and Korea was the fact that they were both Long Tours [The former Long Accompanied (3 Years), the latter Long Unaccompanied (2 Years)], so one could start to feel like they were in a CONUS environment. Of course, Vietnam was the Combat Tour then.

MCGYVER
10-07-2010, 04:57 AM
Maybe if we stop calling the "Combat Patch" and refer to it properly as the SSI-FWTS (Shoulder Sleeve Insignia-Former War Time Service) we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I suppose you also have a problem with "Identification tags" being referred to as "Dog tags"? Should boots be referred to as "Footwear"? Soldiers have always used lingo and jargon to identify military items. It's traditional. Something too many "new" Soldiers don't care about (Tradition).

CORNELIUSSEON
10-07-2010, 05:12 AM
I suppose you also have a problem with "Identification tags" being referred to as "Dog tags"? Should boots be referred to as "Footwear"? Soldiers have always used lingo and jargon to identify military items. It's traditional. Something too many "new" Soldiers don't care about (Tradition).

I remember when the Politically Correct changed "Mess Hall" to "Dining Facility". I shivered the first time I heard it. "Command Post" (CP) was changed to "Tactical Operations Center"(TOC). "Bobby Trap" is now known as an "Improvised Explosive Demolition". "Fatigues" are now known as the "Army Combat Uniform" (ACU), which actually is an improvement, and yet it is over the top because three words have replaced a single word, or at most two (Camouflage Fatigues).

MCGYVER
10-07-2010, 05:24 AM
Sometimes you have to wonder if officers get promotion points for coming up with catchy new acronyms or if they do it simply out of vanity.

desertguardsman
10-08-2010, 06:13 PM
When you have extreme air superiority, conventional weapons that dwarf your enemy's weapons, professional Soldiers against rag tag (national guard type) soldiers and intelligent military leaders that don't bank on "allah" keeping them safe from the infidels, it's pretty easy to stomp the shiite out of a muslim.


Are you comparing the Army National Guard and the Iraqi Republican Guard as being on the same level?

CORNELIUSSEON
10-08-2010, 07:08 PM
That's right, you jump on him, desertguardsman!

imported_INGUARD
10-13-2010, 07:06 PM
We're ><. Apparently some will use any non-existent logic or stats to justify not having deployed at least once during the current conflicts when there simply is no justification IMO. OK, I'll concede that one could have been assigned to a TDA unit but in my experience most assignments only last 2-3 years. Assuming one was in a TDA assignment at some point from 2003-2010, that still leaves 4 years in which they should've been deployable with an MTOE unit UNLESS they extended to remain in said TDA assignment.

I have know many soldiers in TDA and MTOE assignments that have served 6 years in the same unit. I always been in an MTOE unit and finally yearn for a TDA assignment.

imported_INGUARD
10-13-2010, 07:09 PM
Ok, MCGyver, lets put the boot on your bad, Delta Ninja, self.... What would be the motivation of one who would condemn his fellow servicemembers for their circumstances that did not call them to serve in the AOR?

Those who really participate, past and present, have too much class to cast aspersions on others without knowledge of their circumstances.

I've given you statistics of studies by others that you have just chosen portions of to create a diversion in the discussion.

The bottom line is that service or lack thereof in combat zones is a crap shoot and not a given, some go, some don't. All that go are not necessarily happy to go, those that don't aren't necessarily dodging their responsibilities.

You have condemned others without knowledge but only based on incidental conjecture. You have provided NO background facts or stats.

You've sunk to a low level, in my book when you have the temerity to assume and judge those (whomever they may be) who don't agree with your invective as "the ones that haven't done the deed" and "trying to convince themselves that they aren't cowards".

I, for one, don't agree with you, but I've done the deed (at another time) and you wouldn't have the 'nads to call me a "coward", to my face, unless you wanted to go home with your nuts in a cup. So how about knocking off the name calling and the childish bragging.

Those who really do the "deed" don't use braggadocio to condemn others who haven't, on an anonymous forum.

You need to take a tip from your own, ironic signature line which describes yourself, perfectly.. The boot does fit...wear it!

In the future, I intend to follow the last sentence of your signature quote.

ChiefB

Mindset between soldiers and airmen are totally different in regards to deployment. The poster has the right to voice his opinion on the subject and to be honest many feel the same way. I guess if us soldiers could do 6 months deployments in the combat zone; this wouldnt be a topic.

imported_INGUARD
10-13-2010, 07:19 PM
The bottom line is that as long as you serve your country honorably; that is what counts. Branch manages soldiers assignments and if they dont have a chance to deploy its because of the time and place of where they currently are. That is no fault of their own. But yes, I have seen cases of soldiers ducking deployments or getting placed on rear-d assignments due to their own doing. Also, female soldiers who get pregnant right in time when their unit is fenced in for a deployment.

But I have seen many soldiers moved up the ranks (I know a Sergeant Major that has never (combat) deployed and Generals as well). Remember many soldiers have done humanitarian deployments (africom) and they are doing real-world missions.

Also, I know some E-6s that are havent gotten promoted to E-7 (and they have outstanding NCOERs) but because they havent deployed, they are behind held back but then are given DA orders for recruiting or working as a drill sergeant but they do not want that for promotion.

BLUF, is that many soldiers who havent deployed is due to various reasons and its not my concern. Every soldier controls their career path. They may not be that much windows of opportunity but if you want to combat deploy; its not really that hard to do.

MADAMESINCERE
10-14-2010, 02:07 AM
Sometimes you have to wonder if officers get promotion points for coming up with catchy new acronyms or if they do it simply out of vanity.

We don't get promotion points. We do it just to piss ya'll off (and each other). :)

CORNELIUSSEON
10-14-2010, 02:20 AM
We don't get promotion points. We do it just to piss ya'll off (and each other). :)

Actually it is the Brainy Civilians who come up with most of them. You can tell that when you see the ones that make use of lots of syllables.

OldRetiredGuy
10-14-2010, 02:31 PM
Short answer is NO, I don't believe that there legitimately are Soldiers out there who want to deploy and through absolutely no effort on their part to avoid it simply have not had the opportunity to do so because anyone who has been in the Army for awhile knows that if you voluntary you will get it. I do believe there is a population that may not be avoiding it, but they not voluntarying either . . .the "they haven't called my number" crew.

Thank you for your opinion. I'll try and remember that when I look back on my 20 years and try to figure out exactly why I was always on the other side of the planet whenever the U.S. Army was involved in a conflict.

CORNELIUSSEON
10-14-2010, 03:37 PM
I come from one of the many generations that were taught in Basic that "Don't Volunteer" was the real First General Order. The corollary to that was "Assignments come to those who wait".



After doing some checking, I realized that the people who are whining about other people not being “Deployed” don’t understand the process. In the first place, Deployment and Overseas Assignment are NOT the same thing. You have some say (only some) in terms of Overseas Assignment, but NONE for Deployment. Yes, you CAN volunteer, but the Army isn’t obligated to even take notice of your wish to volunteer because if they have all the Wheeled Vehicle Mechanics they will need for the foreseeable future in Iraq or Afghanistan, then you are NOT going. Period. On the other hand, if they need X Snipers on Deployment, and there are only Y Snipers in the entire Army system, then those Y Snipers are going to either be stuck in the Deployment location until replacements are available, or else they will be stuck in a Revolving Door between CONUS and Deployment until additional replacements are available. What the Army CAN do to fix those inequities is to freeze Re-enlistment in Overstrength MOS’ until the Understrength MOS’ are filled, or else offer significant Re-enlistment Bonuses for those willing to transfer, or else a combination of the two.

MCGYVER
10-21-2010, 07:58 AM
I think you miss the main point Cornelius, we are talking about the average Soldier who camped out at TRADOC or some other TDA and when it was time to rotate out they went to another TDA and then another. It happens a LOT and those dirtbag cowards know damn well what they were doing. Of course there are exceptions but if you've never been assigned to a line unit then most likely it was by choice because the odds of someone never being assigned to a deployable unit in their career are REALLY slim.

If the boot fits, wear it.
If not then this topic isn't even remotely directed at you so why would you take offense? (not for you Cornelius, others)

CORNELIUSSEON
10-21-2010, 03:40 PM
I think you miss the main point Cornelius, we are talking about the average Soldier who camped out at TRADOC or some other TDA and when it was time to rotate out they went to another TDA and then another. It happens a LOT and those dirtbag cowards know damn well what they were doing. Of course there are exceptions but if you've never been assigned to a line unit then most likely it was by choice because the odds of someone never being assigned to a deployable unit in their career are REALLY slim.

If the boot fits, wear it.
If not then this topic isn't even remotely directed at you so why would you take offense? (not for you Cornelius, others)

Actually, I do get YOUR point, but I tried to explain just why those people you complain about have no choice. It is only the Combat Arms that fit your criteria, and not everyone is Combat Arms. For personnel in MOS' other than Combat Arms, Deployment or Overseas Assignment isn't the be-all that it is for Combat Arms. It is only in Combat Arms that you must deploy to actually practice your profession, and the MOS' outside of Combat Arms have lots of legitimate opportunities to do their job and NOT deploy. What makes the current system seem normal to you is the fact that we have been fighting two wars on a shoestring personnel budget. This has resulted in a limited number of Combat Arms people doing multiple tours, which was an impossibility prior to Vietnam, and was only voluntary in that war. If we had the same manning percentages in current times that we had during Vietnam, our Combat Arms people wouldn't have to deploy more than once per Enlistment Tour.

MSMUROTC
10-25-2010, 06:14 AM
I am so confused what "the jerks" on this post hope to accomplish.

Naturally, no one is supportive of people who dodge deployments or is going to try to defend themselves if they did, did you expect someone to say that?

Naturally, anyone who HASN'T deployed is going to feel defensive at your "guilty until proven"-style accusation and come on here with their story to explain why they haven't gone yet. How is that surprising?

So what were you trying to accomplish? It's like with sexual harrasment, it doesn't matter how it's intended but how it's recieved ... people recieved your message as an attack against their honor ... which is absolutely what you did, call people w/o combat patches cowards, shammers, and liars unless proven to YOUR exacting standards ... and they're responding accordingly.

There was the original question ... but you didn't like how people were answering it contradictory to what you wanted to hear ... so you've been slowly and surely adjusting and hemming and hawing (not non-combat arms, not the national guard, etc.) and adjusting it so you can grind that axe you're so determined to grind. And now, anyone that has to respond has to read the entire 10 page conversation or get hit with accusations of "WELL IF YOU HAD READ IT DUH THATS NOT WHAT IM SAYING" ... well, that's what your original question said, until you started with the revisionist history so that you could keep picking on people.

I agree with that one USAF gentlemen -- real men don't need to sit around and toot their horns in someone else's face all day. I don't have some stupid "OEF Veteran" hat and the back of my car isn't my ORB. And yeah, I generally look down on people who don't have combat patches (especially senior NCO's and officers) but I also don't go on 5 month internet crusades to talk shit about them.

MSMUROTC
10-25-2010, 06:17 AM
Oh one more thing, I think X-Ray techs are usually considered negligably deployable as there are more X-ray techs than deployable X-ray machines or non-deployable X-ray machines in full-service, in-theater faciliites ... as far as "let's make them contractors," at the end of the day I would LOVE to deal with a soldier because at the end of the day soldiers are 10x more respectful and responsive than a civilian will ever be.

MCGYVER
10-27-2010, 02:41 PM
Always have to have the last word dontcha, LOL. If the majority of the posts on this forum were mine then you might have a leg to stand on. I have been in Afghanistan for a while so that's why I was away.

imported_INGUARD
10-27-2010, 06:22 PM
Actually, I do get YOUR point, but I tried to explain just why those people you complain about have no choice. It is only the Combat Arms that fit your criteria, and not everyone is Combat Arms. For personnel in MOS' other than Combat Arms, Deployment or Overseas Assignment isn't the be-all that it is for Combat Arms. It is only in Combat Arms that you must deploy to actually practice your profession, and the MOS' outside of Combat Arms have lots of legitimate opportunities to do their job and NOT deploy. What makes the current system seem normal to you is the fact that we have been fighting two wars on a shoestring personnel budget. This has resulted in a limited number of Combat Arms people doing multiple tours, which was an impossibility prior to Vietnam, and was only voluntary in that war. If we had the same manning percentages in current times that we had during Vietnam, our Combat Arms people wouldn't have to deploy more than once per Enlistment Tour.

When I was a combat engineer, I accomplished many missions and did so without being deployed. But I understand your point about combat arms MOSes.

How do you feel when you see people senior to you without a combat patch?

candycane3482
11-09-2010, 05:46 AM
There are some people I have met who have tried repeatedly to deploy but can't seem to get to the right place. It's not factual to say if you volunteer for something in the Army you get it. The people who are avoiding it need not be in the Army I think.

burntout24
11-24-2010, 03:07 PM
I have to say yes to this question. After 10 years of service for 2 branchs of the military I had never deployed until recently. I did volunteer multiple times and every chance some unit in my battalion was headed out. One time I managed to get orders to report to a new unit within the battalion to deploy, the day prior to reporting my command within my unit had my orders deleted throu battalion without my knowledge. Their excuse was my company was low manned and if there chance comes to deploy I will be needed. Following that I sat at the same unit for 4 years and did not deploy.

And yes it was ambarassing to have 10 years of service and have zero deployments. I take pride in what I do but it never brought me pride to sit on the side lines why my fellow soldiers deployed year after year.

ChiefB
11-24-2010, 11:40 PM
I have to say yes to this question. After 10 years of service for 2 branchs of the military I had never deployed until recently. I did volunteer multiple times and every chance some unit in my battalion was headed out. One time I managed to get orders to report to a new unit within the battalion to deploy, the day prior to reporting my command within my unit had my orders deleted throu battalion without my knowledge. Their excuse was my company was low manned and if there chance comes to deploy I will be needed. Following that I sat at the same unit for 4 years and did not deploy.

And yes it was ambarassing to have 10 years of service and have zero deployments. I take pride in what I do but it never brought me pride to sit on the side lines why my fellow soldiers deployed year after year.

"Yes" to what question?:help

burntout24
11-25-2010, 05:06 AM
"Yes" to what question?:help

It was the question posted on the first page when the thread was started. Guess I forgot to hit the reply with quote button before I posted.

angie70000000
09-25-2012, 04:56 PM
I am a 68W, combat medic, and I was in the service for 8 years without a deployment. I saw a lot of people try to dive deployments but I tried several times to deploy without success. My first duty station was in Korea and there I tried to deploy with an ADA unit out of Camp Casey. I was looking like a good candidate, but plans were changed last minute because the unit wanted a SGT or above medic.

From there I went to Fort. Sill, OK (by no choice of my own) and was attached to a training unit for BCT soldiers. No deployments came down there. When I re-enlisted, I re-enlisted for Germany. I thought surly I would be deployed from here because it is a rapid deploying area. When I arrived in Germany I was assigned to a hospital. I immediately put myself on the volunteer list on AKO and with S-1. I stayed on those lists for 4 years without getting deployed. At one point there was a cache unit deploying and I talked to their command and my S-1 to try and deploy with them but I my orders were never cut.

I got out and enlisted in the reserves and I see Soldiers all the time trying to get on deployments. They go to Fort Hood and go through the training, then they come back to the unit a few months later because their orders were cancelled.

If you think there is NO ONE in the army who tries to deploy but can’t, you have tunnel vision. Yes, you have shit bags who try to avoid deployment at all costs… those people just need to be chaptered out. Seriously guys, the war is ran by contractors now. It is becoming harder and harder for soldiers in non-depolyable units to find deployments. 40% of the military has never deployed… I doubt all those people have been evading the system.

CORNELIUSSEON
10-03-2012, 08:07 PM
I am a 68W, combat medic, and I was in the service for 8 years without a deployment. I saw a lot of people try to dive deployments but I tried several times to deploy without success. My first duty station was in Korea and there I tried to deploy with an ADA unit out of Camp Casey. I was looking like a good candidate, but plans were changed last minute because the unit wanted a SGT or above medic.

From there I went to Fort. Sill, OK (by no choice of my own) and was attached to a training unit for BCT soldiers. No deployments came down there. When I re-enlisted, I re-enlisted for Germany. I thought surly I would be deployed from here because it is a rapid deploying area. When I arrived in Germany I was assigned to a hospital. I immediately put myself on the volunteer list on AKO and with S-1. I stayed on those lists for 4 years without getting deployed. At one point there was a cache unit deploying and I talked to their command and my S-1 to try and deploy with them but I my orders were never cut.

I got out and enlisted in the reserves and I see Soldiers all the time trying to get on deployments. They go to Fort Hood and go through the training, then they come back to the unit a few months later because their orders were cancelled.

If you think there is NO ONE in the army who tries to deploy but can’t, you have tunnel vision. Yes, you have shit bags who try to avoid deployment at all costs… those people just need to be chaptered out. Seriously guys, the war is ran by contractors now. It is becoming harder and harder for soldiers in non-depolyable units to find deployments. 40% of the military has never deployed… I doubt all those people have been evading the system.

With Iraq closed, and Afghanistan winding down, the possibility of deployment is getting lower and lower. Have you included one of the Advisory Groups in Africa?

MisterBen
10-04-2012, 06:59 PM
If you think there is NO ONE in the army who tries to deploy but can’t, you have tunnel vision. Yes, you have shit bags who try to avoid deployment at all costs… those people just need to be chaptered out. Seriously guys, the war is ran by contractors now. It is becoming harder and harder for soldiers in non-depolyable units to find deployments. 40% of the military has never deployed… I doubt all those people have been evading the system.

I am in Afghanistan now on my third combat tour so how would you know that without seeing it for yourself? Yes, there are but there are still 40,000 soldiers over here.

When I was in Afghanistan the last time, the Medical Command that I was assigned to had many people PROFIS to us. When I was in Iraq before that, I had a female 68W in my squad.

It is the luck of the draw and you have been lucky.

Banned
10-08-2012, 06:43 AM
I'm not going to read 11 pages of posts... but my two cents?

Of course there's lots of service members who simply have never had the opportunity to deploy. Some have even tried their damnedest to go.

BUT... it's one thing to go through a 4-6 year enlistment without deploying. I'm just skeptical of the E-6s and E-7s who somehow managed to go through the entire ten year period without ever deploying.

We've all met them... the guy you ask about where he deployed to, and he's all like "Well I've been to Korea, Okinawa, the Phillipines..." I meant REAL deployments Staff Sergeant.

CORNELIUSSEON
10-08-2012, 11:53 AM
I'm not going to read 11 pages of posts... but my two cents?

Of course there's lots of service members who simply have never had the opportunity to deploy. Some have even tried their damnedest to go.

BUT... it's one thing to go through a 4-6 year enlistment without deploying. I'm just skeptical of the E-6s and E-7s who somehow managed to go through the entire ten year period without ever deploying.

We've all met them... the guy you ask about where he deployed to, and he's all like "Well I've been to Korea, Okinawa, the Phillipines..." I meant REAL deployments Staff Sergeant.

Spoken like a lot of troops who haven't read any history, or known anyone from earlier wars. from 1939 through 1945, we raised a 12 Million Person Military, and about half spent time in one of three Theaters of war, with the remaining half never leaving the United States. Why? because they didn't have ANY voluntary deployments during that conflict: you went where you were sent, when you were sent, and no one paid any attention to persons who whined about not going. Indeed, anyone who was Drafted during the last year of the war in the Pacific never made it past the international date line. Of course, those that did deploy didn't do more than ONE deployment (with some rare exceptions) - once they left CONUS, they didn't see home again until the war was over and their unit was retrograded to CONUS. Then again, there were units that did their deployment time in the Caribbean, defending the Panama Canal and CONUS from direct attack that - thankfully - never came, and there were units that deployed to Alaska to build the ALCAN Highway so that Alaska could be defensible from the land side (The Japanese actually did attack two of the Alaskan Islands, and they were chased away). They even declared CONUS as being a War Theater, and established a Service Medal for those who stayed here to wear. The whiners directed their whine against those who - for various reasons - never joined or were never drafted, correctly recognizing that those that wore the uniform made it safe for those who didn't to remain safely at home.

I say leave the ones who didn't leave CONUS alone because at least they served. Likewise, the ones who fulfilled the other Long Tours SERVED. There are Millions of Americans who never even stepped into a Recruiting Office, and the American People decided we didn't need a draft.

CORNELIUSSEON
10-09-2012, 09:14 PM
Go away, Corny.

As I advised elsewhere today, in a different context: "I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you: I doubt that anyone will come along to revive you!"

ChaplainC
10-11-2012, 05:15 AM
I would contend that not having a deployment in your record may make promotion more difficult. That is to say if all other things were equal, and they have two guys for one job, they are going to take the guy who has deployed over the guy who has not every time (IMHO) and that rather stinks for the poor buggers who have never had the chance to deploy but wanted to do so.

Banned
10-14-2012, 05:32 PM
Spoken like a lot of troops who haven't read any history, or known anyone from earlier wars. from 1939 through 1945, we raised a 12 Million Person Military, and about half spent time in one of three Theaters of war, with the remaining half never leaving the United States. Why? because they didn't have ANY voluntary deployments during that conflict: you went where you were sent, when you were sent, and no one paid any attention to persons who whined about not going. Indeed, anyone who was Drafted during the last year of the war in the Pacific never made it past the international date line. Of course, those that did deploy didn't do more than ONE deployment (with some rare exceptions) - once they left CONUS, they didn't see home again until the war was over and their unit was retrograded to CONUS. Then again, there were units that did their deployment time in the Caribbean, defending the Panama Canal and CONUS from direct attack that - thankfully - never came, and there were units that deployed to Alaska to build the ALCAN Highway so that Alaska could be defensible from the land side (The Japanese actually did attack two of the Alaskan Islands, and they were chased away). They even declared CONUS as being a War Theater, and established a Service Medal for those who stayed here to wear. The whiners directed their whine against those who - for various reasons - never joined or were never drafted, correctly recognizing that those that wore the uniform made it safe for those who didn't to remain safely at home.

I say leave the ones who didn't leave CONUS alone because at least they served. Likewise, the ones who fulfilled the other Long Tours SERVED. There are Millions of Americans who never even stepped into a Recruiting Office, and the American People decided we didn't need a draft.

It depends on the MOS. So I could find it believable that a Staff Sergeant from the Wing has never had a chance to deploy. But a grunt? BULLSHIT!

ImpliedConsent
10-16-2012, 02:14 AM
BUT... it's one thing to go through a 4-6 year enlistment without deploying. I'm just skeptical of the E-6s and E-7s who somehow managed to go through the entire ten year period without ever deploying.

We've all met them... the guy you ask about where he deployed to, and he's all like "Well I've been to Korea, Okinawa, the Phillipines..." I meant REAL deployments Staff Sergeant.

I'm not reading the 11 pages either, because 2 years after the OP asked, the answer is still the same - 11years at war - you're an >E7 or >O4 - no way in hell is that anything but hiding. (YEA Corny, I'm not responding to your drivel either). So, the "fair" question came up, which in my world equates to adherance to the Army Values - specifically Selfless Service. Give that definition a bit of study. In my 11B CF (and any combat arms CF), if there isn't at least 1 x campaign medal, that's at least 2 strikes against you.

I remember a few years back ... '07 or '08 ... a MILPER message being out there that specifically stated that an combat arms officer would be specifically discriminated against if there were no creditable combat* deployments. I highlight combat because I cannot 1) find the message 2) remember if specifically stated combat or just "deployments". My guess is the former.

It's a cut-throat business now. Not only should the combat arms Soldier have been deployed in a combat zone, but now it's "OK, you deployed, where's your CIB?"

USMC0341
10-16-2012, 02:29 AM
I'm not reading the 11 pages either, because 2 years after the OP asked, the answer is still the same - 11years at war - you're an >E7 or >O4 - no way in hell is that anything but hiding. (YEA Corny, I'm not responding to your drivel either). So, the "fair" question came up, which in my world equates to adherance to the Army Values - specifically Selfless Service. Give that definition a bit of study. In my 11B CF (and any combat arms CF), if there isn't at least 1 x campaign medal, that's at least 2 strikes against you.

I remember a few years back ... '07 or '08 ... a MILPER message being out there that specifically stated that an combat arms officer would be specifically discriminated against if there were no creditable combat* deployments. I highlight combat because I cannot 1) find the message 2) remember if specifically stated combat or just "deployments". My guess is the former.

It's a cut-throat business now. Not only should the combat arms Soldier have been deployed in a combat zone, but now it's "OK, you deployed, where's your CIB?"

I'd rather have the experienced combat vet training guys tactics in war fighting, than someone who has been conus their entire career and have no idea what combat is actually like; that being said, yeah I think it should count for something, if not just more respect.

USMC0341
10-16-2012, 02:30 AM
Oh, and Corny, it is not 1943 so I don't see the parallel you are trying to make there.

USMC0341
10-16-2012, 02:30 AM
Oh, and Corny, it is not 1943 so I don't see the parallel you are trying to make there.

MilitaryERRN
05-15-2013, 07:25 AM
FOR THOSE SOLDIERS WHO HAVE NEVER DEPLOYED BUT HAVE TRIED TO SEVERAL TIMES, YOUR SOL..............GET OUT NOW, BECAUSE THE SAD TRUTH IS THIS: Going up against your year group for promotions will come down to everything including deployments. So if you think this isn't going to be the deciding factor when one soldier has the same as the other minus the deployment, he'll know why.............................

Love politics.......................

MisterBen
05-22-2013, 04:02 AM
FOR THOSE SOLDIERS WHO HAVE NEVER DEPLOYED BUT HAVE TRIED TO SEVERAL TIMES, YOUR SOL..............GET OUT NOW, BECAUSE THE SAD TRUTH IS THIS: Going up against your year group for promotions will come down to everything including deployments. So if you think this isn't going to be the deciding factor when one soldier has the same as the other minus the deployment, he'll know why.............................

Love politics.......................

Which Soldiers are you referring to? There is a whole new batch of slick sleeved Soldiers in my Brigade.

RobotChicken
05-22-2013, 05:18 AM
Oh, and Corny, it is not 1943 so I don't see the parallel you are trying to make there.
:target No it is not '43.....but wounded or dead is the same.....or disabled for LIFE!!! "I
SWEAR"....!!!! :frusty

USMC0341
05-22-2013, 10:33 AM
:target No it is not '43.....but wounded or dead is the same.....or disabled for LIFE!!! "I
SWEAR"....!!!! :frusty

You are correct, however your comment has nothing to do with the conversation that was being held. I believe corny was trying to parallel military deployments in in the first half of the twentieth century with the optempo of today's military.

CORNELIUSSEON
05-22-2013, 01:54 PM
:target No it is not '43.....but wounded or dead is the same.....or disabled for LIFE!!! "I
SWEAR"....!!!! :frusty

It has turned out that there are now so many reasons for people to be denied retention that not deploying is the least of the reasons.

RobotChicken
05-24-2013, 02:52 AM
It has turned out that there are now so many reasons for people to be denied retention that not deploying is the least of the reasons.
:spy Thank you for your kind reply, BUT in previous conflicts; OUR Country and MILITARY 'Leaders' took care of us.......:croc

CORNELIUSSEON
05-26-2013, 04:16 AM
Really? I suppose so after a fashion. Of course there are precedents for what is taking place now.

After 7 years of Active Duty, (the downsizing that took place at the end of the Vietnam War), I wisely read the tea leaves that were being analyzed about retention, and when I got my notice of non-retention, I immediately found the National Guard Recruiter on Fort Bragg, and moved on to the New York Army National Guard, where I spent another 20 years of gainful employment (including a 4th Deployment , this time to Saudi Arabia), followed by 14 in the Retired Reserve, and have happily looked back on how the Regular Army treated me vs how the Guard did, and am now pleased that I made the jump. I am sure that lots of those who are receiving notices of non-retention this year will make similar moves and end up looking good down the road at retirement time. Otherwise, you are most welcome and thanks for the good remarks.

RobotChicken
05-27-2013, 12:40 AM
:usa2 Most :welcome SIR! :usa2

JD2780
05-28-2013, 07:23 PM
I have just reinlisted for the first time. My initial assignment was two years in South Korea, followed by time spent in a battalion that is not even fully stood up yet. It really wouldn't have mattered if I volunteered or not, I would not have had boots on enemy soil. Already a 5, looking to pick up my 6 in about another year and a half.

Now, I am not claiming to be a die-hard grunt. I am very POG, and have little to no desire to be sent overseas to be shot at. If my number comes up I'll go without reservation, but I'm not about to volunteer. This is the attitude shared by most of the Army, whether they have served overseas or not. The ones who joined to shoot terrorists went Combat Arms, and they are more than welcome to it. As long as I serve in uniform, doing my assigned job to the very best of my ability, nobody has the right to disparage what I do.

Good job being comfortable where you're at.

Psy
05-28-2013, 07:30 PM
I have just reinlisted for the first time. My initial assignment was two years in South Korea, followed by time spent in a battalion that is not even fully stood up yet. It really wouldn't have mattered if I volunteered or not, I would not have had boots on enemy soil. Already a 5, looking to pick up my 6 in about another year and a half.

Now, I am not claiming to be a die-hard grunt. I am very POG, and have little to no desire to be sent overseas to be shot at. If my number comes up I'll go without reservation, but I'm not about to volunteer. This is the attitude shared by most of the Army, whether they have served overseas or not. The ones who joined to shoot terrorists went Combat Arms, and they are more than welcome to it. As long as I serve in uniform, doing my assigned job to the very best of my ability, nobody has the right to disparage what I do.

JD2780
05-28-2013, 07:32 PM
I have just reinlisted for the first time. My initial assignment was two years in South Korea, followed by time spent in a battalion that is not even fully stood up yet. It really wouldn't have mattered if I volunteered or not, I would not have had boots on enemy soil. Already a 5, looking to pick up my 6 in about another year and a half.

Now, I am not claiming to be a die-hard grunt. I am very POG, and have little to no desire to be sent overseas to be shot at. If my number comes up I'll go without reservation, but I'm not about to volunteer. This is the attitude shared by most of the Army, whether they have served overseas or not. The ones who joined to shoot terrorists went Combat Arms, and they are more than welcome to it. As long as I serve in uniform, doing my assigned job to the very best of my ability, nobody has the right to disparage what I do.

Good job being comfortable where you're at.

FatCat40
05-28-2013, 07:38 PM
I have just reinlisted for the first time. My initial assignment was two years in South Korea, followed by time spent in a battalion that is not even fully stood up yet. It really wouldn't have mattered if I volunteered or not, I would not have had boots on enemy soil. Already a 5, looking to pick up my 6 in about another year and a half.

Now, I am not claiming to be a die-hard grunt. I am very POG, and have little to no desire to be sent overseas to be shot at. If my number comes up I'll go without reservation, but I'm not about to volunteer. This is the attitude shared by most of the Army, whether they have served overseas or not. The ones who joined to shoot terrorists went Combat Arms, and they are more than welcome to it. As long as I serve in uniform, doing my assigned job to the very best of my ability, nobody has the right to disparage what I do.


I can actually respect everything you just said because at least you are being HONEST! It's the one who swear they did everything in their power short of chartering a plane and flying themselves over but just could not IN TEN YEARS get to the fight that I have a problem with........

CORNELIUSSEON
05-28-2013, 07:54 PM
I have just reinlisted for the first time. My initial assignment was two years in South Korea, followed by time spent in a battalion that is not even fully stood up yet. It really wouldn't have mattered if I volunteered or not, I would not have had boots on enemy soil. Already a 5, looking to pick up my 6 in about another year and a half.

Now, I am not claiming to be a die-hard grunt. I am very POG, and have little to no desire to be sent overseas to be shot at. If my number comes up I'll go without reservation, but I'm not about to volunteer. This is the attitude shared by most of the Army, whether they have served overseas or not. The ones who joined to shoot terrorists went Combat Arms, and they are more than welcome to it. As long as I serve in uniform, doing my assigned job to the very best of my ability, nobody has the right to disparage what I do.

Congratulations. I agree 100%. That pretty much cites how I carried out my career.

Stalwart
05-29-2013, 05:41 PM
After over 10 years of OEF/OIF and the GWOT, I am very 'skeptical' when I see personnel who have not deployed. I can acknowledge that there are instances where someone may not be able to based on billet, job etc. ... but it is hard to fathom based on my personal experience (I have deployed to Afghanistan twice, Iraq for 2 ground deployments and then 3 doing airborne work in the EP-3 -- I was a total volunteer for 5 out of 7 of those deployments.) If more people in my community volunteered, maybe I would not have gone so many times.

I think one of the best parts of deploying is the ability to really learn your job. Even for personnel with garrison type jobs, the ability to get good at your job in an expeditionary or deployed environment should not be avoided.

As Psy said, if his number came up he would willingly go ... but I think that most who have not deployed & say they wanted to are being dishonest.

CYBERFX1024
05-29-2013, 06:21 PM
After 12 years of deploying to war zones. There should be almost everyone who has seen some type of deployment. But that isn't the case at all. I have seen people both in the Army and the Marines who have never deployed at all and don't want to deploy.
That is the main reason I got out of the Marine Corps in 2009. Where I was at (Parris Island) there were numerous people who had never deployed, or not since the Gulf War. Then there were other people trying EVERYTHING they can do to not deploy at all. I have been in retirement ceremonies for MSgt's that I deployed more as a Sergeant than they ever did.
When I was at a unit that didn't deploy. I let my NCO's and SNCO's know that I was volunteering to deploy, poof 9 months later I got sent to a unit that deployed and never looked back.

Psy
05-29-2013, 06:31 PM
I loved the black hats at jump school talking shit about combat yet weren't rocking a right shoulder patch.

Not everyone who deploys wears their patch. I've know more than one who didn't, just because they didn't care for the units they were authorized to wear. In one of their words: "If you ever see me wearing that patch, it is to remind myself that no matter how bad things get here, there are worse units somewhere"

JD2780
05-29-2013, 06:36 PM
I loved the black hats at jump school talking shit about combat yet weren't rocking a right shoulder patch.

CORNELIUSSEON
05-29-2013, 08:02 PM
After over 10 years of OEF/OIF and the GWOT, I am very 'skeptical' when I see personnel who have not deployed. I can acknowledge that there are instances where someone may not be able to based on billet, job etc. ... but it is hard to fathom based on my personal experience (I have deployed to Afghanistan twice, Iraq for 2 ground deployments and then 3 doing airborne work in the EP-3 -- I was a total volunteer for 5 out of 7 of those deployments.) If more people in my community volunteered, maybe I would not have gone so many times.

I think one of the best parts of deploying is the ability to really learn your job. Even for personnel with garrison type jobs, the ability to get good at your job in an expeditionary or deployed environment should not be avoided.

As Psy said, if his number came up he would willingly go ... but I think that most who have not deployed & say they wanted to are being dishonest.

You are correct about getting a chance to put what you have learned to a practical application, but the situation with the 1% of the population that join up much less deploy, you now understand why we drafted as well as enlisted for every war between the Revolution to the Vietnam War. Ask yourself why the majority of the population would object to being subject to the draft. The answer to that is the same as the answer to why there are people who will join, but will avoid deployment as much as possible.

JD2780
05-29-2013, 08:15 PM
Not everyone who deploys wears their patch. I've know more than one who didn't, just because they didn't care for the units they were authorized to wear. In one of their words: "If you ever see me wearing that patch, it is to remind myself that no matter how bad things get here, there are worse units somewhere"

Yes, I can understand that but when you start running your mouth about combat leadership and y ou have many others wearing their combat patches, your not going to value that individuals input unless they can back it up. I know a patch isn't an end all be all, but it is a visual conformation of them being there. Plus some were just DBs that I wish would have gotten over themselves.

MACHINE666
05-29-2013, 08:17 PM
I worked with a buddy who never deployed to the sandbox. He deployed to Guam in 1996 when that a-hole Clinton was moving all these Turkish refugees around, but that was about it. He was pretty lucky that he never had to sweat it out.

I also knew a Chief who had never done a remote and she was a total bitch. I gave her the stench palm as my last great act of defiance against the Air Force and everything I despise about it. True story.

:D :D :D :D :D

CplZZ
07-13-2013, 09:14 PM
I agree with the line of thought that Combat Action should be a major factor in promotion potential, but not the only. There are and always have been soldiers at the Pentagon that have directly contributed to the efforts, but by their specialty will never deploy.

Dis_Grunt_Led
07-24-2013, 04:37 AM
No, but there are a few jobs (i.e. recruiting [79R], not DA select) that have prevented Soldiers from deploying. Like a few mention below though, there is deploying and there is "deploying". Like someone mentioned, some folks' "deployments" consisted of hanging at the pool in Balad or the Green Bean in Bagram before watching a USO show and taking salsa dance lessons while others' deployments were filled with danger, death, and grief and where you got to burn your own poo and not shower for a month or so. Those who have done the real-deal may not necessarily be better Soldiers or better leaders, but they do have the unique experiences that can only be gained through combat. There's certainly something to be said for that, but its not the end all-be all. Personally (unless you had one of those "exception" jobs), I definitely view those who found ways not to go with disdain.

ImpliedConsent
07-24-2013, 10:37 AM
Personally (unless you had one of those "exception" jobs), I definitely view those who found ways not to go with disdain.

I'm not sure what an "Exception" job is - after 12yrs of having Soldiers deployed. Thankfully, most of us (that have deployed) are in positions of critical thinking and decision making. IMO, there will be less room for excuses for the E7+/O4+ who have not deployed.

Dis_Grunt_Led
07-25-2013, 02:23 AM
I'm not sure what an "Exception" job is - after 12yrs of having Soldiers deployed. Thankfully, most of us (that have deployed) are in positions of critical thinking and decision making. IMO, there will be less room for excuses for the E7+/O4+ who have not deployed.

The example I'd mentioned, MOS 79R (Recruiter), would be an exception. Any detailed recruiter who "converted over" to 79R would not have been deployable thereafter. Another example, of the sort this thread refers to, would be an E-7 I had the displeasure of knowing a few years back. He spent 3 years in TRADOC, then switched jobs and spent 3 more years in TRADOC. He was finally forced to a deployable unit where he promptly made it known that he did not want to be there, did not want to be a platoon sergeant and definitely did not want to deploy! Of course (due to the infinite wisdom of our CSM) he remained because, "He was an E-7 who needed PSG time for career development." Less than a month "in-country" he got fired (though Bn chose not to give him a relief-for-cause NCOER 'cause they didn't want to ruin his career...WTF?) and sent to the brigade staff to make coffee the remainder of the deployment. I even heard he received a BSM end-of-tour award. After returning from that deployment he was sent to another unit to once again get PSG time (not his choice) where he managed to score a job on rear-d and sham out of deploying altogether.

smart45556
07-25-2013, 06:27 AM
I have to agree that deployments should matter in determining promotions, but only for certain MOS's and more senior leader positions. Can't tell you how many times I've had to sit through SGT's Time Training on IED's taught by a SSG with no deployments to their name and finding it hard to not correct them on everything they say. I feel that certain MOS's would gain great benefit in experience from a deployment (such as medics, the big 3 combat series, etc....), while others no so much (such as finance and supply). It would be easier to trust a mortar-man with some combat experience than one without, but I wouldnt care either way for a supply person. And for me, I have a lot more respect for someone who spent their time in the Army in the sandbox at least once, rather than just in schools or staff positions.

Pullinteeth
07-25-2013, 04:37 PM
One thing to consider is that while it may be something that is factored in informally, there may be a reluctance to implement any formal consideration because as the war winds down, there is apt to be less deployments and making formal changes that make deployments part of promotion consideration would require us to remain at war indefinately or promotions would stagnate. Another thing to consider is would be do you weigh stateside deployments differently? How about a deployment to Kuwait?

CYBERFX1024
07-26-2013, 08:30 PM
One thing to consider is that while it may be something that is factored in informally, there may be a reluctance to implement any formal consideration because as the war winds down, there is apt to be less deployments and making formal changes that make deployments part of promotion consideration would require us to remain at war indefinately or promotions would stagnate. Another thing to consider is would be do you weigh stateside deployments differently? How about a deployment to Kuwait?

Deployment to anywhere would be great. I just can't stand seeing Soldiers or Marines that have been in for a an enlistment or two and have not deployed ANYWHERE. When I was at MCRD Parris Island I saw numerous SNCO's who were there for a number of years. They would literally move around from one position to another. Then they would try and consul people about how Combat is...... B&tch Please....