U.S. Is Extending Tours of Army in Battle Zones

[wierdbeard]

hmm, an extra day per month for anything over 12. I asked some friends who are currently being affected by this decision this is what they say. Morale in most NCO's has not changed unless they were dealing with unfavorable issues back stateside, i.e. family's that emotionally can't/wont deal with another 90 days. younger soldiers on their first deployment, very burnt out and angry about not being told by the Army as opposed to hearing it on the television. The NCO's seem to be handling it pretty well with mentorship, as for anyone that was due to ETS or entering re-enlistment window, most had planned on staying in and didnt mind the extension as in the past that meant they would have been paid a bonus of 1,000 per month, with the new 1 day for 30 these folks are none too happy basically they feel like its lip service, in essence they feel that 90 more days of combat for a three day weekend is more of an insult then anything else. Personally i enjoy the longer deployments as i see longer periods between shortfalls in the intelligence cycle due to rotations, I do see myself definatly stressing mentorship to the other NCO's in my unit for all of our newbies.

I signed on the line and took my oath, mission first. Fort Living Room is at the conveniance of Army.

[Jimbo]

On the Thursday before this story broke, I had lunch with a good friend of mine who was one of the guys working these models in the Army G-3/5. No decision had been reached at that time. The following Monday it was a big story. The soldiers have a right to be mad about hearing it on TV first, but the story got leaked. That is why Gates was on TV laying out the policy, and not the CSA or Secretary of the Army. The intent was for the leadership to break the news first to soldiers and the families first, but the media got the scoop and ran with it. I think there might be a thread somewhere on the site about military/media relations........maybe......

[goesh]

"Sad, when we have to fly in uniform to "remind" the public that we are at war." (Sullygoarmy)

You got that right but I am not perceiving too much hostility being directed at the individual service man/woman, which is a good thing. Hope floats. Our military is still trusted unlike our politicians

[120mm]

Tom, I'm just reacting to the fact that a very few units/soldiers in the Active Army are being deployed, again and again. Somewhere around 60% of Active Army soldiers have not been deployed anywhere, for anything. In this percentage are a significant number of malingering bastards who manage to "arrange" assignments to training centers and echelons above reality headquarters where they have no danger of deployment or even inconvenience....

[Jedburgh]

Tom, I'm just reacting to the fact that a very few units/soldiers in the Active Army are being deployed, again and again. Somewhere around 60% of Active Army soldiers have not been deployed anywhere, for anything. In this percentage are a significant number of malingering bastards who manage to "arrange" assignments to training centers and echelons above reality headquarters where they have no danger of deployment or even inconvenience....

The "60%" stat is over the top. Even if we just look at the ratio of soldiers in tactical units vs strategic & TRADOC, it is far below 60%. Every tactical unit in the active force is plugged into the OIF/OEF deployment rotation at some point.

There are also far fewer places to hide then there used to be. Pre-OIF I used to know of NCOs who would bounce from one TRADOC assignment to another, perhaps throw in a Strat tour, and often end up at a cake assignment at "echeclons above reality"; thus avoiding ever having to serve in any type of tactical unit for their entire NCO career - fitting the parasitical description you provide of "no danger of deployment or even convenience". However, with a few exceptions, that situation has come to a halt.

Cadre at TRADOC units these days get hit hard with individual taskings for OIF/OEF - this often leaves the student to uniformed cadre ratio at levels which is very difficult to manage. There is much (too much, in my opinion) AIT instruction that has been turned over to contractors now, because NCOs can not be spared from operational units. Significant pressure has been brought to bear upon branch managers to more tightly control assignments, and the parasitical behavior has been reduced, although not eliminated.

Again, although there are those who have been sitting out OIF/OEF, a portion of them by willfully manipulating the assignment system or through other consciously selected deployment-avoidance mechanisms, 60% is a gross exaggeration.

[RTK]

The "60%" stat is over the top. Even if we just look at the ratio of soldiers in tactical units vs strategic & TRADOC, it is far below 60%. Every tactical unit in the active force is plugged into the OIF/OEF deployment rotation at some point.

There are also far fewer places to hide then there used to be. Pre-OIF I used to know of NCOs who would bounce from one TRADOC assignment to another, perhaps throw in a Strat tour, and often end up at a cake assignment at "echeclons above reality"; thus avoiding ever having to serve in any type of tactical unit for their entire NCO career - fitting the parasitical description you provide of "no danger of deployment or even convenience". However, with a few exceptions, that situation has come to a halt.

Cadre at TRADOC units these days get hit hard with individual taskings for OIF/OEF - this often leaves the student to uniformed cadre ratio at levels which is very difficult to manage. There is much (too much, in my opinion) AIT instruction that has been turned over to contractors now, because NCOs can not be spared from operational units. Significant pressure has been brought to bear upon branch managers to more tightly control assignments, and the parasitical behavior has been reduced, although not eliminated.

Again, although there are those who have been sitting out OIF/OEF, a portion of them by willfully manipulating the assignment system or through other consciously selected deployment-avoidance mechanisms, 60% is a gross exaggeration.

I don;t buy 60% of the Army hasn't gone. I was told, however, that 75% of the people in the Pentagon 6 months ago had NOT gone to Iraq or Afghanistan. I do believe that.

[Old Eagle]

Both those numbers sound high to me. Dealing anecdotally, which is always dangerous, I will tell you that there aren't many naked right sleeves here.

That said, my boss is meeting w/CG,HRC next week, and maybe he can get some facts.

I will also make this observation. Before OIF, combat experience was a "select in" criterion on promotion/selection boards. Even after DS/DS, relatively few folks had seen combat, so when boards were told to give preference to combat experience, they selected IN those who had it (in the absence of other disqualifiers). Now, combat is a select out criterion. When boards are given a combat preference, it is easier to select OUT those who don't have it. In the old days, if you were in a 60s yeargroup and missed the live fire exercise in SEAsia, your life expectancy as a continuing member of the Army was extremely low. That war had dragged on so long that everyone had had the "opportunity" to participate. Those that didn't were almost always shown the door. Plus, who wanted to be the only non-combat vet in a unit? The social stigma was enormous.

NOW 120 has hit on another theme near and dear to the hearts of many of us -- the primacy of command above all else. Even BS commands that were created to provide more "former battalion/brigade commanders" are given a higher status in the Army than more important real jobs. As it stands now, however, turn down command and head toward the exit because the Army has a special status for "non-motivated."