Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
It is understandable that after many years of opportunity for involvement in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan those who have served abroad will tend to look down on those who have made little or no effort to leave their comfort zone stateside.

As stated before I would suggest that if the Army is looking to cut costs they should get rid of all those who managed to avoid combat duty on overseas service over this period unless they can produce a rock solid reason/excuse.
Some of this was actually happening before Iraq. There was a great deal of angst, for example, about people who were avoiding deployments to KFOR and other overseas commitments.

Fuchs' study case also comes from the Air Force, not the Army. Quite a bit of the Air Force remains untouched by deployments, yet they have tried to latch onto the "warrior ethos."

I tend to agree with the idea that in theory that you get rid of those who didn't deploy without good cause, but (as also happened after Vietnam) those who stayed close to headquarters are often best-placed to work the system. And they will work to protect their own interests. And the idea of exceptionalism put forward by Fuchs can actually help them in that effort, since anyone outside the system who complains can be written off as "not supporting the troops" or something similar. Those inside the system will be less likely to take action against someone who is perceived as being close to the 'levers of power or influence,' so things go on as they have during most of the U.S.'s major military drawdowns.