9 month unit rotations to Korea!

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:28:35 -0500

Will 9 mouth unit rotation to Korea become the norm, and
what is your personal opinion to the deployments near the DMZ?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2014 8:33 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:33:00 -0500

Send me over there right now LOL, I could use a deployment.

Response by SSG V. Michelle Woods made Jan 10 at 2014 11:35 AM

SSG V. Michelle Woods — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 11:35:50 -0500

If it's anything like a deployment to Kuwait then I pray I never have to go. At least in Kuwait we were supporting the drawdown and bounced all over Iraq. Nine months away from this beautiful country of ours just to sit in Korea? No thanks lol.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2014 12:16 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:16:14 -0500

It may not be pleasant. But Marines have been doing the same thing on Okinawa for decades. There's no permanent party infantry on Oki. Stateside Marine Battalions rotate through there to support 3rd MEF.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2014 1:02 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 13:02:14 -0500

There are a number of changes that should be made to the manning process in Korea, just as soon as we become serious about combat readiness over there.

9 month deployments would be a good first step, as well as reducing Command Sponsorship slots and placing more stringent restrictions on leave and passes. These measures may sound draconian to those who haven't been there, but the degree of combat readiness for a location that is technically still at war is quite poor.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2014 2:25 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:25:10 -0500

I recently attended a briefing with the Force Management SGM at the Pentagon, and this is going to be the new way that Korea is done. Equipment will remain in country, and units will rotate in and fall in on the equipment as they take over, and a HQ element remains in country if I remember correctly.

While from a manpower standpoint this makes some sense, to me it leaves some problems on the table. When compared to other similar deployments where you fall in on equipment already on station, the problem I forsee is a matter of ownership and pride. Soldiers tend to take more pride in the maintenance and appearance of equipment that they consider their own. If they are just maintaining equipment on a rotational basis, where do you see the maintenance standards trending to?

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Jan 10 at 2014 2:39 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:39:33 -0500

Seriously, we either need permanent units or we just need to get out all together.

Iraq, 10 times, 1 year at a time

Afghanistan, 13 times, 1 year at a time

Korea, 60 times, 1 year at a time

It doesn't work.

Italy, 3 years

Germany, 3 years

Japan, 3 years

Governorships in the Philippines 1902-1912, 3 years

It works.

History lessons learned. Why do we keep repeating the same mistakes. The drawdown is the time to really look at what has and hasn't worked and to stop throwing good money after bad.

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Jan 10 at 2014 2:54 PM

SPC Christopher Smith — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:54:48 -0500

And the higher ups complain about budget issues, lol. I feel the regs on combat badges is pretty loose, so does this mean everyone who cycles through Korea for these micro deployments gets a combate patch?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2014 6:55 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 18:55:17 -0500

I think that with all the drawdowns and moving into a peacetime and mostly garrison force, the deployments to Korea have to potential to keep units in a deployment state of mind. While there won't be any combat, it could give soldiers the feeling of a deployment if set up correctly. Keeping our forces deploying in support of each other allows new and younger soldiers to come in and get the experience they need to move forward in their career path, and it helps keep those of us who have deployed sharp and able to pass on our best knowledge. While I do get the feeling that a lot of people will cry foul saying that it is a waste of pecuniary resources and that there are more important places to focus on, I believe that we need to keep a strong presence in South Korea not just because of the recent solidarity that the North Korean regime has found but also as a deterrent to China who is now beginning to truly flex their military might in the region.

Response by SGT Thomas Lucken made Apr 7 at 2014 5:08 PM

SGT Thomas Lucken — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:08:08 -0400

The nearest any unit will get is Camp Casey. No unit is assign to JSA, just military personal are direct assigned.

Response by SGT Thomas Lucken made Apr 13 at 2014 10:10 AM

SGT Thomas Lucken — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 10:10:21 -0400

9 month rotation with crappy war stock! A friend of mine, his son is with 3/12 Cav at Camp Stanley, unit the just deployed recent to Korea from Hood for 9 months! Apparently there equipment is sadly in bad shape, can't get parts! OR rate is way below the standards!

I guess the days of keeping the UBL on the vehicles is done over there????

Sounds like their deployment is turning into Operation FUBAR!

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Oct 1 at 2018 1:57 AM

CSM Charles Hayden — Mon, 01 Oct 2018 01:57:21 -0400

Korea 1954: with just a little of no income tax time, 16 months under canvas with 2 each one week R & Rs to Japan was no big deal in 1954/1955.

What in the Hell has changed the U S Army so much?