Posted on Nov 28, 2015
Did you know that the Army Has 50,000 Active Soldiers Who Can't Deploy, Top NCO Says?
7.5K
36
23
Did you know that the Army Has 50,000 Active Soldiers Who Can't Deploy, Top NCO Says?
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/11/25/army-has-50000-active-soldiers-who-cant-deploy-top-nco-says.html
The U.S. Army's top enlisted soldier said the number-one readiness problem facing the service is that the active component -- the most deployable force -- has 50,000 soldiers who can't deploy.
That figure represents the largest number of non-deployable soldiers in all three components of the service. The National Guard has 28,000 non-deployable soldiers and the Reserve component has 25,000, according to Sgt. Maj. of the Army Daniel Dailey's office.
Having 50,000 non-deployable, active soldiers is comparable to three of the Army's 10 active combat divisions, Dailey told a group of sergeants recently at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, according to an Army press release.
"That's huge. That's three out of the 10 divisions," he said. "If you will not or cannot fight and win, then there's no place for you in the Army. We have to become unemotional about this. We have a job to do."
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/11/25/army-has-50000-active-soldiers-who-cant-deploy-top-nco-says.html
The U.S. Army's top enlisted soldier said the number-one readiness problem facing the service is that the active component -- the most deployable force -- has 50,000 soldiers who can't deploy.
That figure represents the largest number of non-deployable soldiers in all three components of the service. The National Guard has 28,000 non-deployable soldiers and the Reserve component has 25,000, according to Sgt. Maj. of the Army Daniel Dailey's office.
Having 50,000 non-deployable, active soldiers is comparable to three of the Army's 10 active combat divisions, Dailey told a group of sergeants recently at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, according to an Army press release.
"That's huge. That's three out of the 10 divisions," he said. "If you will not or cannot fight and win, then there's no place for you in the Army. We have to become unemotional about this. We have a job to do."
Deployment
Soldiers
Readiness
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
This is a duplicate discussion. Click below to see more on this topic.
SMA newest issue: non-deployable Soldiers. Have you read it?
So SMA Daily comes up and tackles the difficult issue, non-deployable status service members across the army.
He may be now sitting as the senior enlistedman of the Army. Often viewed as a semi-political role. Especially recently. But thankfully it's true what they say; that infantry mindset doesn't die.
Quick hits;
- SMA tackles the fact that our service is bursting with soldiers who cannot deploy. He makes the hard call and one people don't like voice. It's dead weight on our army.
This one I cannot support more. Especially working in medicine and currently in a hospital setting is the drain of non deployable soldier. I think we (obviously) need to handle any issues they are having (mental/medical) set them up to continue the care on the civilian side, and show them the door. This is not a disrepect to the service member or to sacrifices many servicemembers have made that led them to becoming medically non-deployable.
Secondly he wants to make moves to support and enable our leaders in the ranks that are combat leaders; the most effective and necessary type I think our Army creates.
Also; let us never forget. Black socks in PTs.
Read for yourself.
http://www.army.mil/article/158897/Dailey__Non_deployable_Soldiers_No_1_problem/
So SMA Daily comes up and tackles the difficult issue, non-deployable status service members across the army.
He may be now sitting as the senior enlistedman of the Army. Often viewed as a semi-political role. Especially recently. But thankfully it's true what they say; that infantry mindset doesn't die.
Quick hits;
- SMA tackles the fact that our service is bursting with soldiers who cannot deploy. He makes the hard call and one people don't like voice. It's dead weight on our army.
This one I cannot support more. Especially working in medicine and currently in a hospital setting is the drain of non deployable soldier. I think we (obviously) need to handle any issues they are having (mental/medical) set them up to continue the care on the civilian side, and show them the door. This is not a disrepect to the service member or to sacrifices many servicemembers have made that led them to becoming medically non-deployable.
Secondly he wants to make moves to support and enable our leaders in the ranks that are combat leaders; the most effective and necessary type I think our Army creates.
Also; let us never forget. Black socks in PTs.
Read for yourself.
http://www.army.mil/article/158897/Dailey__Non_deployable_Soldiers_No_1_problem/
Responses: 11
According to the article, only 23% of 37,000 (or approx 8500) are actually "hardcore" non deplorable. The rest have minor medical situations that can be resolved in less than 30 days or have a admin/legal issue that is waiverable by the unit CDR in order to still deploy. In my opinion, statistics have always been able to be manipulated to prove a point. The real question to I have is what is the pint trying to be made? Unit CDRs are rightly charged with decreasing their non available numbers and across the Army, that has been happening over the past few years. So, why all the hoopla about an issue that "we" in the trenches have known about for years?
Just because they can't deploy does not mean they don't bring value to the organization.
After reading about this and commenting here and in other discussions, I think what is missing here is the reasons why these Soldiers are non-deployable. Without knowing the "why", it is hard to come up with any solutions. I would think there are temporary and non-temporary reasons why Soldiers are non-deployable and we always think of medical reasons as being primary. I would like to see more of the data so better understand this. The same goes for the reserve components as well.
LCpl Brian Toop
I think you're spot on, sir. I would like to see how many are "transitional," such as not having had a dental check-up in the required amount of time before a deployment. A factor such as that could easily diminish the numbers. When I first started reading the article I thought he was talking about those who are non-deployable for administrative reasons. I second it: let's see more data.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google