Do you prefer "wartime" military or "garrison" military and why?

We've never not been at war. In the US history, there has always been some kind of conflict or emergency.

I was in High School when Desert Storm was active. It was in Cease Fire status when I joined. I got to my first unit when they got back from Somalia. During that time, the national forest fires took place, and they used Marines. When I went on my first deployment, we were part of the ongoing cease fire operations in Persian Gulf. You can bet we #%$# our pants a little when Saddam rolled up to the border or Kuwait and sat there. We were officially a 1 hour speed bump so the Army could mobilize to protect the city.

On my second Deployment, the embassy bombings happened. The "War on Terror" began, except it was overseas, not at home. The American People didn't really care yet. So my ARG & MEU sat in the Gulf for a LONG damn time, and sucked down two cheap beers every 45 days as we waited to find out what was going to happen.

And this was the "garrison" era.

When I transitioned to my second unit in 1999... that weird period when people didn't get the National Defense Medal out of boot camp, there might have been a brief reprieve for about a year. And then the same #%$#hole that blew up the embassies decided to highjack 4 planes, and it was on again for 14 more years.

We drew down from Iraq. Now we're drawing down from 'Stan, and the guys who actually remember Iraq aren't actually in anymore. Think about that. The average age of the military is actually about 25~, so run the math. The VAST majority of folks just don't know about Iraq. Now, we "may" be going back there.... again...

But I digress. Wartime or Garrison is a mentality, and as CSM (Join to see) says, "You should take care of your Soldiers in garrison the same way you take care of them in combat." or vice versa. The situation may allow us to "trim the fat" in the training schedule for actual operational needs, but that's it.

Training vs Operations. You have to have both. Nothing teaches like Operations, however Operations have Risk, lots of it. Training SIGNIFICANTLY lowers the risk to the point where when you use the skills in Operation, that risk reduction is carried over.

The US is capable of fight two wars & a contingency at the same time. Our total military force can do that, but that pushes Training to a minimum, and Ops to a maximum. In the last decade, we were close to that. In the previous we had something much more balanced. In the Cold War era, it shifted farther to the other side a tad.

I have yet to read any responses, so if I mirror any others, well great minds think alike:
The difference between the war time army and garrison army is NOT. War time army is directly tied to garrison army. Yea, I bet I will read a lot about "those" classes we got to do, "those" regs we got to follow, BUT if you stop and look past your noses, all is tied together. What is the War time Army but an extension of the Garrison Army? Train as you fight! Isn't that our standard motto? Or is it "we sweat more in training so we bleed less in war"?

I know there are a lot of you who's got over half your career in a war time military, and you think garrison sucks, well in a way it does. Yes it is more spit and polish, more regimented than combat, but isn't combat also regimented? Stop and think about it!

So the next time you're walking on post and a SNCO stops you and makes some stupid (in your eyes) correction, or the next time your headed to some dumb class or doing that sh!t load of paper work, stop and think how everything is intertwined and with out one there is not the other.

I prefer wartime mentality... We spend more time on training and less on political BS during those times... Our time is spent doing well needed and appreciated training, garrison we spend more time checking the idiot boxes to make some graph go green for highers.. Though we also have the check the box classes during wartime military the boxes seem to make more sense in the majority.... We still have BS but not quite as bad... We get more funding to maintain our training and the training is actually pertinent.... Where as garrison they slash our budget to the minimal to where we don't even have enough to do required leadership courses, and we do stupid METL classes sent down by highers that aren't even on the books... Our training becomes no longer mission driven but a bullet point for someone.... No one likes war, but when it comes to the Military we should always train like we are going to war tomorrow and hopefully never have to use it...

Although I've never been in a wartime situation, I would jump at the chance to defend my country. After all that's what I raised my right hand for. As far as garrison goes I prefer the field training outside in the woods somewhere.

Being a counterintelligence agent, I prefer the garrison military. I guess that's because I worked strategic CI most of my career, and that's usually in garrison. I did deploy once - not to a war zone, per se - where I worked as chief of a Force Protection cell. Based on that time and my many years in garrison, I prefer garrison.