Should every soldier be required to deploy?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:31:21 -0500

Individuals who dedicate their lives to any public service organization/department, will not feel satisfied until they have seen the good, the bad and the ugly parts of their perform duties. A firefighter will feel unfulfilled until he/she has put out a fire, a cop will feel the same, till he/she makes her first arrest. Many soldiers feel incomplete without having experienced first-hand what it is like to serve overseas. NTC, only does so much as mock scenarios go and it is great training, but a deployment fully immersed in nothing but soldiers getting in the field and getting their feet wet in all-hazard training. With all the hullabaloo, about slick sleeves and veterans, why not have a continuous cycle of personnel on overseas duty stations, minimum 6 mos. at a time for reservists and National Guard soldiers. With the campaigns winding down and the Army becoming smaller, these soldiers will have less and less opportunities to serve. I am aware that state and federal budgeting is a conflict and our country's trillion dollar debt crisis is definitely an impediment but if it were possible? Should it be done?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 12:37 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:37:11 -0500

yes, it makes you a better citizen soldier!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 12:41 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:41:08 -0500

Agreed. I feel the same way.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 12:43 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:43:25 -0500

The experiences i had of training and 3 deployments totalling over 3 years makes way more difference to guys like me that were use to Garrison or active duty for schools/MOSQ or our 2 week/ 3 week AT summer training . The irony of all this sequestration is that we will be deployed more since the active component cannot sustain the war effort without us. I think the 39 day mobilization requirement from call-up request to boots- on- the ground will be more a reality in our hollow-active-army-in-the -making especially if we cut back on the retirement benefits as we have seen all over RP discussions. We want to buy gee-wiz joint strike fighters instead of keeping A-10 Warthogs to protect the guys on the ground. The money of just making 6 less F-35 fighters that can go supercruise...mach 1 could fund a year's worth of leaving the retirement system as it is...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 12:54 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:54:50 -0500

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/12/25/army-bct-cuts-reorganization-coming-service-loses-40k-more-soldiers/77167510/ the writing is on the wall...do more with less Rumsfeld thinking 2015/2016

Army BCT cuts, reorganization coming as service loses 40K more soldiers

The Army will reorganize two brigade combat teams and convert at least one more in coming months as it cuts 40,000 soldiers.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 1:32 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:32:00 -0500

I understand the sentiment, but it just does not make sense logistically. With an end strength of 450K active duty and about the same number of guard and reserve soldiers, not to mention a flux of about 40K recruits each year, there is just not the requirement to have this kind of deployment.

Besides the numbers, there is the practical reason that not every MOS has a specific reason to deploy. I'm not sure that deploying just to deploy is the answer either

Response by SSG Katherine Likely made Dec 27 at 2015 3:37 AM

SSG Katherine Likely — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 03:37:54 -0500

no, i have experienced enough foxholes with unprepared pansy's in my day. Not everyone is fit for it or prepared for the challenges that arise from it - you are better off leaving them at home with the people manning the office at home.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 4:38 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 04:38:49 -0500

I wouldn't say required to deploy, but I would say they should ALL BE DEPLOYABLE. Anytime, anywhere. Those you cannot maintain deployable status may step aside and allow those who can deploy fill the spot.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Dec 27 at 2015 9:59 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 09:59:19 -0500

Back in the middle of the GWOT, I thought they should (job dependent). Now it is very impractical to accomplish this. To many asses for the seats on deployments now a days.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 11:28 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:28:02 -0500

As a member of the military one is obligated to perform where and when he/she is called a upon. If one does so and does one's best he/she has met their obligation and he/she should not be looked upon any differently than another.

If one chooses to classify the service of another as inferior, then one should be looking at those who make the assignments.

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Dec 27 at 2015 11:46 AM

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 11:46:05 -0500

Yes I think that they should within reason especially Combat Arms/Support troops
If you are permanently non-deployable for medical. Then you need to be boarded.
I deployed several times with a P3 profile while my peers remain back in Garrison

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 1:43 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:43:53 -0500

I would prefer if we never had reason to deploy again, but that is not what the real world looks like. Remember, the Army does not serve to just hang out in forward areas. We serve to deter aggression, defend our country and our allies, and if necessary wage war and defeat enemies. The Reserve and Guard should not be called up willy-nilly to scratch some kind of itch. While it is operational in nature, it is a RESERVE force that should be employed when necessary, not as a matter of routine.
Some may go a full 20 year career and never see a deployment. Others have had 3, 4, 5, or more deployments. Given time and the way the world is, you will get your chance in time, SGT Private RallyPoint Member.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Dec 27 at 2015 1:45 PM

COL Ted Mc — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:45:13 -0500

SGT Private RallyPoint Member - Spec; Required to deploy? No.

Be prepared to deploy? Yes.

Required to deploy if so ordered? Yes.

Listened to if they whined about how they didn't think that they would have to go to war if they joined the Army? [Guess?]

One of the problems with your "continuous cycle" theory is the "It's almost always the Newbie or the Short Timer who gets killed first" rule. Having a "continuous cycle" of Newbies and Short Timers is going to mean that your casualty rates are higher.

There is also the logistical issue of whether to "cycle" individuals or units. "Cycling" individuals disrupts unit cohesion and effectiveness. "Cycling" units simply bumps the disruption up a level.

However, your concept does bear exploration and would probably make an excellent submission to either the "NCO Journal" or "Small Wars".

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Dec 27 at 2015 2:10 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 14:10:54 -0500

This requirement is unrealistic unless you want the US to be in a perpetual state of war. Believe it or not, our military has gone through several sustained periods of not being actively engaged in combat.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 27 at 2015 3:48 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 15:48:16 -0500

I agree with your cop/firefighter comparison. Being in the military in garrison is like being a bench rider in the NFL. Deployment is the whole point. This Garrison stuff is for the birds ;)

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 5:10 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:10:50 -0500

No, while I agree with many of the reason put forth. There are personnel who join for various reason who have no place in combat.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Dec 27 at 2015 5:12 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:12:04 -0500

I don't know about "Required" but I would highly encourage it. Let them experience other cultures, Make them better "World Citizens", Make them better salesman of our Country. Take them out of their "Comfort Zones" and really learn about other people outside this Country.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Dec 27 at 2015 5:26 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 17:26:31 -0500

In an era where combat operations are slowing down from what they were between 2003 and 2013, there just are not enough requirements to deploy every Soldier in order to get a deployment under their belt for the experience. I spent the first 16 years of my career with only a MFO peacekeeping mission under my belt and missed when my old unit deployed to Panama for Operation Just Cause and watched as my unit in Germany trained all the units headed out for Desert Shield/Storm. So I understand that you feel incomplete. What I will tell you is that you need to be ready to deploy at any time and do what you can to make sure that your unit is ready to go. Several years ago, I went into my civilian job near O'Hare airport and one of the secretaries said that a plane flew into one of the World Trade Centers. As I left O'Hare several hours later, I figured that my life had changed. 3 months later, we were deploying the first Army Reserve PSYOP company to Afghanistan. So you never know what will happen and it is your duty as stated in the Soldier's creed to stand ready to deploy, engage, and defeat our enemies. Stay ready!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 7:03 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:03:09 -0500

I recommend every soldier deploy, but I don't think it should be required. There are plenty of us who would gladly take the position of someone who doesn't want to go.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 8:20 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 20:20:39 -0500

Would it be nice for everyone to get a turn...sure. Is it even feasible? Nope.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 12:39 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 00:39:54 -0500

I agree with some of what you say, because I want to deploy for some of the same reasons. But I wouldn't force people to do it, we have mediocre hearts already poisoning our ranks, it would just give people more of a reason not to do their best, maybe with the new people coming in it would weed out the people who are doing it for the wrong reason. But who determines what the right motive is? And numbers wise I think, with some Mos', not every cyber tech or even hr rep would even be needed but they are needed stateside. I think SFC (maybe in SSG) and up and officers should at some poiny because it will make them better leaders.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 8:19 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 08:19:07 -0500

This is why I recommend that people go active duty before joining the Reserves or Guard. At the end of the day it's just not necessary to deploy. I was on active duty for 3 years from 1998-2001 and never deployed so I got out. I joined the Reserves in 2004 so I could deploy, been in ever since.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 10:02 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:02:35 -0500

no , but those that did should get some damn respect. especially those in combat arms and not pencil pushers.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 11:23 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:23:03 -0500

If you can't deploy, you shouldn't be allowed to serve. After all, our primary mission is to fight

Response by SGT Jason Anderson made Dec 28 at 2015 12:30 PM

SGT Jason Anderson — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:30:23 -0500

If it were 1997, should we then create a conflict so that someone would have the opportunity to kill or be killed?

Response by PFC Al Sethre made Dec 28 at 2015 3:31 PM

PFC Al Sethre — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:31:12 -0500

I recall back in 07-08, the Commandant of the USMC wanted to get every marine that served since 2003 and hadn't deployed, to get transferred to Iraq deploying units and "get in the fight". In the end, logistical nightmare and didn't pan out.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Dec 28 at 2015 6:00 PM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:00:48 -0500

This is just a bad idea across the board, when you look at the guard and reserve units, you have to look at the structure of those units, and what their respective mission is. Some unit's only belong to the National Guard or Army Reserve, and that is for a reason, there is no equivalent in the active duty. So what do you do when you get to the active duty site? You get the ash and trash duties because we don't have a job for you, is that fair? Equipment compatibility, sure we can trained up on the newest stuff, only problem is when we go home its back tot he old stuff. The support on the home front, if an NG unit is called up for nothing more than 6 month tour of a dirt parking lot in Qutar, that employer is not going to be happy. After all that person is paying his taxes and his companies taxes to see his employee take the place of an active person? Now when you get home you may not have a job to come home to, I don't care what USERRA says, companies get around it.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Dec 28 at 2015 7:15 PM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:15:21 -0500

No. Not only is it not feasible, its not in the best interest of the military. Some folks, for various reasons don't need to be deployed, nor should they be deployed. For most of us, its the luck of the draw whether you go or not.

Response by CSM William Payne made Dec 28 at 2015 7:32 PM

CSM William Payne — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:32:17 -0500

Bottom Line up Front: No. Service members serve at the needs of the military. Not all of the MOS are needed in the combat zone and some more or less than others. The combat arms MOS in general and the Special Ops and Civil Affairs community specifically seem to carry the heavy freight in this regard. That is why you see Soldiers like MSG Josh Wheeler, a Delta Force Operator the was recently killed in Iraq that had been deployed 14 times.

I do find it interesting though that some Soldiers can spend an entire career of 20 - 30 years in the Army, but never get deployed at least once, but hey it happens. Some people volunteer all the time, but are not the right need or fit at the particular time, while others will do anything they can to avoid deployment but then for most part have to go anyway.

Now that the opportunity to deploy has been greatly scaled back the Army has decided in it's infinite wisdom to remove the deployment bonus points for promotion "because it's not fair" to those that did not get deployed for whatever reason. While being deployed does not necessarily make one a better Soldier, it does show a level of experience and dedication to one's country that I personally do not feel should be overlooked nor discounted and most certainly cannot be gained by taking a course. Just ask a know nothing brand new recruit who they are most likely to listen to about how to react to contact, a slick sleeve or a Soldier wearing a combat patch.

Response by SPC Rory J. Mattheisen made Dec 29 at 2015 1:11 AM

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 01:11:43 -0500

No, you will get the call one day. It isn't cool over there, it isn't fun, it isn't games. Every troop that says they miss it fits in one of three categories*:
1( FOB RAT
2( Mentally tipped
3( Liar
*If they were actually in country. Kuwait DOES NOT COUNT

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Dec 29 at 2015 5:44 AM

1SG Harold Piet — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 05:44:13 -0500

No, we are there for the needs of our country, not ours. We should go where we are told, and serve with pride.

Response by SSG Kristell Lee made Dec 29 at 2015 6:13 AM

SSG Kristell Lee — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 06:13:46 -0500

I don't think it should be a requirement. Some soldiers don't have the opportunity to deploy and some hardship duty assignments are hardly deployments like Korea but they're still away and accomplishing a protection mission. I think it's better anyways that the conflicts are ending.

Response by SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury made Dec 29 at 2015 6:22 AM

SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 06:22:48 -0500

I think every service member should want to deploy. I'm not saying that people should like going into harms way - and as someone who has done plenty of boots-on-the-ground I don't want any of my brothers and sisters of any uniform to be harmed - but if we don't deploy, someone has to go in our place.

On deployment we get to practice the very things we trained for. It's a valuable part of our military experiences. It's harder to train and train for something and then never get to use it. The only disclaimer I have is CPR and CBRNE training. I hope all are proficient in it but hope to God we never see anyone have to use it.

Response by SSG Robin Lawson made Dec 29 at 2015 6:37 AM

SSG Robin Lawson — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 06:37:48 -0500

No this is unrealistic. However the Instructors / Evaluators should have to. Our TSB Instructors / Evaluators had never deployed and I feel this is an issue.

Response by 1SG Clifford Barnes made Dec 29 at 2015 7:15 AM

1SG Clifford Barnes — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 07:15:46 -0500

yes they should, everyone needs ro do there part. There is a time and place and job for everyone.

Response by CW4 Kenneth Berninger made Dec 29 at 2015 8:07 AM

CW4 Kenneth Berninger — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 08:07:27 -0500

Flat out if the Army needs to deploy a soldier it will happen. When the budget gets even tighter do not expect to deploy just because you wish to. I do not want to see money wasted just to make a point.

Response by MAJ Robert Anderson made Dec 29 at 2015 8:24 AM

MAJ Robert Anderson — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 08:24:39 -0500

Deployment is what you train for. However, The Military is a large organization with a large tail behind the point persons in the Infantry/Armor/Artillery. The result is that a large number personnel will be deployed less frequently than others. The longer the term of the conflict, the greater likelihood of all personnel being deployed. I was only in Viet Nam for 1 year but I entered the Army about midway through the conflict and was assigned to Germany before going to Viet Nam (that was a different kind of deployment). Then the war ended before my turn to go again. As an Army Brat of a WWII Veteran, I grew up hearing and then learning this mantra: You train to fight a war and pray you never have to."

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 8:32 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 08:32:34 -0500

My option is yes while within your contract if a deployment comes up and your number is called then yes. Men during Vietnam got drafted and didn't have a choice. Then OIF some of us had another variation to the draft called stop loss which you and a lot of other men and women on here can remember

Response by SFC Jeff "Audie Murphy" Bishop made Dec 29 at 2015 8:34 AM

SFC Jeff "Audie Murphy" Bishop — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 08:34:00 -0500

Every soldier is required to be fit for deployment upon initial entry into the military. The ability of the Department of Defense to assign personnel to various duty stations should not be shackled by this type of requirement. Also, deployment does not guarantee an enhancement to a soldier's ability, especially to lead. Some men and woman are leaders, most are followers. This is a fact! One comment below states that individual would promote an average soldier who is deployed over an above average soldier who has not. That does not make any sense to me. Just because a soldier was randomly deployed does not make that soldier more qualified for promotion over another. Speaking as one who has deployed.

Response by SGT Michael McKeown made Dec 29 at 2015 9:28 AM

SGT Michael McKeown — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 09:28:46 -0500

I just cannot understand how a person can serve 25 years and never be sent overseas once, despite two wars? Not even to Europe or Korea.

Response by MSG Curtis Lange made Dec 29 at 2015 9:35 AM

MSG Curtis Lange — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 09:35:08 -0500

I agree that not deploying leaves a sense of being unfulfilled. I went on active duty in 1981 and retired in 2006. During that time the Army went to Haiti, Panama, Bosnia/Herzgovenia, Desert Storm/Desert Shield, Korea, numerous humanitarian deployments, yet due to the location and jobs I was in I did not have the opportunity to deploy. The most disappointing to me was being a Master Sergeant and being left in Germany while the majority of my Brigade was deployed to Bosnia. I believed that I needed a deployment to be promoted, was told that it did not matter, but when board results came out for years only Soldiers with deployments were selected. My Brigade Commander and Command Sergeant Major both counseled me that based on trust and confidence in me that I was better serving the Army and the Brigade by being a Rear Detachment Commander. That position on many occasions was tougher than what my guys were going through on the deployments, plus you did not get the opportunity to have a period of R&R when in the Command Position.

We all serve with the needs of the service, we don't always have a choice of deploying or not. That is not the same as people that dodge deployments or undepoloyable. Unfortunately some people believe that if you did not deploy that it was your fault and look down on you without knowing your full background. I would much rather put all of those years of training to use on a deployment, but military life is what it is and you make the best of every situation.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Dec 29 at 2015 9:37 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 09:37:23 -0500

No. Also remember that some people who beat their chest and brag loudly about their deployment just sat around on a FOB, got fat, and played computer games the whole time.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Dec 29 at 2015 9:49 AM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 09:49:30 -0500

A few thoughts:
- No. Every Soldier should not be required to deploy.
- Every Soldier should willing, prepared, and able to deploy.
- Soldiers deploy to execute and complete missions in support of national security objectives and requirements. They/we do not deploy just for the purpose of deploying. Making it a requirement for every Soldier to deploy puts the cart in front of the horse. Let's keep our eye on the ball here.

Response by SSG Donald Muise made Dec 29 at 2015 9:57 AM

SSG Donald Muise — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 09:57:31 -0500

I believe every soldier should deploy to actually perform there duty (job) under real conditions .

Response by SFC Raymond Thibault made Dec 29 at 2015 10:14 AM

SFC Raymond Thibault — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:14:41 -0500

As a 22 Year Army, Vietnam Era, Cold War and Gulf War. My answer is no. There are some troops that serve better in the rear, supplying those on the front lines. NCOs need to focus on the Individuals ability to function as a TOTAL Team member. The weakest link in a chain can cause disaster. If I can't feel comfortable with who ever has my 6, I'm distracted and the Mission can be easily compromised. Not ever Soldier, Marine, Sailor or Airman is cut out to be boots on the Ground killing the enemy.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Dec 29 at 2015 10:14 AM

LTC John Wilson — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:14:52 -0500

It is nice to her you want to deploy and get in on some of the action. However, Veterans must realize they come with a job specialty and that there are assigned slots for overseas and war zones that their specialty just doesn't fit. We serve at the pleasure of the army and while it is great to be rounded out it is not always possible. Sometimes you may have to get a job specialty change to get those chances. I was a General combat support soldier and never got near the field for six years. Ten I volunteered for Army Special forces and the whole world opened for me. I received more training, more overseas assignments, and was more satisfied with my contribution to our missions. 33 years and 3 months later, I retired and have no regrets about any of my service. God bless you, God Bless America, and may all Americans be as willing as you to serve our great country. Be the best you can be!

Response by LTC Gregory d'Arbonne made Dec 29 at 2015 10:57 AM

LTC Gregory d'Arbonne — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:57:12 -0500

This is like history repeating itself. After the Vietnam War and until Desert Shield/Storm, very few in the military got to deploy. Even with DS/DS, the majority never deployed to the Middle East. So, you could spend a 30 year career, from 1972 or so to 2003, and never deploy. Is it your fault there were no wars or your skill was not needed for the deployment or you were in an assignment that would not deploy?? No; it is just how it goes. I agree with Cpl Pitts, "deploying is an expectation, not a requirement." Everyone should be deployable but if you never get that opportunity to deploy into combat it is not your fault. Also remember that deploying even for a training exercise teaches you a lot and you represent the United States of America wherever you deploy. Your actions could help sway someone in another country to respect America or hate America. Don't be down just because you may have missed your chance to go to war. Many of us would think you were lucky not to see the horrors many have seen.

Response by SGT Mark Seymour made Dec 29 at 2015 11:06 AM

SGT Mark Seymour — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:06:14 -0500

I don't think you would find a lot of people that would argue against the required deployment. I believe most people that have joined the service would gladly except a deployment. I can say is a former reservists that I put myself on every list to get deployed, yet never was called due to either MOS or unit status/capabilities.

Response by SSgt Aaron P. made Dec 29 at 2015 11:18 AM

SSgt Aaron P. — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:18:39 -0500

Speaking personally, I feel that every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine should deploy... IF they are afforded the opportunity and are able-bodied.
I've known many in my time that were REMFs in the classic sense of the word. Commanding Officers who'd never been outside of CONUS and NCOs who wouldn't know which way to point a rifle if it weren't for the bullets pointing the way. It was previously mentioned that troops that have deployed should receive consideration (for promotion, school, or PCS) over those who have not. I fully agree with that as the job of our military is to kill people and break things.
Finally, I am not aware of a single MOS, save DI/DS, that doesn't have a forward-deployed mission. With that said: leave no one behind.

Response by SSG Bielomawicz Wilkes made Dec 29 at 2015 11:22 AM

SSG Bielomawicz Wilkes — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:22:27 -0500

I will be respectful and gentle in my response. Lets remove political correctness and be honest. Joining the military for any other purpose than to protect this country shows naivety on behalf of the recruit, admit we've all been there. However, once you finish Basic and AIT, put on your big kid undies and do your job. If we have to do more with less (Light Fighters!) then that's the way it is. I think of those men and women that joined during WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam; look at what they were given to do the tasks put before them. Take what you are given (issued), learn you MOS (they need to bring back MOS testing), and become an expert at your job. Once called upon to do your job, it'll be second nature.

Response by SPC Grant Dupree made Dec 29 at 2015 11:40 AM

SPC Grant Dupree — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:40:04 -0500

Mission essential personnel from all branches should be deployed so they can be effective when its time to redeploy or rotate

Response by CPL Evin Peters made Dec 29 at 2015 11:40 AM

CPL Evin Peters — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:40:32 -0500

I believe it based on MOS, I was a 19D and never deployed. I realize it's unrealistic, but after being forced out after reenlisted I still feel bad for not being able to deploy. There should be list of soldiers who want to deploy and then catch orders to deploy.

Response by CW3 Susan Burkholder made Dec 29 at 2015 11:49 AM

CW3 Susan Burkholder — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:49:49 -0500

No. I assume when you say deployed - you are referring to combat areas? Being deployed is already a requirement. Rarely is there a soldier (even those in office positions) who has spent their entire military career stateside. Everyone needs to fully understand the risk they are accepting (of being sent to hazardous duty area or combat zone) when they enlist but it should not be a requirement to go there.

Response by SPC Ann T. made Dec 29 at 2015 12:01 PM

SPC Ann T. — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:01:13 -0500

Short combat tours used to be the rule, back in WWII and WWI. I don't mean that they didn't go back, but they would do a couple or three months in the middle of the s**t and then be sent to the rear for a month or two weeks. That was the way they avoided AS MUCH psych trouble as VietNam and the recent debacles. It wasn't a hard and fast rule, but if you look, the time in actual combat environments averages shorter in WWI and WWII. There were PTSD issues then too, but not nearly the amount. And war has NEVER been described as pretty, so there's no saying they had it easier then.

Response by SFC Cheryl McElroy US ARMY (RET) made Dec 29 at 2015 12:13 PM

SFC Cheryl McElroy US ARMY (RET) — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:13:23 -0500

Is this a rhetorical question? Every Soldier is trained to fight the nation's wars. That's the Army's mission. If you wear the uniform, you should be prepared to go. Period.

Response by LTC David Speidel made Dec 29 at 2015 12:18 PM

LTC David Speidel — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:18:04 -0500

It is difficult to balance whether active or NG/reserve. The rater and Sr. rater are in the best position to determine if the service man/woman has made the best contribution they could. At the end the individual needs to be proud of their contribution. If raters encourage their people to make a maximum effort they share in the glory.

Response by LTC Robert McKenna made Dec 29 at 2015 12:19 PM

LTC Robert McKenna — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:19:35 -0500

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "deploy"?

I spent 90 months overseas over a 25 year career, with 30 months in HF/IDP locations. Yet, only once did I go overseas on a "deployment" order.

Response by CSM Brian Vanwagner made Dec 29 at 2015 12:33 PM

CSM Brian Vanwagner — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:33:43 -0500

Speaking for myself and for many of the career soldiers I have known that retired after 20 years and did not serve in a combat zone, these soldiers also referred to as the Cold War era, do feel a little slighted at not being in the right place at the right time. But, being a career soldier of 25 years and only serving in a combat zone after 23 years of service 75-98 and missing so many opportunities because of location of assignments, supporting missions, or just the need of the Army, I felt very cheated when I first retired. To me it equated exactly to a Fireman who never put out fire or a policeman who never hit the streets. To feel that I never put my trade into practice, "if I was as good as I thought I was", was a hard thing to come to terms with. It wasn't until 2008 when I was recalled that I served in a capacity that brought piece to me. But, to answer that question it would be unrealistic to put into practice because of the mission and the requirements needed in so many locations. Each person has to decide within themselves if they feel fulfilled and if their calling to serve was met.

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Dec 29 at 2015 12:54 PM

CW3 Jim Norris — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 12:54:56 -0500

As the needs of the service dictates. Has nothing to do with the individual solider, everything to do with the needs of the Army and the Commander of the deployed units. In my day - admittedly long ago - it was as simple as "you will proceed on or about dd mmm yyyy to point of departure. You will be assigned to C Company 1st Infantry. See attached pre-reporting requirements and instructions".....went to Oakland, turned in my issue, got my brand spanking new jungle fatigues and kit.....stepped off the plane in Vietnam, saw a dude with a 1st Infantry patch and off we went to enjoy the next 12 months meeting exciting unusual people, in exotic scenery and getting shot at and shooting back...No body asked me as an 11C20 if it was convenient, fit my plans or any of that crap. Sargent - grab your sh_t and let's move out....

Response by COL Charles Williams made Dec 29 at 2015 1:02 PM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:02:03 -0500

SGT Private RallyPoint Member That is a actually "It depends" answer.

1. We all join understanding that we may to deploy; that is our mission. But, that all depends on what is/was going on.

- When I joined in 1980, we were going to fight the Soviet Union in Europe... and did things like REFORGER, Panama, JTF Bravo, MFO, NTC, JROTC, etc... For actual combat deployments... we all hoped we were in "the right place, at the right time," so we could deploy when something happened. But, combat deployments were far and few between after Vietnam and before 911 - Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo... And, most were short in duration. I could also cite many instances of Soldiers lobbying for slots to go to Grenada, Panama, etc. and campaigning to leave others behind. Many Soldiers never deployed to war before 911. I can remember being in Bosnia, then Kosovo and think 179 days was a very long time... And, I can remember being Baghdad during the surge (for 15 months) and thinking how cool a 179 day deployment would be...

- After 911, that all changed... Many Soldiers/Leaders went to war after 911 with no prior combat experience. My Brigade Commander on the Invasion of Iraq had no prior combat experience, but he had done all the right jobs... Just was never at "the right place, at the right time"... This was through no fault of their own; they were just not at "the right place at the right time." Soon, no one was lining up to deploy several years after 911... By 2006, many Soldiers had been deployed 50% the time since 911. The post 911 military is far different in terms of OPTEMPO than the Army before 911.

2. Your job as a Soldier is to be ready (Mentally, Physically, and to do your job), when you are called upon. That is all you can do.

3. Finally, I have seen more than one Soldier/Leader... years after 911... avoid deploying more than once... Many retired vs. deploying... That, I have an issue with... A serious issue. Not deploying because you were not ordered to go is far different than avoiding doing your Duty... In my view.

Response by CPL Michelle Sharma made Dec 29 at 2015 1:12 PM

CPL Michelle Sharma — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:12:37 -0500

From where I stand, soldiers need not worry about having no opportunity to deploy--as a matter of fact, with the draw-down, there will be more opportunities-not less as each soldier will asked to do more with less. Not only are we still overseeing Korea, there is the never-ending presence in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as countless other lesser known obligations around the world. There is no need for a "mandatory deployment" such as you suggested. Most soldiers already have several deployments under their belt. It's hard to imagine that there are soldiers who are wanting to go on deployment but have not done so yet--they should be patient: their time will definitely come.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Dec 29 at 2015 1:25 PM

1SG Michael Blount — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:25:38 -0500

IMHO, if you sign on the dotted line, you also acknowledge the possibility of deployment. Failure to deploy when ordered is a violation of the UCMJ. To that extent, then, deployment is already a requirement.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 2:17 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:17:21 -0500

Not all units get Deployed depending on the needs in the theater of operations . So being required to deploy i would say is a big no. But if your unit is deployed your are required to deploy unles you are deemed undeployable because of a medical issue. If you are undeployable you sould be reevaluated and possibly be reclassified to a nondeployable mos or unit.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 2:19 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:19:20 -0500

Should every soldier be required to deploy? I understand every Soldier may not be able to deploy due to many reasons. Some units may have rear detachment responsibilities, deployment draw down or some Soldiers MOS may not be needed for an upcoming deployment. However, nearly 90% of the total force should be able, available and willing to deploy on a moment’s notice.

I understand some Soldiers have had surgery, get pregnant or may have been injured on a previous deployment or in garrison. I deployed on my last deployment before retiring on a permanent profile. If a Soldier that has been in 20 years or more with no issues preventing them from deploying and hasn't deployed (U.S. has been at war nearly 14 years) something major is wrong with this picture, volunteer for a deployment at this point, Uncle Sam and the military spent a lot of money training you and that money was not for a fully trained available Soldier to duck, dive and dodge and successfully get out of a deployment in which I witnessed some Soldiers do. When I was selected and became an AIT Platoon Sergeant, TRADOC wanted NCO's that recently returned from deployment to share their combat and vast years of experience as a Soldier to these new recruits.

The most important reasons why many Soldiers should be in an available status for any upcoming deployment is the Army Times article below.

Drawdown update: More involuntary separations needed
By Jim Tice, Staff writer 6:01 p.m. EDT October 27, 2015

With the Army preparing to shed 59,000 soldiers from its active and reserve components over the next three years, it will become increasingly important for those who stay to be available for deployments and other operational duties, according to Lt. Gen. James C. McConville, chief of personnel. This personal readiness mandate is directly linked to Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley’s campaign to make force readiness the service’s No. 1 priority. “For us in the personnel business, that means every single soldier needs to be able to get on the field and play his or her position," said McConville, who became the Army G-1 (Human Resources) in August 2014.

“If soldiers are not deployable, or are unable to do their job, we are going to have to take a hard look at their ability to stay in the Army.”

Response by SGT Kevin McCourt made Dec 29 at 2015 2:30 PM

SGT Kevin McCourt — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:30:52 -0500

Every soldier should be deploy-able. Profiles, and anything else, that would prevent them from being deployable should be invol discharged, retired, med discharged, etc.

Response by LTC Martin Metz made Dec 29 at 2015 2:44 PM

LTC Martin Metz — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 14:44:30 -0500

As a Viet Nam era vet (the war was all but over by the time of my commissioning), I thought of myself as always "being the bridesmaid, but never the bride" when it came to deployments. After deploying many other soldiers and units to various hot spots over the years, I was determined to also have a chance to bring vengeance back to those responsible after 9/11. It shouldn’t be just the young “studs” who had to face danger. I felt I had a lot of experience and knowledge to contribute as well. I had to buck the system to get deployed. I was too old, or too senior in rank, too close to retirement, or whatever the excuse was. I persisted and finally deployed in 2006 for Operation Iraqi Freedom to ensure our shores were protected from further attacks. I never regretted the opportunity to deploy for a wartime assignment, but I wouldn't hold it against another soldier for not deploying provided they weren't trying to dodge the opportunity.

Response by SGT David Lo-Pan made Dec 29 at 2015 3:11 PM

SGT David Lo-Pan — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:11:34 -0500

Every SM should be deployable. Period. If not, the SM should be separated. I am fully aware not all are able to deploy due to operational needs, but they'd better not shirk deployments, either.

Response by SGT Sharon Olden made Dec 29 at 2015 3:19 PM

SGT Sharon Olden — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:19:32 -0500

Yes all military personnel should be deployed. I hate that I wasn't deployed. I feel less of a soldier. If I had the opportunity, I would be glad to serve, but I am too old.

Response by SGT Mark Rhodes made Dec 29 at 2015 3:40 PM

SGT Mark Rhodes — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:40:14 -0500

I don't think it should me a mandatory you have to be deployed or as Cpl Joshua Pitts said "Deploying is an expectation, not a requirement. Should the country need you, you are ready at a moments notice". We are expected to do a job and that job is where ever and when ever you are needed. Being deployed does not make the job more important it does make your life very important. We all have different roles and missions where stateside or abroad. I do not believe in Conscientious Observers, if that even exists anymore but if it does they need to find a new line of work.

Response by CW4 Jim Shelburn made Dec 29 at 2015 4:49 PM

CW4 Jim Shelburn — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:49:24 -0500

Part would depend on their MOS, but I would say yes. There are too many that seem to be able to "homestead" at headquarters or installations without actually going into combat zones. Unfortunately, some of these make decisions for those zones with no concept of what is going on.

Response by SPC Christopher Perrien made Dec 29 at 2015 5:08 PM

SPC Christopher Perrien — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:08:04 -0500

Deploy where? For what? Although there is a lot going on in the world, none of it requires large US troop numbers as there is no war.

Response by SGT Craig Northacker made Dec 29 at 2015 5:14 PM

SGT Craig Northacker — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:14:56 -0500

I was constrained by orders and assignment as to what I could do. I volunteered every chance I could get, but if the orders do not favor you, there it is.

Response by SFC David Welch made Dec 29 at 2015 5:16 PM

SFC David Welch — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:16:09 -0500

the USN is hiring professional men and women in uniform to get the best contract price for new ships etc. as in any service there are those who don't fight.
they support the men and women at the sharp end of the stick. ONR and other org such as DARPA don't fight they supply the tools for those that do.
This BULLSHIT, if you haven't been at the sharp end of the stick you are less than those that have. I say again for those that are hard of hearing and only see selectively BULLSHIT.

Response by SGT Robert Andrews made Dec 29 at 2015 5:17 PM

SGT Robert Andrews — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:17:05 -0500

I ve never agreed to every one deploy, I think it should be by the MOS that is needed It is more cost effective to have the right person in place for the job that is needed. Having a clerk when you need a forward observer just creates personnel shortages and having to fill voids by field training (OJT) and that is sometimes effective other times it is not and becomes ineffective

Response by CPL Howard Conover made Dec 29 at 2015 5:35 PM

CPL Howard Conover — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 17:35:46 -0500

I agree that every soldier should do at least one tour. In talking with a few current active veterans it appears that they have put in the back of their mind that they signed up to serve and defend. This would be a reminder to all that armed forces is about doing our part globally in a military manner.

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Dec 29 at 2015 6:30 PM

1SG Patrick Sims — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:30:24 -0500

Getting deployed is part of being a soldier---active, reserve or national guard----there should be no question about this point. If someone intends to join the military and not be deployed I suggest the Salvation Army---Not the United States Army.

Response by SFC Kenneth Heckathorn made Dec 29 at 2015 6:34 PM

SFC Kenneth Heckathorn — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:34:11 -0500

Every solider should be able to deployed or we wont have a force we need. Even with that
there will be some who cannot deployed

Response by SSG Jimmy Hubbard made Dec 29 at 2015 7:03 PM

SSG Jimmy Hubbard — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:03:35 -0500

I remember, back in the mid 80's there were a few Vietnam Vets in my unit, 4/8 INF (M) in Mannhein, FRG. And me and a friend of mine thought it would be so cool to have a "Combat Patch", That right sleeve seemed so empty. Well about 4 years later I was earning mine in DS/DS and realized that a "Combat Patch" was not "Cool", it was so much more, it was a symbol of honor for me, it was an honor to serve my country when my name was called. The truth is that yeah it does make you feel complete, like the firefighter and the police officer afet their first fire or arrest (did some of those to as an MP). That being said its not for everybody, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be called up. You're a soldier, when you signed up you knew there was a possibility of combat. After saying all of that yes they should be deployed, not saying they all should do patrols, but deploy? Yes

Response by SSG Jimmy Hubbard made Dec 29 at 2015 7:04 PM

SSG Jimmy Hubbard — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:04:07 -0500

Response by MSG Clint Collins made Dec 29 at 2015 8:20 PM

MSG Clint Collins — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 20:20:20 -0500

Every politician should deploy.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 9:28 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:28:04 -0500

I think it is a matter of when your called up to do your duty, otherwise you can spend your entire military career in the states. Not every soldier deploys and not every unit is deployable.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Dec 29 at 2015 10:22 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:22:06 -0500

Nope. Just because you are a soldier doesn't mean you should deploy. To be deployed should require soldiers who were trained in certain areas/jobs that are required when being deployed.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Dec 29 at 2015 11:13 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:13:30 -0500

Sp4 Byron Skinner. Yes, all members of the military should be deployable, no exceptions. This is an all volunteer military, the job of the military is to kill those in the civilian and military chain of command designate. If a person is non deployable they should as in times past be released from their military service. The excuse of to many deployments to soon together is just that an excuse. Tonight as I write this there are over 200,000 US military deployed overseas out of a military of only about 1.1 million. The politicians are already wanting more deployments and at the same time shrinking the military. If you are in the military and can't deal with the tempo of deployment you are in the wrong vocation.

Response by SGT Glenn E Moody made Dec 29 at 2015 11:39 PM

SGT Glenn E Moody — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:39:39 -0500

i would have loved that but i only got to go on Reforgder 85 we took all of our equipment to Germany for war games but it was only 26 or 28 day's just 2 day's short for overseas veteran status and the GI Bill you have to do 30 day's for that we did get a Ribbon for it the Army Reserve overseas Training Ribbon it was the closest i came to real combat. it was a show of force to the Russian's by Reagan a few years after the wall came down and we won the Cold War i have my certificate of Recognition DD FORM 2774, 1 JUL 2001 sign by the Secretary OF Defense i had to send in my paper work to get it. so my Veteran status is the Cold War Victory.

Response by SSG Jerry Flores made Dec 29 at 2015 11:50 PM

SSG Jerry Flores — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:50:47 -0500

Absolutely! As long as their is a war/conflict anywhere the United States is involved with should be mandatory for at least one tour. When I was in the Army, I worked for an E8, who was the biggest chicken shit on earth. Ray Lafavor wore two ribbons on his uniform, A Good Conduct and National Defense. While other enlisted members and myself wore numerous decorations on our uniforms as a result of the Vietnam War, Several experienced severe combat injuries. From time to time we sat around and spoke of our experiences in Nam and how injuries were sustained. The back yellow strip chicken shit totally disliked these conversation; although somewhere is claimed "Isaw the enemy", that was his booster. He was and is a coward and somehow managed to stay out of Vietnam and any other war/conflict. I was a Staff Sergeant and found it very hard to respect him period, and rightfully told him so. He was a hated (using the word loosly) man. In the office hung a picture of General Patton, who he claimed as "My Hero", well if his hero was alive he would have dragged is ass into comabt and whipped him across the forhead with his hand whip. For his transfer out of the command, a farwell party was given, out of 136 people, only 13 had signed up to attend the party until the Command Sergeant ZNajor made it a place of duty for all NCO'. Reluctenly, we attened and left as soon as the Commander presented him and a Army Commendation Medal. Former Senio NCO's were present with MSM's for their service. I had a windbreaker especially made for hi, in the colors of red, blue and yellow. Blue for the oceans he never crossed, Red for the blood he never shed and yellow, the reason why. However, as I was about to present it to him,another Senior NCO grabbed it out of my hands, and I was never able to make the presentation. He was and is a pitiful individual. Had he been sent into combat or at least to the country at war he may have had a different outlook and understanding of what combat is and been proud of his accomplishments and received some respect from his peers instead of being hated and referred to as chicken shit.u

Response by LTC Donell Kelly made Dec 30 at 2015 12:28 AM

LTC Donell Kelly — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 00:28:46 -0500

Maybe a better question might be, should every soldier be required to deploy when they're able to deploy? Women who are pregnant and/or newly delivered could hold off in deployment for a year. A man or woman who's recovering from a bad sprain/fracture can deploy next go-round but not now. A man or woman who's suddenly become a single parent, could they deploy next time when they've had the chance to get a new family plan and recover from the loss of a spouse? There are many, many variables to answering that question, variables that are legitimate and need to be taken into consideration, for the sake of the soldier & the Army.

Response by COL Jeff Williams made Dec 30 at 2015 3:06 AM

COL Jeff Williams — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:06:51 -0500

Required? Only if an operational necessity.

Response by MSG Paul DePrimo made Dec 30 at 2015 8:33 AM

MSG Paul DePrimo — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 08:33:10 -0500

1SG I agree, I deployed for 14 months and I also got divorced, had one son get a girl pregnant while I was deployed (19years old) and one son become a drug addict so I do feel your pain. That is exactly why I believe that the active force should increase to give you all a break. The Guard was established to protect the home front not be a hidden number for the politicians who decreased active troop strength. I think the "Budget" should not even be a factor to protect our own Country!

Response by SFC Rapfeal Mayfield made Dec 30 at 2015 11:38 AM

SFC Rapfeal Mayfield — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:38:18 -0500

I don't think that every soldier should be required, but if they are physically and mentally able then they should.

Response by SSG Delanda Hunt made Dec 30 at 2015 12:57 PM

SSG Delanda Hunt — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:57:17 -0500

Hell yes, If you can't deploy who needs you taking up a slot.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 1:04 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:04:39 -0500

Every Soldier should be deployable - that does not mean that every Soldier will deploy. A deployment brings experience and perspective to the operating environments that are always in flux and changing as doctrine and world events change. Some Soldiers are not afforded the opportunity to deploy based upon assignment; MOS; luck (good or bad); conditions at home; changing world events; etc.

Response by MAJ Michael Sjostrom made Dec 30 at 2015 1:15 PM

MAJ Michael Sjostrom — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:15:00 -0500

Absolutely! That is not say one must deploy simply because of enlistment/oath of office. Rather it is one's duty as part of service, that if our nation goes to war that is an expectation and part of the commitment made. I despised and and still dispise those who avoided their duty. If one cannot handle the rigors of deployment and all that comes with it, then they do not deserve the benefits of service. We take the good and the bad. Some will not like this viewpoint and some will even say it is too harsh. Our duty is to fight and win our Nation's wars, period!

Response by MAJ James Woods made Dec 30 at 2015 3:28 PM

MAJ James Woods — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:28:30 -0500

Every Soldier who is qualified and has been called to deploy should. Yes some will never deploy based on their specialty or assignment or they've missed the window of opportunity, but the only time I feel irritated is when I see a Soldier, a Leader, a Volunteer suddenly go out of their way to avoid a deployment. In reality, I don't expect everyone in formation to have a patch on the right shoulder but I do expect everyone to step forward if they are asked to do so.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Dec 30 at 2015 8:09 PM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:09:32 -0500

You go where you are needed and ordered to. That's the bottom line. Whether it's Afghanistan, Adak Alaska or Recruiting Duty in EBF, Montana.

Response by SSG Gregg Mourizen made Dec 30 at 2015 8:42 PM

SSG Gregg Mourizen — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:42:58 -0500

Hell no.
I have seen many with personality traits that just scream the person will do wrong. How they manage to stay in the military is beyond me, but they do. I have seen soldiers with brain damage, waiting to get out. Others either mentally handicapped or just plain lacking in any common sense (again, how do they manage to stay in) are often sent into situations they just can't mentally handle. I can think of many in leadership positions, completely incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone others, going into such crappy situations.
Do not get me wrong, there are many competent and capable, that cannot or should not deploy. Only child's, conscientious objectors, single parents, High priority or critical positions just to name a few.

Now if a soldier or his unit have been chosen to deploy, then yes they should be required to go, unless they fit into one of the above categories. I have seen many who want to deploy, who are denied, for various reasons. Many units will not let these willing soldiers trade out with others less suitable. Deploying units can get so desperate to meet their numbers that they will drag everybody along regardless of issues or circumstance. They forget that they can pull large numbers of willing and competent volunteers to fill their numbers. They just need to get the word out.

Response by MSG William Wold made Dec 31 at 2015 1:40 AM

MSG William Wold — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 01:40:40 -0500

Well it's been a while but aren't there just a few MOS's job specialties that find it difficult to justify being deployed to the hostile area? I'm also thinking of a step son who is a Major in the Air Force as a Public Affairs Officer, what would his job be in the deployment arena? The "poor guy" had to spend 5 years in Hawaii, course he never got Christmas holidays off because of the President on location, now he's at a different location stateside but not far from the Presidents home location. He's asked for different duty, but they turn him down. At least he has this Christmas season off and is enjoying it with friends and a soon to be future relative.
After Vietnam, I joined a National Guard unit that had Army Watercraft. Annually we had to put our landing craft and tugs away, and go out into the "field" for training. Regulation stated that annually we were to do an overnighter in a field environment. But our "field" was on the water, but the powers to be said if we have to go out in the woods, so do you. Another month we had to go out to the range. Then there was the month of November drill that was mostly classes. Then December, more classes and the Christmas Lunch, pretty much wasted that month for training, but let some of the NCO's catch up on paperwork and counseling. Because we were a low priority unit, we could only get the firing range in March, and did our "field" training in February. That left 20 calendar days of the whole year being able to attempt to do any training in your job specialty. A truck can drive into the woods, infantry can walk into the woods, but a ships captain, engineer, deck hand cannot, as much as we tried, to take the vessels into the woods. But we had to go and the watercraft got neglected.
I have a son who recently was removed for lack of advancing, he did 5 deployments, where did that get him but out? They turn around and blame him for not enough schooling. I have another son who is on his third deployment, does a 260 PT on his bad day, normally does a 10.5 minute 2 mile hardly breaking a sweat (jealous here I could hardly get a pass), missed E6 the promotion by 3 points one month, 2 points a couple months later then they change the rules. He's got all the classes behind him. What more do they want?

Response by MSG Don Burt made Dec 31 at 2015 1:14 PM

MSG Don Burt — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:14:22 -0500

Only those personnel that are properly trained should go...i.e., those who are retired and CAN BE CALLED UP are no more qualified than a new two week old recruit. The situation dictates what and who should be deployed. That being said, if we have an all out War similar to the first and second and the country needs us, well then, all will go. But as a routine, no.

Response by CPT John M. O'Connor made Dec 31 at 2015 1:51 PM

CPT John M. O'Connor — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:51:39 -0500

Absolutely not. Why add on this requirement? Essentially we are "deployed" to serve a mission anywhere we go and we know that dangers exist here and abroad. This is not needed as a requirement for a military career. To the most ambitious it may be an element of their diverse skill set that could be a factor in upper level promotions but should not be a requirement.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Dec 31 at 2015 2:06 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:06:38 -0500

I think your question is a bit closed ended because its looking for a yes or no answer and its not that simple.
I do think that we all have an expectation to deploy and if required we will deploy with our command as required by the demands of the mission. I know in the Navy when your ship / squadron has to deploy we are expected to go without question. On Aircraft Carriers we have what is known as Beach Detachments that stay behind in the homeport and another Beach Detachment that will go ahead to where we're deploying to so that they can set up logistics for the area.
I think that probably almost every single service member is ready and willing to deploy its just that some never have been selected to deploy for whatever reason. In the end it doesn't make anyone a better or worse service member for deploying or not deploying.

Response by SGT Frank Leonardo made Dec 31 at 2015 7:41 PM

SGT Frank Leonardo — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:41:02 -0500

You or whom ever took a Oath and yes is my awnser

Response by SFC Kelly Comstock made Dec 31 at 2015 11:11 PM

SFC Kelly Comstock — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 23:11:07 -0500

Speaking for myself, my deployments were a high light of my career, I even volunteered to drive on a couple of convoys into Iraq. I trained as a Soldier for many years. I wanted to know if I had what it takes, not that I was looking for medals, I needed to know. That said should every Soldier be put into a combat zone? If there is no reason to put them in harms way, don't.

Response by SPC Michael Dugan made Jan 1 at 2016 2:09 PM

SPC Michael Dugan — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:09:45 -0500

I read your post, I understand your positions, but would have to align my answer more with the latter part of what you have written. What I mean is, due to budget restraints, I don't think every soldier should be required to deploy. I'm *very* pro-Defense, but I think that deploying every soldier is too expensive, plain and simple. I have arguments against it, but if I start elaborating I'll get tangled up in words, so really I'd leave it at that. It's dry and boring, but it's about money that I don't feel deploying every soldier would be in Our (the United States') most beneficial interest.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 1 at 2016 2:45 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:45:14 -0500

Continuous rotations for NG and Reserves will hurt their employment.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 3:45 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 15:45:03 -0500

For what? A combat patch? "experience"? There is no shame in sporting a "slick sleeve." Going to war shouldn't be the motivating factor for joining the Army. If it is, you are joining for all the wrong reasons. After serving two deployments to Iraq, I respect all Soldiers, whether they have deployed or not.

Response by CW3 Ed Heick made Jan 3 at 2016 8:19 AM

CW3 Ed Heick — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 08:19:01 -0500

Being in the military comes with certain rights and responsibilities concurrent to the job. As discusseed earlier promotions could be based on deployments with any mos.If an individual knowingly enlists in the military they need to realize it's not a democracy. Deploying is part of the job like it or not,

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 6:16 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 18:16:26 -0500

Should they, yes. Must they, no. What I do want to see is all of those that are not deployable be removed from the services. Other than Soldiers that are not deployable due to combat injuries (I feel they earned a pass) these people should meet the standards of deployability or lose their position. I do feel that a deployment adds greatly to one's experience. Last CSM we had never deployed in over 30 years and I just didn't have as much respect for the individual. Just my opinion

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 10:36 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 10:36:40 -0500

I get the whole "I need a combat patch to feel worthy" argument, but is it really necessary? I think discussions like this one is the reason why some Army leaders have suggested removing the combat patch from Soldiers sleeves - as some have suggested it has created a sense of unworthiness for Soldiers who have never deployed and in some cases, has developed into an inferiority complex. If you joined the Army for the sake of deploying, in order to earn your patch, then you have volunteered for all the wrong reasons in my opinion. Besides, you are starting to see fewer and fewer Soldiers who are sporting a combat patch because many have either separated from the Army, or they have retired. Deployments are at a crawl and unless you belong to a special unit like SF, your chances of deploying are probably zero (at least under the current administration).

Response by SGT Robert Andrews made Jan 6 at 2016 10:59 AM

SGT Robert Andrews — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 10:59:34 -0500

There are abilities for National Guard and reservists to deploy. You need to use resources through your chain of command to be able to deploy. NCO's and Officers have more chances for acceptance for MOS shortage assignments but there are Units that get deployment assignments and have MOS shortages. If you want to deploy you need to be prepared to get assigned on short notice and receive short notice to report. However you have to use your chain of command and resources provided in AKO to locate and apply.

Response by SSG James Newman made Jan 7 at 2016 1:21 PM

SSG James Newman — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 13:21:33 -0500

Everyone in every service should be deployable, if they are not then they need to be "shown the door". After that it's up to our dear ole' Uncle Sam to decide where we are needed

Response by MAJ Scott Meehan made Jan 7 at 2016 2:31 PM

MAJ Scott Meehan — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:31:38 -0500

My thoughts are that a young soldier coming into the service now should be fully trained within a permanent structured force for one full year before being required to deploy into a war zone. Exceptions would be for those who volunteer to deploy will full knowledge of expectations.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2016 12:10 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 12:10:31 -0500

I would say it's definitely preferred they do. Especially anyone going into a leadership position of any kind. I mean we've all seen that NCO that's been around forever and has yet to deploy. While everyone else has. Kinda of hard to keep the respect for a leader who hasn't.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 17 at 2016 2:17 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 17 Jan 2016 14:17:16 -0500

Shit, this is way longer than I intended.
Anyone who thinks a Soldier who has not deployed is worth any less than a Soldier who has deployed is misguided. Now this does not apply to those who have dodged deploying, but not everyone gets/has to go.
The military does not function as a bunch of individuals, or the individual branches. A Soldier who contributes to the readiness of other Soldiers, makes them better soldiers and makes the MISSION a success, pepares them for the unbearable situations that some must face, that is what makes you a valuable Soldier. I don't care if my leadership has deployed, as long as they are doing their best to prepare me and my troops, fighting to get us what we need and learning from those who have experience (regardless of rank).
Yes, I deployed. No, I never fired a shot while I was there. Does that mean my contribution was less valuable? Some would not value my service as much as their own just becuse of that. I can't put a value on myself, that comes from those who I affected. I'm not going to go into details, but those other units (not mine or my responsibility, but the ones I helped because I could) made sure I understood what value they placed on me. If I don't pass along the experience, the knowledge of what needed to be done and how to do it, the importance of the job and dedication required, then am I still a "valuable" Soldier?
Are you saying those "slick-sleeve" Soldiers that I instill with that knowledge and motivation, that end up passing it along to the next generation after I have moved on, those Soldiers are worth LESS because they didn't experience it firsthand? That's just wrong.
I would think more highly of them than I would someone with multiple tours that just wants to raise himself/herself up by "bragging" and demeaning others that haven't gone; those who are more interested in being impressive than making an impression; those who want their subordinates to idolize them instead of respect and learn from them. They are out there, and they do nothing to help others, just themselves.
Deployments are NOT what makes a successful Soldier, they are the necessity when everthing else has failed.
Capable, ready and willing is what makes a Soldier (Warrior, Marine, Airman, whatever fits).

Response by CPL Howard Conover made Jan 28 at 2016 12:14 PM

CPL Howard Conover — Thu, 28 Jan 2016 12:14:25 -0500

I don't believe requiring deployment should be enforced but certainly being deployed brings a sense of completeness to ones service time. If your unit is not up for deployment or you don't get an opportunity to deploy it's not the soldiers fault. There is probably situations for voluntary deployment..

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 24 at 2016 10:11 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:11:06 -0400

Every soldier should perform his/her duties to the best of his/her ability.

Whether the soldier deploys is not up to him/her. In my case, if I volunteered for duty in Vietnam I had a five year wait before I would go.

Was I less because of that?

Response by CW3 Ed Heick made Jul 10 at 2016 10:39 PM

CW3 Ed Heick — Sun, 10 Jul 2016 22:39:41 -0400

If the job requires it and you signed up to do the job you are expected to, there is no reason why you should not fulfill the contract you are expected to do. Except in extreme cases deployment is part of the job. Do it or seek work elsewhere.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2017 4:56 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Jul 2017 16:56:12 -0400

I agree I was in for 4 years got out and now just got back in and I am looking to deploy like right now but my unit isn't deploying. In fact they are kinda in one of those spots that you cant deploy. Help

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 14 at 2017 5:58 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:58:03 -0400

I want to deploy ASAP any ideas on how

Response by SSG Robin Lawson made May 13 at 2019 3:18 PM

SSG Robin Lawson — Mon, 13 May 2019 15:18:02 -0400

yes or get out

Response by SSG Robin Lawson made Jun 10 at 2019 12:11 AM

SSG Robin Lawson — Mon, 10 Jun 2019 00:11:58 -0400

I'm not sure deploying everyone is the answer. But every solder should be deployable. If you can't deploy then we don't need ya.

Response by SGT Floyd Yates made Jul 1 at 2019 9:27 PM

SGT Floyd Yates — Mon, 01 Jul 2019 21:27:08 -0400

Yes every body needs to deploy at least once

Response by SFC Kenneth Hunnell made Jun 27 at 2020 8:14 AM

SFC Kenneth Hunnell — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 08:14:03 -0400

I believe the fact that you are available is enough. To use an example, if I was on guard duty and nothing happened, I would be happy. I don't need an incident to happen to make doing guard duty necessary

Response by SFC Kenneth Hunnell made Jun 27 at 2020 8:39 AM

SFC Kenneth Hunnell — Sat, 27 Jun 2020 08:39:49 -0400

I have been in the military since prior to the hostage taking in Iran. I first thought I had was, i picked a hell of a time to enlist. During dessert storm, they asked for volunteers to go. I figured I was in, why do they ask. I said no, if they told me that I was going, I would not complain, after all I enlisted to do a job. I went to Afghanistan in 2004-05 and then again in 2018 to Kuwait, no complaints