37
37
0
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?
Deployment
Army Reserve
Training Soldiers
Army National Guard
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 120
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
yes they should, everyone needs ro do there part. There is a time and place and job for everyone.
(0)
(0)
SSG Eric M Hersh
the army teaches u to be a 11b first and everything else is not counted. in a war zone all jobs are related to 11b
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
If it were 1997, should we then create a conflict so that someone would have the opportunity to kill or be killed?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
no , but those that did should get some damn respect. especially those in combat arms and not pencil pushers.
(0)
(0)
Would it be nice for everyone to get a turn...sure. Is it even feasible? Nope.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google