Should every soldier be required to deploy?

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?

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.

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.

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!

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

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!

Required? Only if an operational necessity.

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.

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.

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.