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
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.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
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.
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Mission essential personnel from all branches should be deployed so they can be effective when its time to redeploy or rotate
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I believe every soldier should deploy to actually perform there duty (job) under real conditions .
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google