Posted on Dec 27, 2015
SGT Signal Support Systems Specialist
44.5K
288
201
36
36
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?
Avatar_feed
Responses: 122
CW4 Aviation Brigade Uas Planner
19
19
0
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.
(19)
Comment
(0)
SSG Gene Carroll SR.
SSG Gene Carroll SR.
4 y
I think it's not a bad ideal, Because of what's happening all around this world and dose give the active duty some relief.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CSM Thomas McGarry
CSM Thomas McGarry
10 mo
Well stated Sir! One has to remember that someone has to stay in the rear with the gear so mot everyone will have the opportunity to be deployed.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
SFC Vet Technician
18
18
0
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
(18)
Comment
(0)
CW4 Aviation Brigade Uas Planner
CW4 (Join to see)
4 y
You're right, there is no requirement to deploy just like there is no requirement to be promoted. Those who do deploy should be considered first for promotion. I'll rattle a few cages with this next comment. A deployed soldier with average evaluations should be promoted over a non-deployed soldier with above-average evaluations. Boom!
(5)
Reply
(0)
SFC Vet Technician
SFC (Join to see)
4 y
I don't know the exact numbers sir, but I estimate at least 1/3 of the current force has not deployed as the effort has tapered off over the last 2 years. Barring another major operation against ISIL or similar groups in the near future, attrition of those who have deployments will continue to increase while at the same time new soldiers will also grow.
Using deployment as a primary consideration for promotion does not serve the best interest of the forces.

I deployed to the first gulf war having been trained during The Cold War mindset. There were a few very senior soldiers who were in 'Nam, Panama, and Grenada but the vast majority of my fellow soldiers did not have any deployments.

I should note that I am talking about combat deployments that the general population might be called for and not spec ops deployments
(2)
Reply
(0)
LTC Delivery Driver
LTC (Join to see)
4 y
I know what you mean, SFC Squires. We lose our edge as we promote, transfer, retire or get out. I have not been in a combat zone in almost 6 years. it is a perishable skill if the knowledge we use no longer the same or not used at all. Hopefully, our new soldiers will get the experience in training and exercises that do its best to keep the edge up. I feel our peace dividend will not last long because the USA is in its fiscial austerity and refit mode and sequestration and changes to retirement talk will make our forces less professional and less dedicated and they will not stay in for the sake of saving $2 billion a year when some of our weapons platforms that are questionable cost about $300 million each and may not be needed this soon or as many when our soldiers are a better bang for the buck or using existing platforms are just fine. I am talking about the F-35 jsf vs keeping the A-10 WARTHOG.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG Gene Carroll SR.
SSG Gene Carroll SR.
4 y
Good question
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
LTC Kevin B.
15
15
0
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.
(15)
Comment
(0)
SSG(P) Light-Wheel Vehicle Mechanic
SSG(P) (Join to see)
4 y
While wiki is not the best of web pages to cite, you may be surprised by the actual stats on this topic. I know when I first studied it, I was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
LTC Kevin B.
4 y
SSG(P) (Join to see) - That listing actually doesn't surprise me at all. I know that we have all kinds of operations going on regularly around the globe. In fact, I don't even debate that point. My point was that we simply don't have the deployment capacity to ensure that every soldier deploys.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close
Seg?add=7750261&t=2