Do you prefer "wartime" military or "garrison" military and why?

SGT(P) Daniel McBride — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 19:24:06 -0500

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 7:49 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 19:49:27 -0500

Being a counterintelligence agent, I prefer the garrison military. I guess that's because I worked strategic CI most of my career, and that's usually in garrison. I did deploy once - not to a war zone, per se - where I worked as chief of a Force Protection cell. Based on that time and my many years in garrison, I prefer garrison.

Response by SGT KellyAnn Piergiorgi made Feb 28 at 2015 8:11 PM

SGT KellyAnn Piergiorgi — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 20:11:16 -0500

Although I've never been in a wartime situation, I would jump at the chance to defend my country. After all that's what I raised my right hand for. As far as garrison goes I prefer the field training outside in the woods somewhere.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 28 at 2015 10:01 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:01:06 -0500

I personally don't care what military. But I feel like the Soldiers (including on leadership) need to remember that the Soldier is always the core of things. It seems like when we are at peacetime military, the Soldiers are not training for a fight, so they get into trouble more. The leaders are not occupied with readiness in an intense ARFORGEN cycle, so they micromanage and treat the Soldiers like children....which makes the Soldiers WANT to go out and get away from them and do things that can lead to trouble.

I think that everyone needs the opportunity to screw up. If you turn it into a pattern, then you need more intensive interaction. If it continues, then you have the pattern and throw the book at them. There are exceptions to this in EXTREME cases....just like you don't need to tell people "Don't murder people," but again, leadership in peacetime, when numbers are more readily available (recruiting is much easier in peacetime for a large percentage of the population)....there is less focus on "rehabilitation" and more focus on "perfect order".

Just my thoughts. As I said....the mentality doesn't have to change, but I just hope that they don't forget the purpose of leadership: The greatest job in the Army.
v/r,
CPT Butler

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 3:34 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 03:34:45 -0500

I prefer wartime mentality... We spend more time on training and less on political BS during those times... Our time is spent doing well needed and appreciated training, garrison we spend more time checking the idiot boxes to make some graph go green for highers.. Though we also have the check the box classes during wartime military the boxes seem to make more sense in the majority.... We still have BS but not quite as bad... We get more funding to maintain our training and the training is actually pertinent.... Where as garrison they slash our budget to the minimal to where we don't even have enough to do required leadership courses, and we do stupid METL classes sent down by highers that aren't even on the books... Our training becomes no longer mission driven but a bullet point for someone.... No one likes war, but when it comes to the Military we should always train like we are going to war tomorrow and hopefully never have to use it...

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 5:55 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 05:55:15 -0500

There is no such thing as a "wartime military" or a "garrison military", they are the same thing. You should take care of your Soldiers in garrison the same way you take care of them in combat. You are responsible for their morale, health, and welfare 24/7.

A big reason why there is such a lack of discipline in the military is because leaders lowered standards during combat deployments. Letting Soldiers roll up their sleeves, wearing non-military scarves around their necks, unauthorized eye protection, etc.

Now, you might say well, that's just a sergeant major being a sergeant major who doesn't know what it's like in "The Stan". Well I do know and I have seen Soldiers who's arms have been burned, lose eyes, and much worse because their NCOs failed to enforce standards.

It's all about discipline, it's what sets us apart from other professions!

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Mar 1 at 2015 7:02 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:02:58 -0500

Both types of environments have their pros and cons, though I would add that it is important to train as we fight. I did enjoy the deployed setting a bit more for camaraderie reasons, and because what we were doing felt so impactful and real. But I also enjoyed the garrison setting for other reasons, like being able to re-train and get our bad tactical habits back out of the way we did things.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 7:12 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:12:11 -0500

At least with a wartime focus we didn't have to do all the tedious training. In the past month, I've had 6 hours of SHARP, 4 hours of ASAP, two hours of suicide awareness, and hours on many other topics. I can't believe the amount of time I have to spend on these topics. That was a real shock to the system after 18 months in grad school.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Mar 1 at 2015 8:36 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 08:36:35 -0500

There is not a different military just because we are involved in direct fighting or not because if you think about we are always involved in missions around the world. Now if you meant funding that is a different story because yes during active conflicts we tend to have an easier time with funding then when we not involved in active conflicts.

I also agree with CSM Private RallyPoint Member in that standards need to be enforced regardless of where you are garrison, field sites, deployed.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Mar 1 at 2015 8:38 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 08:38:27 -0500

I have yet to read any responses, so if I mirror any others, well great minds think alike:
The difference between the war time army and garrison army is NOT. War time army is directly tied to garrison army. Yea, I bet I will read a lot about "those" classes we got to do, "those" regs we got to follow, BUT if you stop and look past your noses, all is tied together. What is the War time Army but an extension of the Garrison Army? Train as you fight! Isn't that our standard motto? Or is it "we sweat more in training so we bleed less in war"?

I know there are a lot of you who's got over half your career in a war time military, and you think garrison sucks, well in a way it does. Yes it is more spit and polish, more regimented than combat, but isn't combat also regimented? Stop and think about it!

So the next time you're walking on post and a SNCO stops you and makes some stupid (in your eyes) correction, or the next time your headed to some dumb class or doing that sh!t load of paper work, stop and think how everything is intertwined and with out one there is not the other.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 1 at 2015 8:39 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 08:39:32 -0500

We've never not been at war. In the US history, there has always been some kind of conflict or emergency.

I was in High School when Desert Storm was active. It was in Cease Fire status when I joined. I got to my first unit when they got back from Somalia. During that time, the national forest fires took place, and they used Marines. When I went on my first deployment, we were part of the ongoing cease fire operations in Persian Gulf. You can bet we #%$# our pants a little when Saddam rolled up to the border or Kuwait and sat there. We were officially a 1 hour speed bump so the Army could mobilize to protect the city.

On my second Deployment, the embassy bombings happened. The "War on Terror" began, except it was overseas, not at home. The American People didn't really care yet. So my ARG & MEU sat in the Gulf for a LONG damn time, and sucked down two cheap beers every 45 days as we waited to find out what was going to happen.

And this was the "garrison" era.

When I transitioned to my second unit in 1999... that weird period when people didn't get the National Defense Medal out of boot camp, there might have been a brief reprieve for about a year. And then the same #%$#hole that blew up the embassies decided to highjack 4 planes, and it was on again for 14 more years.

We drew down from Iraq. Now we're drawing down from 'Stan, and the guys who actually remember Iraq aren't actually in anymore. Think about that. The average age of the military is actually about 25~, so run the math. The VAST majority of folks just don't know about Iraq. Now, we "may" be going back there.... again...

But I digress. Wartime or Garrison is a mentality, and as CSM Private RallyPoint Member says, "You should take care of your Soldiers in garrison the same way you take care of them in combat." or vice versa. The situation may allow us to "trim the fat" in the training schedule for actual operational needs, but that's it.

Training vs Operations. You have to have both. Nothing teaches like Operations, however Operations have Risk, lots of it. Training SIGNIFICANTLY lowers the risk to the point where when you use the skills in Operation, that risk reduction is carried over.

The US is capable of fight two wars & a contingency at the same time. Our total military force can do that, but that pushes Training to a minimum, and Ops to a maximum. In the last decade, we were close to that. In the previous we had something much more balanced. In the Cold War era, it shifted farther to the other side a tad.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2015 3:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 15:57:27 -0500

To a good unit, they are both the same thing.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2015 8:56 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:56:59 -0400

I prefer wartime military, the only draw back is when I'm deployed I miss my family. But optempo and not dealing with Garrison drama has made my deployments worth the time I have been away from family.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2015 9:42 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:42:31 -0400

There shouldnt be a distinction between the two, if you are not "at war" your preparing for it which means "garrison".
People that say they are only good at "wartime" soldiering usually have some issues, same goes for those that say they rather have "garrison".
If you wear the uniform be a soldier and do your job regardless where you are.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2015 9:45 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 09:45:41 -0400

As a human intelligence collector, I don't get the opportunity to do my job much in a garrison environment, outside of a few strategic assignments that are difficult to get. I quite enjoy my job, and enjoy deployments for that reason. The higher budgets in deploying units also allow me to attend advanced training for my MOS, which I love. On the other hand, deployments and the lengthy TDY's that lead up to them are hard because I am away from my family so often. So both environments have their advantages and disadvantages.

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Jul 16 at 2020 9:34 AM

MAJ Ronnie Reams — Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:34:59 -0400

I liked being in a combat zone better than in garrison for many reasons. Bear in mind, I was junior enlisted. In no particular order, indigenous KPs , house boys/gals to keep your living area squared away, no Saturday morning inspection, no PT, guard duty in a bunker and not walking a post, wear what you want ( I did not like the heavy cotton fatigue shirt in the heat, so went to local Evac and traded some "souvenirs" for ANC shirts which did not tuck in and had handy pockets on sleeve and rip stop so much cooler*), etc

* Later we got jungies so quit wearing ANC shirts and cotton fatigue trousers.