Like the new marriage policy, I like the new battle buddy policy as well:
A revised 2nd Infantry Division “battle buddy†policy keeps the off-post system voluntary but spells out responsibilities and potential punishments.
The policy of leaving post with at least one other person remains “highly encouraged but not mandatory,†a phrase bolded and underlined in the policy letter signed by 2nd ID commander Maj. Gen. James Coggin and issued Friday.
However, commanders O-5 and above have the authority to impose mandatory battle-buddy restrictions on soldiers as they deem necessary.
If a commander does impose a mandatory battle-buddy policy, a soldier’s failure to look after a buddy “may be considered a dereliction of duty if the soldier knowingly or negligently fails to make reasonable efforts to intervene,†according to the policy.
But soldiers must not intervene if doing so would cause “increased danger†to others, the policy says.
The policy “doesn’t mean that (a soldier) will interfere with what ROK/U.S. law enforcement is doing,†said 2nd ID Staff Judge Advocate Lt. Col. Walt Hudson in a response to an e-mail query.
I have never been a fan of the mandatory battle buddy policy that has been used before in 2ID. It should be encouraged but not mandatory which is what this policy is doing. Here are some examples of why I don’t like mandatory enforcement. What if you have a boy/girlfriend on another camp and want to meet he/she somewhere for a date, but you can’t leave your camp without a battle buddy. Another example is that if you had a Korean boy/girlfriend, to go on a date you would have to have your battle buddy with you the whole time. Another reason to not make it mandatory is that it give supervisors leverage on soldiers. If a soldier is behaving poorly supervisors can counsel and recommend to the commander that the soldier should have a mandatory battle buddy.Â
Now the punitive nature of the dereliction of duty for a soldier not keeping a battle buddy out of trouble will be interesting to see enforced. I understand the spirit of it but I have to wonder about the practicality.Â
Overall though, with all the other restrictions on 2ID soldiers at least they don’t need a battle buddy anymore.Â
Popularity: 2%
1:03 am on March 8th, 2007 1
There is another reason for a Soldier to travel alone, from my own past. Two or more troops on the subway or anywhere else equals a “group”. A group can be attacked or in other ways made to “defend” their selves in an off-post situation, which makes really good news for the cameras, which are everywhere. It does not make good news, nor is it believable, that a lone GI would go out, “off-post” looking for trouble—Two or more locals whipping up on a lone American is not news worthy, so in Korea, not likely to happen. In 2002, while stationed at Camp Stanley, I would get many “looks” of displeasure. Looks are not the same as physical attacks on a lone little GI.
Two or more are often an easy target. But that was just my experience on the subway in 02.
12:34 am on March 9th, 2007 2
So, I’m confused here is this a rule or wishful thinking? Recommended but not required?
Muddy policies cause confusion.
1:31 am on March 9th, 2007 3
Let’s see now…3 year tours I have to spend with a battle buddy, and I can’t drink or chase whores? It really is time to re-look the Army’s policy on gay people.
2:19 am on March 9th, 2007 4
Bob Walsh—BrokeBack Korea? Might be a hit! I wouldn’t want to see it. But the Army Is changing in many ways.
5:04 am on March 9th, 2007 5
The policy clarifies that soldier do not need a battle buddy, thus no need for Brokeback Korea.
5:11 am on March 9th, 2007 6
BrokeBack Korea:
“I wish I knew how to quit you battle buddy!”
5:47 am on March 9th, 2007 7
steve, that is the funniest thing I have heard all week. ROFL
12:22 pm on December 16th, 2007 8