By It is about time that these deployments became shorter:
It is official: Nine-month deployments begin January, and the change will be fully implemented by April. The new policy does not affect soldiers who deploy prior to year’s end.
The new rules, announced Friday by Secretary of the Army John McHugh, apply to units at the division-level and below. Corps-level deployments will stay at 12 months “due to their oversight for the entire operation,” though the goal is to get them to nine months, said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Craig Ratcliff.
Augmentees to a Joint Task Force will remain on a 12-month deployment, due to the nature of those missions. Deployments for high-demand, low-density units and individual deployers will also remain at one year, as cutting their tours would require more people in those skill than currently exist.
The change applies to all named operations, which include Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Noble Guardian in Kosovo and Multi-National Forces Sinai in Egypt. [Army Times]
However, if you read the rest of the article the Army may be making the deployments shorter at the expense of less dwell time between deployments. I wonder what the dwell time will be like after the Pentagon has to cut the number of Soldiers it currently has due to budget cuts?
In my opinion a deployment schedule that doesn’t cause as much family issues as the 12-15 month deployments is a 7 month deployment with a 2-week mid-tour thrown in.
4:46 am on August 7th, 2011 1
They’re doing all they can to persuade folks not to re-up…
5:29 am on August 7th, 2011 2
A more logical solution would be to get the hell out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Your government needs to realize that the scheme aimed at expanding your influence into the Middle-East simply didn’t work out like you thought it would. Besides, you’ve already got Israel on your side.
5:33 am on August 7th, 2011 3
…And Turkey has since become a NATO member. NATO has also formed alliances with Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan.
5:35 am on August 7th, 2011 4
Is 9 months long enough to learn the job, get good at it, and train a replacement?
…not including all the New Guy and Short-timer syndromes which add a month of uselessness or more to the whole tour.
…although nothing makes GI Joe more useless than family stress… which doesn’t seem to get better over time.
Will shipping guys in and out more frequently be a large additional cost?
6:17 am on August 7th, 2011 5
CH#4, you’ve hit the nail on the head… There will be more stress, more frequent disruptions, and lower reenlistment rates…
The folks in charge of these decisions (i.e., Obama and Panetta) do not appear to have the welfare of the country at heart…
6:44 am on August 7th, 2011 6
I am not military and don’t read much about it, but aren’t the troops in Afghanistan largely special forces? I would think the speed of rotations wouldn’t influence them too much.
But, in general, I would think rotating people in and out of a job every 9 months would not work too well…
As for getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq, I’m fairly satisfied with the outcome so far…Two short wars with a start into the long, uncertain recovery phase. Afghanistan is still a major basketcase with not a great chance of making it long-term. Iraq – a very different story…
Considering how critics are always screaming “Quagmire! Quagmire! Quagmire!” every time the US is considering getting engaged in military action (or in the middle of a hot, conventional war), and considering the Soviet Union’s experience in Afghanistan…..I’m reasonably satisfied…
6:58 am on August 7th, 2011 7
#6
Huh?? “Two short wars” ??? Was that referring to Afghanistan and Iraq?
7:55 am on August 7th, 2011 8
Look at it this way:The 12 month rotation has worked so well in USFK for the last 60 or so years.
/like a well oiled machine, baby
8:17 am on August 7th, 2011 9
#7,
That’s what you call blind nationalism…How long the the US participate actively in WW1, WW2 and the Korean War? Total, years, not months, less than they’ve been in Afghanistan or Iraq.
8:29 am on August 7th, 2011 10
And what have you got to show for Iraq and Afghanistan? Two failed states…three if your economy keeps tanking.
8:30 am on August 7th, 2011 11
Well, we’re still in Korea. And Germany. And Italy. And Japan.
I don’t consider counter-insurgency and what we are seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq “war.” War involves battles. Conventional forces.
Things were pretty hot in Korea at times during the 1960s. The IRA caused a lot of havoc for the British. But they were not wars.
8:33 am on August 7th, 2011 12
2 states that have a better chance of becoming a South Korea or an Italy or a Japan or a Germany that before the US invaded. Afghanistan is a long shot, but the training camps are gone and the jihadists are forced to concentrate much of their effort on soil far from us.
But, I’m not going to get into an endless short comment war here.
9:52 am on August 7th, 2011 13
I’ll accept USinKorea’s contention that what’s happening in Afghanistan is merely dealing with an insurgency, but I think that’s a tougher case with Iraq after, say, Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” event. It’s not bolstered at all when he compares Korea in the 1960s to Iraq of the 2000s.
Ultimately, we still have lots of people dying in both and both came with huge price tags for many years.
10:13 am on August 7th, 2011 14
For me, the worst of the Iraq bloodshed after the government collapsed and the Iraqi military disappeared as a cohesive fighting force was close to war but not after the surge had an affect.
The price tages were huge. “Lots” of people dying (at least on the coalition side) is relative and debateable.
3:03 pm on August 7th, 2011 15
The Counter-insurgency on Drugs.
I like it.
3:44 pm on August 7th, 2011 16
How many Americans died in the liberation of Iraq from Saddam? How many died keeping it from becoming al Qaeda’s new home? Were mistakes made? Sure. Have you ever made a mistake? Bet you’re happy no one died…
How many U.S. Marines died taking Tarawa, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa?
How many Americans have died from car accidents caused by drunk drivers since 2001?
This “debate” is about the leftists here trying to “score points” using the most recent Stewart or Colbert clips from Youtube.
You want to offer an opinion about any aspect of the military? You want to fault Bush or Cheney as “chickenhawks”? Show me >>your<< DD214 first…
4:09 pm on August 7th, 2011 17
I hope the Libyan situation becomes an eye opener for the Europeans.
We (the USA) signed up for a No Fly mission. Since the initial bombing to take out Libya’s air defenses, we, as far as we know, have held to that commitment, plus other non-combat support like logistics and intelligence. Whatever that’s costing us, it’s probably worth it for no other reason than to make a point to our NATO friends.
The Europeans took it upon themselves to do direct ground combat support for the rebels. But since they have no real attack aircraft other than helicopters, they found out it is very difficult to do with just strike fighters. They have been grumbling ever since about our refusal to contribute A-10s or AC-130s. Whose fault is that?
It’s kind of satisfying to see them take the lead and struggle to manage an operation instead of having the luxury of sitting in the background and nitpicking at everything that goes wrong when we are in charge.
4:32 pm on August 7th, 2011 18
#16
There was zero chance of Iraq becoming “al Qaeda’s new home” under Saddam. They had decreed, for some time before, that he was an enemy. He had little tolerance for religious zealots and crushed them mercilessly.
However, without Saddam, Iran has a new ally, has gained influence and changed the balance in the Middle East.
I do have a DD-214, not that it matters.
5:20 pm on August 7th, 2011 19
setnaffa, to whom was #16 directed? Because if you’re talking about Stewart or Colbert clips and “scoring points,” you’re nowhere near where I am on this.
No taxpayer or voter has any right to express an opinion on any military matter, even if it affects our country’s political situation and said taxpayer or voter’s pocketbook and possibly safety, unless they’ve served in the military? Hogwash!
5:40 pm on August 7th, 2011 20
JoeC, Kushibo, and the Teadrinker all have opinions. They’re all quite wrong, based entirely on their politics and their fake outrage at combat deaths vs. their absolute silence over deaths caused by multiple-offense drunk drivers.
So my opinion is they should all go wash their heads in a juicy-bar commode. And my opinion is as valid as they claim theirs are.
Conflating Iraq and Afghanistan is misdirection, also called lying.
Ignoring Libya is the same.
Why not hang out at HuffPo or DU where no one will ever dissent from your morbid fantasy that al Qaeda just needed a stern letter drafted…
5:45 pm on August 7th, 2011 21
6:02 pm on August 7th, 2011 22
There were 1,009 US Troops killed at Tarawa. There were 7,100 Allied dead at Guadalcanal. There were 6,812 US troops killed/missing at Iwo Jima. And there were 12,513 killed on Okinawa. How many dead in Iraq? How many in Afghanistan?
WTF is wrong with you?
In the just the Pacific War of WW2, there were about 4,000,000 Allied troops killed as well as roughly 17,000,000 Civilians. The Japanese lost about 2,000,000 military and under 1,000,000 civilians dead.
Adding up all Allied Casualties of WW2 there were over 61,000,000–and over 12,000,000 dead on the Axis side. 92,000,000 people dead in ten years. Not to mention the wasted oil, factory capacity, and inventions not created because the scientists were either busy making bombs or being gassed in the death camps.
We’re not really in a war like that anywhere. We’re not “all-in”. And that’s immoral. When we get into a half-hearted war, we develop parasites like you. People who think killing people is okay as long as we follow the rules–who never raise their voices to criticize the real war criminals or mourn the dead cause by the people who started the wars…
Your slimy attacks against your betters does not mark you as superior to them, it marks you as a remora. You really need to do some self examination and question exactly why you have the rights you have and exactly how those rights have been preserved.
6:07 pm on August 7th, 2011 23
One article about drunk driving vs. how many about Bush/Cheney/Halliburton?
And yet you say Truman was “maybe” a War Criminal, essentially quoting Jon Stewart, whom you claim not to quote… Conflating him with Tojo, Mussolini, and Hitler…
Fine. Keep that approach. You’ll go far at Kos…
They like liars.
6:22 pm on August 7th, 2011 24
setnaffa wrote:
“One article” you clearly did not read or else you’d know it was far more than one post. Go do a word search for “drunk driving” at my site and see if only one article comes up.
Where? Where did I say this? Where did I call Truman a war criminal? Not only do I not consider him one, despite my reservations about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I have clearly laid the onus for Hiroshima and Nagasaki at Japan’s door.
You either have poor reading comprehension or highly selective reading habits.
Where? Where did I quote Jon Stewart on this matter? Then again, where did Jon Stewart say this?
You’re just pulling things out of your arse, setnaffa.
Nowhere did I say anything approaching what you’ve attributed to me. Show me. Otherwise, don’t waste my time and stop polluting this list with your b.s.
6:24 pm on August 7th, 2011 25
You’re quite a buffoon, setnaffa. My biggest criticism of the early days of Iraq is that we didn’t take it seriously enough, that Rumsfeld ignored the advice of people like Shinseki and acted as if it would be a cakewalk.
The completely opposite of wanting a “half-hearted war.”
As for Afghanistan, you will not see me asking, “Why are we still there?”
Really, what voices in your head are you arguing against?
9:09 pm on August 7th, 2011 26
For the OP, yes 9 months is better then 12. Their deploying as a unit and coming back as a unit, the ramp up / down times are significantly lower then you do this. Vs individual augmentation / assignment (Korea) where the individual must in-process and be trained up by their own replacement who’s already on their way out the door.
9:09 pm on August 7th, 2011 27
Did my previous comment get ate by the filter again…
5:32 am on August 8th, 2011 28
I’m just wondering how this will effect ARFORGEN.
6:50 am on August 8th, 2011 29
In regards to mission readiness with shorter deployments the USMC has been doing 7 month deployments for years. It is not that hard to get trained up to execute your mission now a days because so many officers and NCO’s already have combat experience. That really helps to mentor and train new troops.
7:54 am on August 8th, 2011 30
“I don’t consider counter-insurgency and what we are seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq “war.” War involves battles. Conventional forces. ”
Sorry, but something’s terribly wrong with that argument. To me it sounds like little more than a convenient way of rationalizing and justifying the human rights abuses taking place at Guantanamo Bay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khadr
12:33 pm on August 8th, 2011 31
30 Jumped the shark here — making it very obvious who is blinded by something.
How in the world could claiming those two conflicts have not been “wars” justify Gitmo?
Claiming they are wars would do more to justify it than claiming they are not.
12:40 pm on August 8th, 2011 32
setnaffa,
You and I overlap in agreement on several points – but – you can make your case without the personal attacks.
You take the time to make and support your viewpoint and criticize the ones you disagree with. Keep that up, but please edit out the direct personal insults and attacks before submitting…
1:22 pm on August 8th, 2011 33
I’m pretty sure that if I were still in and heading to Korea I would want a minimum of one year there. I wonder if it would be easier to get a bonus to extend ones tour of duty there after January 2012?
4:26 pm on August 8th, 2011 34
#32, I agree. And I will. I’m sorry I allowed myself to become emotional about the topics.
2:09 pm on December 5th, 2011 35
This is nothing but a scam to keep from giving the soldiers a tax break. If they are only deployed for 9 months they will have to pay taxes on all of their income. If they are deployed for 12 months they will not have to pay income tax on until they make more that $90,400. They have screwed our soldiers again.
4:42 pm on December 5th, 2011 36
I cannot substantiate this with a printed source, but it seems some branches may still deploy more than 9 months due to popular demand.
4:51 pm on December 5th, 2011 37
Augmentees to a Joint Task Force will remain on a 12-month deployment, due to the nature of those missions. Deployments for high-demand, low-density units and individual deployers will also remain at one year, as cutting their tours would require more people in those skill than currently exist.
Yep, that’s how they are keeping my ass out their longer than 9 months when my time comes.