‘Kelly Temps’ In Uniform
Yeah, I’m about to get a bit long-winded – and some might say, “wax ignorant” – again. And this article is somewhat (but not exclusively) Army-specific, so read on at your own risk. (smile)
Much of the readership here at TAH has a military background. (Duh!) But even within the military, experiences and commitments vary. There’s a huge difference in terms of experiences, careers, and commitments between those who on active duty and those who serve “part time” – e.g., in the Reserve Components.
That dichotomy is largely by design, and is to be expected. So is a substantial back-and-forth banter – and at times, some animosity – between the Active and Reserve Components. The roles are different, and what’s required and expected of each is different. The Active Component is there 24/7/365, and provides the primary military response in times of crisis. The Reserve Component, by design, is there to augment the active forces when required.
At least, there’s a difference during peacetime service. During wartime, when serving together those distinctions blur. My background is Army, so I’ll discuss the Army; other services may be different. When you serve on active duty and deploy to a combat zone, the uniform says “US Army”; it doesn’t say “Active Army”, “Army Reserve”, or “Army National Guard”. So when it hits the fan, so to speak, the distinctions fade. Mission and imminent threat forces that. But the distinctions resume when one redeploys.
There’s no argument that the Active Component forces have the harder role. They’re required to be fully ready 24/7/365, and to deploy and fight on much shorter notice than the Reserve Components. They train more, and suffer more as a result – e.g., earlier casualties, more time away from family due to training, more peacetime training injuries, etc . . . . They’re doing their job full time; it’s their livelihood and (for many) their career. Yes, the Active Component forces have a more comprehensive support infrastructure. So? They’re serving full-time, after all. The Reserve Components aren’t.
That was once clearly true. But is that really quite true any more – particularly for the Army?
Time for a historical sidebar. And yes, it is related – though it might not initially seem relevant.
. . .
LBJ managed to get the US militarily involved in a major war in Vietnam largely through deceitful, stealthy means. In Vietnam, LBJ presented the American public a fait accompli before virtually anybody fully realized what had happened. At the end of 1964, the US had less than 23,500 troops of all types in Vietnam. By the end of 1965, there were nearly 185,000 – before any serious public debate had even occurred. But by then any such debate was moot. At that point, with 185,000 troops in-country we were committed militarily for the long haul – like it or not. Read MG H. R. McMaster’s book Dereliction of Duty for the details. (If you aren’t so angry after reading that book that you literally want to curse out loud or punch a wall – well, you’re a better person than I am.)
Although all services fought in Vietnam, the Army provided the vast majority – roughly 2/3 – of all US forces and thus was the service most affected. And Vietnam very seriously hurt the US Army, with effects felt for a decade or longer afterwards. During Vietnam, units worldwide were “gutted” to provide troops and equipment for the war. And the resulting Vietnam after-effects – anti-military backlash within American society, serious drug problems, serious racial tensions, serious breakdowns in discipline, induction/retention of many marginal soldiers due to manpower shortages – reverberated in the Army for years. Full recovery didn’t really occur for about 15 years after the last Army combat forces left Vietnam in 1971. Some would say full recovery didn’t truly occur until after Desert Storm.
LBJ was able to involve the US deeply in Vietnam without large-scale Reserve Component involvement or mobilization. He was able to do so because the Army’s force structure in the Active and Reserve Components mirrored each other. LBJ didn’t need to order a large-scale mobilization of Reserve Component forces to commit the US to war in Vietnam – with the corresponding political “heat” and debate that would have caused. Rather, he could do it by robbing Peter to pay Paul within the Active Army of his day.
And LBJ steadfastly refused to order any large Reserve mobilization during Vietnam, even after Tet in 1968. He knew a significant Reserve mobilization would have serious political repercussions. In essence, LBJ knew that mobilizing the Reserves might end public support for Vietnam outright – or could cause serious problems for the social programs he championed simultaneously. Or both.
After Vietnam, the Army’s leadership said, “Never again.” And the Army changed its force structure to prevent this kind of “stealth entry” into a major war from ever occurring in the future.
Much of the combat support and combat service support infrastructure needed to support large-scale combat operations was moved into the Reserve Components, generally into the US Army Reserve. A few specialties – most notably Civil Affairs – became largely Reserve Component entities. The rationale was that this would force national leadership to build a political consensus supporting any large-scale conflict. Why? Because any large-scale conflict would now require significant Reserve Component mobilization.
. . .
This new Total Army force structure worked well during the Gulf War. Reserve Component units were mobilized as-needed to support the Desert Shield buildup and the Desert Storm hostilities. They were called-up, trained up, went to war, and provided support. They then came home, demobilized, and went back to being Reserve units. The concept and new force structure was validated.
Well, not so fast. The concept was “sort of” validated. But sometimes we find out that what we think is a good solution only works part of the time. Specific conditions matter.
Desert Shield lasted less than six months. Desert Storm, just over one (and ground combat lasted about 4 days). And we were mostly redeployed back to CONUS (or Germany) within 18 months, max.
Fast forward a decade – to 11 September 2001. We found ourselves at war again. And this time, things went . . . differently.
Unlike the Gulf War, 9/11 ushered in a protracted period of conflict – more than a decade now, much of it until recently in two different sub-theaters of operations. But the Army’s overall force structure and mix hadn’t really changed dramatically between 1990 and 2001 – and still really hasn’t today. A large fraction of the Army’s combat support and combat service support is still in the Reserve Components. But it’s been needed pretty much continuously for the past decade – and has been heavily used.
The Army Reserve now tells Reservists point blank: expect to serve 1 year out of 5 in on active duty. It has for at least the past 5 years. Many Reservists in critically-needed specialties have already served multiple years on active duty since 9/11, away from home/job/family. And this situation doesn’t look to change anytime soon. The Active Component force structure is shrinking, not adding combat support and combat service support assets to support protracted combat operations.
And that, IMO, is problematic.
The vast majority of Reservists are proud of their service, patriotic, and are willing to serve when and where needed. But they are, by and large, Reservists – not “full-timers”. They have families and civilian careers to think about. The military is not their primary livelihood; their civilian careers are. Being gone for a while during a national emergency is “part of the deal”. But being gone repeatedly 1 year in 5 (or more often) puts them at a serious disadvantage in their civilian careers. And Reserve units also don’t generally have the same support infrastructure as do the Active Component. So when they deploy, their families often take a substantially harder hit than those in the Active Component.
And remember: Reservists are in the Reserve Component by choice. Had they wanted to be full-time members of the military, they would have doubtless joined the Active Component (or wouldn’t have left it in the first place). At some point, “vote with their feet” comes into play. The first to leave will likely be the proverbial “best and brightest” – the ones we really need to keep. And if that happens enough, we will have a very serious problem.
IMO it’s already started. I’ve personally seen one absolutely sterling young Reserve officer pack it in. This was an individual who, like TSO, had also completed a law degree – in this individual’s case, while a Reservist. He could have been one helluva asset to the Army Reserve and DoD had he stayed. But after two deployments (one in-theater, one stateside) and the prospect of more, he packed it in. His primary reason? The prospect of those expected future deployments interfering with any possibility of him establishing a normal civilian career and family life after law school. I suspect there have easily been literally dozens more junior and mid-grade Reserve officers who’ve done the same. And I’m certain that a much larger number of exceptional enlisted Reservists have declined to re-up for the same reason.
The general expectation Reservists had before 9/11 was “I’ll keep myself trained; I’ll serve when and where needed by the nation.” But there was an implicit but understood part of that expectation – that their service would be during a real emergency, when the nation truly needed them. They didn’t expect to be a uniformed version of “Kelly temps” called up at irregular intervals so the Army could avoid hiring additional full-time staff. But for the past several years, IMO that’s pretty much how the Army Reserve and National Guard appears to have been used – as Kelly temps in uniform.
Being “on call” 24/7 for a second job is exciting, and can be fun; ask any volunteer fireman. But it’s only fun for a while. Getting called in at 2AM for something that’s not your primary career eventually gets old. And that’s especially true when it starts happening often enough to cost you bigtime vis-à-vis your peers at your “day job”.
I don’t know how much longer we can continue on our present course before we risk breaking our Reserve forces, at least in the Army. But eventually I fear that could happen. And I also fear we may be far closer to doing that than senior leadership realizes.
Thoughts?
Category: Big Army, Historical, Military issues, Terror War
To a larger extend the Air Force has been working the in the same manner. For example most of our refuling fleet are Guard/Reserve and while that does a good job of meeting the demand during peace time, it puts a vary large strain on them during war-time. The question, well at least for the AF, has been how do we accomplish our mission when the mandated troop levels are being constantly reduced, and the Guard/Reserve has been the answer for many years now. How much longer we can sustain this force structure, coupled with the reduced funding and manpower (end strength) allowances is TBD by people in a much higher pay brackt than I. So, the Army is not alone Hondo, we are all in this together.
Not to say that our (AF) situation is the exact same as we do not have the same mission set as the Army, but when you couple this with “in-lieu” of taskings (AF deploying to fill short fall Army requirements) the pain is being felt by all.
-Ish
“There’s no argument that the Active Component forces have the harder role.” I would respectfully disagree that this isn’t always the case. In short, when we are on inactive duty in the reserves, we still have to train, study, PT for reserve readiness, and then go to our full-time civilian jobs. We are soldiers and sailors, but we are also cops, and firemen, and laborers, and even lawyers who work 80 hours a week. In the active duty, they make allowances in your schedule for you to study, PT, train, etc. Most civilian jobs don’t give you the latitude. You get 30 days of paid leave a year. In civilian jobs, you won’t see that until you hit 20 years. When I was deployed or mobilized, I had only one job: my miltary job. My civilian job didn’t call me. Not true in the reserves. In fact, I conduct conference calls, RAS into my military electronic accounts and basically work from home 24/7 for the Coast Guard. Whenever I was demobed, I had two jobs: My reserve duties and my civilan job. In fact, RADM Atkin told me that we belong to the Coast Guard Reserves 365 days a year, but we are TDY to our civilian jobs until the next contigency. Admittedly, this was different before September 11, 2001. Since then the reserves have evolved into a much more demanding component. Now, I will admit that my brother-in-law who was a Green Berets absolutely paid the price. He has an artificial disc in his back, he has hearing aids, and he needs a hip replacement. That was all due to his decades of jumping out of aircraft, and rucking his ass off around the globe. No doubt he had it harder than me. But, I also meet a lot of people in the active duty ranks (Army and Navy) who couldn’t cut it as a reservist because of the demands. They think reservists only work one weekend a month and twoo weeks a year because that’s the only time they see us. I ask many of them “When was… Read more »
I failed to state that your oerall points are well made and I agree with them. My points were offered for amplification.
I have a funny feeling that the Army saw this coming all along. The system had been set up in order to ensure that political consensus had been obtained prior to deploying forces over a long time period.
After 9/11 that concensus was obtained, but the two groups that gave their consent the House and Senate also decided to screw with the system and instead of demanding that the Army as well as the other services increase their overall hiring they simply left the budget decisions undecided. The last decade of war has always seemd like an exercise in how to fight the war on the cheap. Unfortunately, that cheap initiative, i.e. fewer personnel in uniform didn’t save anyone any money. The Army found itself in need of more personnel so they were forced mobilize Reserve and Guard units as well as hire thousands of contractors to fill the gap in a myriad of positions.
Congress sets the staffing levels of the Services, unfortunately Congress wasn’t interested in increasing those levels to even the minimum required and even now we see that they are in fact lowering the current limits on the numbers allowed to stay on active duty. Those currently serving, that get reduced are surely not going to opt for a reserve or guard slot, they are quite likely going to say…no more, I’ve met my entire comittment, no more. That is simply going to further stress the Guard and Reserve units even more because their ranks will not be replenished and there will be even fewer joes able to be pushed into those temporary positions.
Bring back the draft. Service should be a shared responsibility……….
There is only one program that exists in the Army that would help this problem in the Army Reserve in the current force structure but, it is a small program and not widely known about even within the military. It is called the Military Technician program.
It employs TPU unit members as civilian federal employees with a condition of employment that if they lose their Reserve status they lose their job. Of course there are exceptions in the law for some of this and the National Gaurd also has a MILTECH program which seems a little different because they all wear their uniform to work where as the MILTECH reservists do not.
On the logistical maintenance side of the house these employees store and maintain reserve/gaurd equipment from a tent to an M88. Which is needed since there are no reservists during the month to do this.
There is talk of this program’s days being numbered and Reservists are all going through a QMP board in the very near future. as I understand it, anyone with a 20 year letter is going to be reviewed but, I don’t know the standards they will be using for retention.
It is an Army of the cheap.
One weekend a month my ass!
I’ve been active duty (10 years), and in the so-called reserve component (ARNG, IRR, USAR)(10 years). I’m now on the retired reserve. Having been a military brat, I’ve hit all components of the Army except for the Honored Dead.
There’s been a number of discussions on the roles of the Army and its components. Townie76 over at Op-for is a good one to ask.
Having said all this: it’s time to rethink the matter. Our Army is no longer expeditionary. Bring the Army home from Europe, and reconsolidate along the southern border (CA-TX).
Return the Guard to state control, but make it well-rounded force. Tanks are nice, but are useless supporting the evacuation from a hurricane, or cleaning up after an ice storm.
Or, the states bolster their already created militias (Virginia has one, though it’s mostly the academic staff at VMI) to handle civil support; and the Guard and Reserve are combined to create functional, viable BCT for Homeland Defense.
Definitely time to rethink the paradigm.
When I was in the Regular Army, that’s what I figured. However, in the Nat Guard, we’d get called up for deployment training on a Thur and be expected to show up on Friday…do you know how many times I had to tell the police chief: “Sorry boss, but they came up with some more useless fucking off the wall training that the reg army thinks we need to do because they don’t think we know our fucking jobs.”
Before we were put on active fucking duty orders for Bosnia, they called us in for over 60 days of stupid ass shit training.
I had a police capt who was ready to fucking fire me and I know lots of folks who did loose good jobs or didn’t get promoted. Yeah, I know there’s laws against it, but for those reserve pukes who got deployed, they suffered.
And for our families- they were totally on their own…we didn’t live on some army post where they could get help etc.
half way through my Iraq deployment, 60fucking percent of the troops there were reserves and guard folks. As a Nat Guard SSG, I actually had a mix of people I was in charge of- Reg Army, Reserve, and Nat Guard from different states.
and for the training when we got to Fort polk and Fort Lewis- we were put in the comdemmend fucking barracks and ate shit food.
When I was on active duty- I expected to go places and was ready for it.
LTG Stultz in 2006 on ARFORGEN: “ARFORGEN ‘tells the soldier, you can expect to … have four years of inactive service, and then be deployed for up to a year, and then come back for another four years,’ Stultz said. ‘You can build your life around it.'” ( http://usmilitary.about.com/od/deploymentsconflicts/a/arforgen.htm ) HAHAHAHAHAhahaha…. I might be mobing for AFG this winter, and I *still* don’t know. If that deployment happens, I will end a six year contract in the Reserves having spent MORE DAYS IN UNIFORM THAN OUT. I mean, I wouldn’t change a thing about my enlistment. I’m more proud of my service and my Iraq deployment than anything I’ve ever done, outside of tricking my wife into marrying me. I’m actually excited about the chance to have one more tour, one last chance to use my training – but I’m not re-enlisting, because that was the deal with the wife. @ Adirondack Patriot – amen to all of that. Another point along those lines – I just came off a four-day drill. Got four hours of sleep Friday, five on Saturday (three hours, then up for two manning comms, then another two), and six on Sunday, with a long day as Range Safety, a four mile ruck, and hours in the car on either side of it. Loved every minute, but I don’t get recovery time before I report to my civilian job. In fact, I’m logged on from home right now, trying to make up some of the stuff I missed. Oh, and I should note, anyone familiar with Distance Learning? They take a bunch of the common core classroom materials out of courses like ALC, and you do them from home. Which means you get to spend hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours doing Army school stuff, but not get paid for it. Woo hoo! How awesome is THAT! @ David M – “Congress wasn’t interested in increasing those levels to even the minimum required” – exactly. It’s unconscionable how some units were used – deploy for 12 months, come home for 12… Read more »
Hondo, spot on Brother! And the US Army is standing up a Regular Army Civil Affairs Brigade, the 85th out of Fort Hood, and 4 Battalions. I am dropping my conditional release packet to be released from the Reserve this week, and by end of the Summer, should be an Active Duty CA SSG…
recently found out that “dwell time” for the National Guard is 18 months. That’s how friends of mine who got back from Iraq in August 2010 are now mobing for Afghanistan. Units in the Guard might only deploy 1 our of 5 years, but they just shuffle people around to different units. And for some unknown reason we still have people in Kosovo and MFO in the Sinai. Guess who’s doing those missions? I’ve done 2 deployments since 2006. I don’t mind, but I just wish they’d quit blowing sunshine up my ass and be honest about it. Not to mention we also have the joy of State Active Duty missions (hello hurrican season!)
Active army structure has changed…that is grossly incorrect. The force is made to deploy as brigades vrs the divisions it was 15 years ago. With more and more battalions able to deploy without outside aid and independent of even its own.sister battalions and nanny brigade. Remember divarty?
To the whining about active duty leave that is a joke. Only after deployment was I able to use the leave I earned that year. You are told when and where to use your leave and rarely can use it.
To the whining about food and billiting get real…active eats the same if not worse and sleeps in the same if not worse.
Have you reservists ever slept in a OP for 2 weeks have you ever slept in a hole? Have you ever lived out of a vehicle for months? Have you ever worked a month 2000 miles from home training snotty nosed cadets with 3 days off in between over a month doing various tables and field problems back to back followed by 4 day in town pass with a trip to jrtc/ntc immediately after? Ohh ya don’t forget that 15 month deployment to actual combat (not disney land and kbr, talking burning your own shit and fearing for your brothers lives every second) after the 22 days of block leave after that.
To the whining about Bosnia?!?!!? Get real I would take that camping trip in a heart beat over my deployments. MANY active army units went thru about 10 years of 12+ months deployment with a year or less ( of which over 6 months was in the field, more for certain units) “dwell” time followed by another actual deployment to combat. No sympathy for people in reserves griping about their deployments because it is a joke.
We could talk about the reserves camping trips to Bosnia and their “combat” deployments to Kuwait Saudi the green zone balad and other Disney land type fobs vrs a grunts deployment to holes ,cps cops bombed out buildings. Hiding behind sandbags and hescos vrs green beans and dominoes and college graduation ceremonies
I am a reservist in a shortage MOS (68WF3) I have been on ADOS/RC for about 18 months now, and we are being kept on for at least another 12 (starting in Oct). At this point I honestly just want to jump back to active duty or be done with it all. Sadly because we are so short, the commander wont sign a conditional release to AD (cant really blame him for that). So I am stuck in the kinda active duty role till my ETS date roles around……by then I will have been not doing my civilian job for almost three continues years.
Worst of both worlds….
#13: yes. I was doing it before there was a 9/11. And after, too. And, this may surprise you: going reserves was a faster way to war back then.
@13-bitter much?
yeah I was a fobbit on the last deployment to Iraq. so were the 2ID guys across the street from me. The NG grunt guys who deployed from 04-07 might take umbrage with your incoherent babble however. Especially my buddies sporting multiple Purple Hearts. And yes Bosnia, Kosovo and MFO in the Sinai are sad pathetic missions. Why are we still doing them 10, 20 and 30 years on now? As I said, I don’t mind deploying, but it’s a case of piss poor force management by big Army that leads to the Guard and Reserves doing multiple deployments. Stop with the bullshit about 1 in 5. We do damn neat the same rotation schedule as the active duty people and still have to listen to bullshit from people with their snide “weekend warrior” remarks.
And as somebody previously mentioned, we’re still held to the same standards as AD folks (APFT, NCOES/OES, and all of the other little time killing mandatory BS training).
And if you still think the Guard/Reserves is skate, go get a part time job and see how your full time employer likes it when you have to tell him “Sorry got to go my boss needs me to do XYZ. I should be back in a couple of weeks, months or maybe a year.”
Anon, you act like we don’t do that shit also…shut the fuck up.
Anonymous: “force structure” is not synonymous with “TO&E organization.” Yes, the Army has reorganized from a division-based structure to BCTs since 9/11. That is a change in TO&E organization. However, roughly the same relative proportion of combat arms/combat support arms/combat service support is found in the Active and Reserve Components today as was the case on 9/11. That is the overall force structure.
Out of curiosity: just precisely how many times have you ever had to balance demands of a civilian career (which pays the vast majority of your bills and which is your primary livelihood) and your military obligations? Until you’ve done that, I’d suggest you refrain from lecturing those in the Reserve Components about how “easy” the Reserves have it. Because, frankly, unless and until you’ve done both you have no basis for comparison.
A large number of Reservists – I’d guess a majority, actually – have several years experience on the Active Duty side of the house also. They therefore have experience in both worlds. From your attitude, I’d guess you’ve never been a Reserve Component soldier – and thus only know Active Duty.
Stacy can’t be said much better…
Just for the record, I LOVED going to Bosnia and think it was the best job I ever had in my life- but I got to go out everyday. If I was stuck on the camp, I would have gone awol.
Hondo, I’ll disagree with you on a few of your points and will generally support your conclusion: It wasn’t “the military” but rather the polticians that decided on the current force structure, or the ones before it. CONGRESS, and only Congress, often at the request of the POTUS decides force structure and how many boots are authorized. The POTUS may send Panetta or Dempsey down to Capitol Hill to make the case, but in the end, those are political appointees, and in today’s world, nothing more. The problem (overuse/burnout of the Guard/Reserve) is not going to get better. In fact, even in “ending” the War in Afghanistan, this Administration has plans to maintain the 1 on/4 off plan of abuse of the Guard/Reserve. An old Vet I know, with an accomplished record has a tagphrase he ends most conversations with: “Don’t call me unless you need me.” These “disney trips” some people are talking about here fit this perfectly. The Guard/Reserve are there for emergencies. You have a war to fight and need them to jump in and beef up the force, call them. You have a lawn to mow (standard, run of the mill operations), leave them alone. Which type of service is more difficult? Each has its own challenges. Sure, it seems nice to be able to pursue a duel career, but even Jesus noted that a man cannot be the servant of two masters. Twelve days of work is a regular (monthly) occurance in the Reserve system. The Reserve system has Troops for a short amount of time and needs a LOT of s*** done. They attempt to squeeze every minute out of every day. Leaders have to be reminded that humans have limits. Reserve components have high unemployment rates, despite the laws. They have high educational levels. There is a lack of support structures for dependents while Troops are away. Conversely, the Active Components have a clearly defined schedule, and it has been sometime since Active Units were “on call” to be anywhere in the world in 24 hrs (see 82nd Abn Brigade rotations of the… Read more »
Wow! What a lot of, well, whatever it is!
Having made an entire career in the Air National Guard, after having been an Army brat, I was somewhat surprised to discover that it was the Guard that did most of the “tactical” flying for the Air Force. I sort of didn’t even believe it when my unit received two Presidential Unit citations for being the most active refueling unit in the fleet (of any service, active or reserve) during Viet Nam.
You see, we in the Guard were required to remain fully ready to deploy at a moments notice. (Although we rarely got less than 36 hours notice.) Fully trained for any mission assigned.
Because during my initial 3-yr enlistment I did more active duty days than active forces would have done during a two year enlistment, I got out. It was not possible at that time (for me, anyway) to build both civilian and military careers. I concentrated on the civilian side for a few years, then reenlisted.
It was a great decision, which allowed me to have two wonderful careers concurrently. Not for everyone, of course, but it worked well for me. Was actually able to retire from my civiian job and remain in the Guard for another 14 years.
Point being, and I cannot speak for the Army, but on the Air side of things, it was we in the Guard who stayed prepared for our military and civil emergency responsibilities. And got all the shots and silly EEO briefings. While we did all the career advancement studies on our own time. And when there was time, took care of our full-time jobs/careers.
So, no, I wouldn’t exactly say that we had it “easy.” Worthwhile? Absolutely! My reality was that I had a full-time job for which I got full pay and a second job, which was often a full-time job, for which I got part-time pay.
@ #21 WOTN: My previous comments (the WOW! part) were not directed at you. Got interrupted and delayed in posting until after your post. Oops!
Just recently came off a Reserve deployment. I did two previous on active duty. there are huge differences between active and reserve.
Some but not limited to:
1. juggling full time school/civilian work w/ reserve duty
2. poor leadership and poor planning for weekend training events. not maximizing the time you have or poor training events.
3. juggling family life/military duties
4. PISS POOR leadership and training before the deployment. the training events we had were a JOKE(although i heard it wasn’t entirely up to us to ‘pick and choose’ training – up to MARFORRES)
5. training w/ people who have not deployed in years or NONE at all(f u deployment dodgers)
6. training w/ people who were used to different MOS like grunts coming to a ‘pog’ unit
list goes on…
as for predeployment leave – got more on active duty(had more built up) only had 5 days as Reserve(all i had and they wouldnt not let me go ‘in the hole’
post deployment leave – more concerned with getting us off orders and getting us ‘out of there’. did give us plenty of leave/relax time when we got back though. Rushed medical and concerned people were ‘disappearing’ and not coming back to ‘work’ while had appointments all day etc.
theres ups/downs for reserve duty or active. its up to the individual on whats ‘best’ for them.. ive experienced both and i prefer active duty.
P.S. would’ve loved to jump on a non-combat deployment to Bosnia or wherever else.. be glad you do other deployments then a non-combat. alot of people dont get a choice.
Hondo thank you for explaining or re explaining your part. The second go round was much easier for knuckledragger me to comprehend.
Maybe I should have made my reactionary comments in the @ post number @ commenter name format.
Not bitter at all in the difference of jobs. Down right offended when I read and hear reservists (all POG) and national guard bitch about chow, billiting, deployments, training etc. One thing about debating force structure and military use of reserves and ng. Entirely another to bitch about bad chow and those big army leakiest making me stay in shape
Continuation of 26.
Leakiest = meanies.
You signed up for a job got ALL the same benefits and want to complain when your country needs you because active duty had spent its gas and was killing themselves and the DOD/politicians designed your force to support and sometimes rarely augment the combat arms.
You should be proud of your service proud of your time spent proud of the memories and inner feeling of standing up and saying I. Not whining on public forms about 1 in 5 or 2 in 5 etc. Soldier up or get out. Some of these comments are what the John Kerry juniors are saying minus the we kill babies part. Some of these comments are worse than little privates.
The army including part timers is supposed tobe free of the “I” shit.
To the comments about balancing your real life or career etc. Your unit is part of your real life and your career. If it is so bad why did you join? Did you just expect it to be smoother or did it just wear on you? Some not all of these commenters should be ashamed. All should be proud for playing their part. Not complaining that big army didn’t feed me well or my barracks were smelly. Jason aPlease tell me what reserve unit slept in a hole for consecutive weeks.
To one of the questions about have I ever had to balance a career. No the army was my career. I would ask reserves and ng have they ever gone a 4 year period seeing their wife less than 180 days? It was part of the job asked by our politicians to do on behalf of our fellow citizens and the rest of the world. Think that every active duty soldier hadn’t wished for a year to recoop the body and soul..?
The above anon has a way more healthier outlook
Very true 27- I’m still proud regardless. I was just pointing out flaws. And noting the differences for people who don’t fully grasp it.
WOTN: Congress approves overall staffing levels for the services, which in turn caps the size of the force and thus limits force structure in that respect. But as I recall, only in relatively rare cases does Congress dictate the overall mix of forces or the active/reserve allocation of those forces. That allocation is what I meant by “force structure”, and I believe that is the commonly-accepted use of the term.
The determination of precise mix of types of units and active/reserve allocation of same is almost always made by the services themselves, albeit with substantial input from the Presidential Administration in charge at the time. Congressional effects on this proposed allocation of forces are generally in terms of limiting the forces desired by the services to less than those requested.
Both Congress and the Clinton/Bush(43)/Obama administrations IMO share blame for the current shortfalls in active component force structure and consequent overuse of the Reserve components. The former get part of the blame for limiting the size of the force; the latter, for failing to ask for the number and types of forces necessary to support a protracted war. I give the latter the lion’s share of the blame since 9/11, as until recently Congress has been relatively willing to appropriate funds to support operations in the CENTCOM AOR.
Anonymous (26, 27): For someone who claims not to be bitter, you certainly seem to have the proverbial “hard-on” for the Reserve Components. If that’s not the case, you might want to reevaluate your choice of words – because that’s certainly the way you’re coming across here. You’ve indicated your experience has been solely with the Active Component. That is apparent in your comments above. They are not accurate regarding Active Component and Reserve Component benefits. That’s not uncommon; many if not most Active Component soldiers share the same inaccurate perception of the benefits received by Active and Reserve Component personnel. They are decidedly NOT the same. Here’s a sample: 1. Active Component soldiers and their families have a medical care entitlement 24/7/365. Reserve Component soldiers do not. The Reserve Component soldier is covered only while on active duty, at drill, or on the way to/from same. Their family is not covered unless they’re on orders to perform active duty for a period of longer than 30 days. 2. Ditto service-connection for post-service medical conditions. Active Component soldiers can receive service-connection for pretty much any condition due to an injury received during their career that (except perhaps those linked to personal misconduct). For a reservist, only those conditions incurred or aggravated while serving on active duty/drill/travel to/from same can be rated as service-connected. Hurt yourself at home between drills and can’t continue your Reserve career? Tough. Medical separation, and the VA won’t rate that as service corrected since it didn’t happen on active duty/drill or while traveling to/from same. 3. Active Component soldiers have dental coverage 24/7/365. Reserve Component soldiers are covered for emergency care only at drills and when on active duty for 30 days or less. As a reservist, you have to be on active duty orders for longer than 30 days to be entitled to full dental care. And you’re out of luck when not on active duty or at drill (you can purchase TRICARE Dental Insurance, which is OK for preventative and minor care, but as I recall not much beyond that). And the VA only… Read more »
Anon 26 – yes, it would be great to hear exactly whom you’re arguing against. Because I haven’t noticed anyone complaining about 1 in 5. I haven’t noticed anyone complaining about serving, or who isn’t proud of his service. I see straw men falling left and right here, with one guy’s side comment about food being blown up into his whole argument.
And by the way, I’m not complaining. I’m just opting not to re-up, because this shit is crazy. And if you’ll notice, that was the point of the initial post…
Hondo, we’re talking about the same thing and for the most part in agreement. The Administration sends the request to Congress, and Congress approves it. As per the Constitution, the Army (and Air Force) can be appropriated no more than 2 years out. (While the Navy and Marines are a required and permanent force.) The current force structure: 10 Active Divisions, Combat Arms in the National Guard, and Service Support in the Reserves was established in the early 90’s. Bush Sr. “cashed in the peace dividend,” asking and receiving approval for Congress to reduce the number of Troops and Divisions from 18 to 12. Clinton sold the shares, reducing the Army by 2 more Divisions, and reducing the number of Troops authorized per Division. Clinton attempted to change the nature of the Military, from Warfighting to Peacekeeping. His “vision” was to have operations such as Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, where Our Troops were deployed as part of an international force, “to end hostilities,” not to fight wars. The Clinton Admin also recognized that the new force would be unable to fight and win wars on two fronts, with a force in reserve (say Korea & Iraq). Hence it created the “1+1 strategy.” In this, it was supposed to fight one war, while holding a 2nd war to a stalemate, until the first was over, then win it. Shinsucki was a key component in the Clinton plans. He attempted to trade tracked vehicles for wheeled vehicles. Bradleys for Strikers. We went from 3 armored divisions in the 80’s to 1 at the end of the 90’s. And then he gave everyone a beret, or two, and denied the recommendation for a modern boots. Bush Jr. also bears some responsibility for not convincing Congress to increase the number of authorized Troops in uniform. As I was too busy overseas during the period where he had the mandate to do so to keep up with that aspect, I can’t tell you if he made a weak request, or no request. I do know the political pressure was on purchasing uparmored HumVees, Body Armor, and… Read more »
WOTN: Agreed. My only quibble with what you said originally was that you appeared to give Congress excessive responsibility for force structure shaping. IMO, pretty much all Congress does is establish overall caps through limiting the number of bodies and dollars authorized. The services and the Administration in power proposes and manages the distribution of those bodies and dollars.
I don’t see that re-instituting a draft would help much with the current situation. A draft would probably be for the Active Component only. While that would probably induce additional reserve component enlistments as well (it did during Vietnam – those who had a low draft number and no deferment sometimes tried to enlist in the USAR or ARNG before they got their induction order), it wouldn’t solve the problem. Without a force structure change that enlarges the Active Component through adding combat support/combat service support units, the problem of overusing the reserve components during a protracted conflict would still exist. Putting a large portion of the Army’s overall combat support and combat service support in the Reserve Component guarantees that.
Congress DOES have exclusive authority over endstrength, structure, and regulations of the Military. They have ceded that authority in large part to the Executive, which has CinC responsibility/authority DURING war, but that does not alleviate them of responsibility.
No, the draft, nor continued abuse of Reserve Forces does NOT fix the problem, nor is it intended to do so. In fact, the very point of the policy is to create the problem. The politicians pushing the policy see it as a win-win: they make National Defense difficult, ensure reliance on an international coalition (under UN or NATO), AND get to spend the money on other things, as well as spend DoD money on green energy (as they are now).
WOTN: Agreed that Congress has the final authority; I was addressing the current practice.
And that current practice is not necessarily bad. I’d frankly rather have DoD develop the desired US force structure and propose it to Congress for funding/alteration vice having it built entirely as the result of political backroom deals at the SASC and HASC.
If it were politically independent Generals, establishing force structure based on a policy of National Defense in light of the world situation, I would agree, but it is not. It is political appointees, including politicized Generals, like Shinsucki, Dempsey & Mullen, but primarily unelected politicians such as Panetta, Carter, et.al. with NO military experience, and little in book knowledge, making decisions based on politics and being heralded as “DoD Officials” in the press.
WOTN: I think we may need to agree to disagree here. IMO, the alternatives appear to be (1) let Congress determine the US military force structure, or (2) let DoD determine what they want to ask for and provide same to Congress for use as a starting point.
It’s been my experience that the best way of getting someone to do the right thing is to create a road map showing what right looks like and how to get there.
Yes, the current process is imperfect. But politics is a consideration that can’t be ignored, even when it comes to military matters. And even with the political inputs/considerations the Pentagon adds, I still trust them to come up with a better force structure than would Congress. That’s especially true given how generally successful Congress has been lately at getting anything done.
No I was just pointing out that even though I complained alot about my Reserve deployment(anyone would’ve to be honest)that i was somehow not “proud” of what ive done.. then i corrected myself.
there are alot of differences between reserve and active.. and honestly its up to the person on what he/she wants to do.. you can have pros/cons on both sides.
ive done them both, and i can say active duty is better
Anonymous (38): Fair enough. I’ve done both also. Each component has it’s own advantages and disadvantages, as well as its unique challenges. They’re not directly comparable.
And you’re correct – it’s an individual decision as to which component is a better fit.
would’ve loved to jump on a ‘regular’ deployment(MEU or otherwise) when I was active.. or even as a Reserve doing training overseas or something or a good AT exercise… be glad on what your picked for.. as the saying goes.. individual experience may vary
Coming from a reserve medical unit (USAH in the TPU) I can tell you, we, as reservists, are tired. I’ve seen bright soldiers getting into dental, medical and PA school, and coming up on orders, and not being able to get into programs like STRAP, so they are delayed or miss the change to go to those programs. I’ve seen reservists do two and three combat tours (68W and 88M’s are my main two bodies of soldiers) and come home for a year, sometimes less , then go right back out for 18 months. I’ve seen soldiers come home, and as soon as the PDHA is done, go on a drinking bender and stick a weapon in their mouths and no one ever knows. Big Army doesn’t track us like they do the AD. We demob then drop off the radar. It’s tough being on active duty, I’ve been mobilized.It’s a lot of work, with a stressful environment. I feel that it’s incredibly challenging to run two careers at once, and to attempt to give your all to both of them. It is what we choose to do, and most of us are damn proud of it, but I feel that making the USAR/ARNG an active tactical reserve instead of a strategic reserve is weakening the overall force. The reorganization of the support elements into the ARNG/USAR pretty much guaranteed that wherever the active duty guys go, the Reserves are right there behind them. As an aside note, when I was on active duty at WRAMC (The old one!) I used to love to wear my ARMEDCOM patch. The other AMEDD staff would look at me like ‘What’s this LT thinking?’. One of me even asked why I was wearing it, as it made me look like a reservist! I laughed and told her that I was, and she slunk away embarrassed. I also liked to wear it when I was *teaching* in the 66H8A specialist program, even though I was ‘Just a reservist, working in the PACU’. Heh. Good times. Nothing like having fun at smug, young ANC officers… Read more »
@Anonymous #40-you would not have enjoyed a Kosovo deployment. Month 1 was interesting. Month 2 not so much. Months 3-12 Groundhog day. And the 4 month pre-deployment training? pretty much useless.
Anything would’ve been interesting. I agree Kosovo for that long seems kind of boring/what/why are we here type of thing.
I’ve done 4 workups, and 3 deployments. Think of done the majority of USMC predeployment training events also(think CAX,MV etc).
This is literally, all I have done.. like i said experience will vary.
Hondo, the problem with the current system is that the focus/strategy/policy changes every 4 to 8 years.
It is misleading to say “the Pentagon” or “DoD Officials” are making these changes. It is Political Appointees making these decisions, not 20-40 year Military leaders, or even 20-40 year career DoD Civilians.
If you want to say that you believe Executive branch political appointees are better than Career Military professionals in determining the best policies and strategies, then I will agree to disagree with you, but I won’t agree to the political shell game of calling political appointees “DoD Officials” or “the Pentagon.” And I won’t accept the politicization (partisanship) of Generals. The Military MUST remain officially independent of politics. Political appointees don’t. But political appointees don’t get to play partisanship, and claim to be “DoD officials” with the veil of independence. Generals MUST remain non-partisanship in their official capacity. And if they can’t maintain that standard, then they need to either retire, or change the policy ending the ban on Troops participating in politics in uniform.
For that matter, the nature of how Congress is elected, particularly the Senate was designed to add stability to the policies/legislation in Washington, ensuring no more than 1/3rd of the Senate (and realistically far less) changed every 2 years.
It is the bastardization of authorities and responsibilities assigned by the Constitution, not a lack of power in the POTUS, that causes our current problems.
Hondo, good points of response. It was already mentioned, but both have their positives and negatives, so “bashing” on the reserve component for having it so “easy” isn’t quite the best idea. Yes, I’ve been in both situations too. Its also the same as being on a post and being on a street corner in a building somewhere that’s your “headquarters.” There are great things about being on a post as much as great things about not being near a post unless you need to be there. In regards to all the KBR in Iraq and Afghanistan, that also falls on Rumsfeld too. His “vision” was to take all the “contractable” type stuff and give it to contractors so green suiters could be more about warfighting. Eventhough, all those “contractible” things are part of a warfighting effort. That’s why at one point in Iraq we had as many contractors as green suiters (150K each) which is ridiculously excessive. But, that’s also probably got some politics to it and because “war is good for business.” And Rumsfeld was dumb enough to think he could run the military like a “business.” I also joined in the early 90s (Reserves) when MG “Max” Baratz was helping to push all the Combat Arms out of his USAR into the NG and make USAR a CSS organization. I didn’t hear much about the specifics and why’s of it, but even as a brand new private I couldn’t understand the philosophy of giving tanks, infantry, AND Special Forces to Governors. But, that’s how it shook out. Clinton reducing the force 40?% and increasing the OPTEMPO 300% certainly didn’t help, especially with a reduced budget that caused pain at the same time. But, once 9/11 kicked off, that was pretty much no big deal compared to the wars on two fronts and the amount of troops needed for both. There are also quite a few CA Reserve personnel who seek out those “peacekeeping” leftovers to get a break from OIF/OEF. And CA “reservists” are on the AC “ARFORGEN” Plan moreso than the RC version of it. Even… Read more »
When I was a Drill Sergeant I used to tell the National Guard Soldiers that they should go Regular Army….they would be deployed less. That was in 05 and it was kinda a joke…not anymore.
No shit Uncle Marty…It is no joke. I joke with some of my AD friends who want to go on a deployment. I tell them you should join the NG and voulunteer you will find a deployment. Trust me someone will take you.
[…] A decent discussion ensues over at This Ain’t Hell, my not-crazy vet blog of choice. The general expectation Reservists had before 9/11 was “I’ll keep myself trained; I’ll serve when and where needed by the nation.” But there was an implicit but understood part of that expectation – that their service would be during a real emergency, when the nation truly needed them. They didn’t expect to be a uniformed version of “Kelly temps” called up at irregular intervals so the Army could avoid hiring additional full-time staff. But for the past several years, IMO that’s pretty much how the Army Reserve and National Guard appears to have been used – as Kelly temps in uniform. […]
My AFRes brother was deployed three times in six years. The shortest was six months in Ca,, the other two were one year stints. One in England and one in Italy. He was on the Reserve ‘crash crew’ at Luke AFB and they got shipped out so they could deploy the active guys to the war zones. I said WAS because he retired a couple of months ago. My future sister-in-law said she wasn’t putting up with him getting shipped off all the time.
Twenty-five years of Reserve experience and it’s gone. Thirty years of experience with Phoenix Fire gone. And that one week-end a month and two weeks a year is total crap. By working 24 on/48 off he was “offered” training opportunities all the time. As the Training NCOIC he was there most Friday evenings before drill and was there late Sunday after drill. From what I saw, that wasn’t a part time gig.
Deploying to England and Italy must have totally sucked.