Nine month deployments?
Some of you may have seen that story in the Army Times about a planned reduction from twelve to nine and have at least two years dwell time. The proposed plan would go into effect in two years.
“We know 12 months is too long to sustain repeatedly, and we know that six months is too short for the operational environment,” he said, adding “so once we get demand down to about 10 brigade combat teams, we’re looking to revert to nine-month deployments,” Casey said.
I wonder is this possible with the fact the it took a extension of three months to have the number of troops needed for Iraq. Even with the draw down in Iraq, would we be able to maintain a nine month deployment cycle for such combat zones like Afghanistan?
It seems like a good idea on paper with any people going on multiple tours with dwell time being a year or shorter before going again.
“We’re not going to get there, I don’t think, in the next two years, but shortly after that I think we’d be able to do something,” Casey said. “Right now, the volume of the deployments is just too fast, too much.”
But that is the whole point of a reduce deployment cycle is to be used to reduce the stress from a multiple deployments. So if the face that we cannot do it with the high level of deployments now what is going to change in two years if the tempo is the same.
I mean over all a nice thought, but I do not think that is is possible. I mean for a while the twelve months was not enough. So expect this policy to not last very long or being postponed all together.
Category: Military issues, Support the troops, Terror War
It will never work for aviaiton as the are only 10 Aviation BDEs. As long as everyone demands their aviation (currently parts of 3 AVN BDEs in the AFK), even if the manuver BDEs go to 9 month rotations it won’t be possible for aviation to do the same.
There are numerous people in my BN who have completed 4 tours of at least a year (with a fifteen month one in there for good measure) and it will end up tearing this army apart.
Our Navy squadrons usually did a 9-10 month deployment, with about 12-14 months in between. Even though we were land-based air (P-3 Orions) the op tempos were always high-end, and by the time the deployment hit the 9 month point, we’d be about ready for some serious downtime.
When things were going hot and heavy, we’d be putting in 10-12 hour missions, with 2-3 hours either side for pre/post flights, brief/debrief, expendables load, etc, with 15 hours crew rest before the next mission.
I can’t imagine what it’s like for the PBI deploying for 12-15 months.
And I thought 6-7 month Westpacs sucked…but then again, we didn’t fly home for 2 weeks of leave in the middle of them, and you could reasonably expect to spend at least 80 percent of the time at sea, with all but maybe a week of that in upkeep, many times shiftwork.
Yeah, as if…
During Vietnam the normal rotation was 12 months in country with a 24 month break in between. That seemed to work well. IMHO you lose a lot of continuity with anything less than 12 mos. You also had the opportunity to extend your tour if so desired. Had 2 five day R&Rs my first tour and a 2wk leave my second. Was tough going back after 2wks in CONUS.
What happened? I thought we were supposed to question the Commander in Chief nor the Military leaders in time of war. We used to hear things like “we need to listen to our military leaders” and “don’t undermine the leadership of our military”.
Oh I know, we have a President with a (D) after his name.
Where is the consistency? GEEEESSS
Should have said “I thought we weren’t supposed to question”
Sorry about that grammar police.
AssHat where have you been?
From my own experience I think that 9 months would be optimum. Granted I haven’t done any research or even read any, but I feel that psychologically I peaked at about 8 months. By the end 9th month it was difficult to not be complacent and once I made it to the last month it was just a matter of counting the days.
Unfortunately, I don’t know if we have the manpower to sustain the kind of deployment cycle that 9 month deployments would need. Reserve and national guard units would still need 12 month deployments (including training) on a more frequent schedule, which would cause more trouble with the civilian careers.
“…which would cause more trouble with the civilian careers.”
You ain’t kidding!
BTW, nice pic of the 551 MP, who just unassed our AO.
Actually, my bad, some guy who served with 551. Sorry, it’s late, it’s been a long day, I’m going to bed…
And yet, the USA took on the German and Italian machine, and doubled that against the Japanese Empire, while serving for the duration (unless wounded or dead).
Seemed to work out pretty damn well for the world we saved from Fascism and empirical slavery…
We must commit wholly to this endeavor, or just come home and let islam go to hell.
Justplainjason,
Nice name calling.
I actually agree with you, FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE. My problem is with the double standard.
Won’t work. Certainly not conducive to COIN.
Not conducive to aviation units/BN/BDE where build-up and tear down take time either.
SSG–Typical troopers in WWII (either theater) were not “on the line” for the duration. In many cases, units did one campaign or operation, then rotated back for rest, recuperation, resupply, etc. It’s estimated that the average GI serving in the Pacific in WWII saw 40 days of combat. The average infantryman in Vietnam saw almost 240 days in a single tour.
http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html
No problem Asshat I’ve never said I was above name calling. I don’t think that anyone has mentioned the Big O. Hell I questioned many of the decisions of previous administration, but that isn’t what this conversation is about. If you have anything to add do so, but this isn’t about the “leadership” currently in place.