Fewer, More Predictable Deployments Email This Story Print This Story

Fewer, More Predictable Deployments


By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

CAMP BONDSTEEL, Kosovo, Nov. 14, 2006 – Changes being made in the way the force is structured, trains and deploys ultimately will mean fewer deployments and more predictability for individual troops, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told National Guardsmen today during a town hall meeting here.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, talks with soldiers after a town hall meeting at Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo, Nov. 14. Pace addressed questions from the soldiers that ranged from the recent elections to the future uses of Guard and Reserve forces. Photo by Staff Sgt D. Myles Cullen, USAF '(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image available.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace told about 500 National Guard troops wrapping up a year-long deployment with Kosovo Force 7 the most important thing the military can offer them is a basic idea of when and how frequently they’ll be called up for duty.

Questions from the group focused on the frequency and length of National Guard deployments, as well as train-up time between mobilization and deployment. This pre-deployment training typically brings Guardsmen’s full active-duty time to 18 to 24 months.

Pace said the benchmark he’d like to see on the active force is a one-year deployment, followed by two years at home station before deploying again. For Guardsmen and reservists, the ideal would be five years at home between one-year deployments, he said.

Efforts under way are helping make this goal achievable, Pace said. The Army is building its active brigade combat teams from 33 to 42, and now has 36, he noted. At the same time, the National Guard is reducing from 34 brigades that weren’t totally manned or equipped to 28 brigades that will be, he said.

These initiatives will provide 18 to 19 Army brigades, as well as one or two Marine regimental combat brigades, ready to deploy at any given time. Pace said this would ensure “a sustainable tempo” for troops that matches his deployment benchmarks.

The problem for now, he said, is that current operations require 25 brigade-size units at a time. That demand will require more frequent deployments until the force restructure is completed, he said.

Another problem is that many Guardsmen and reservists needed for these rotations already volunteered for deployments in the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

Deploying volunteers as individuals, rather than calling entire units to duty involuntarily, “made really good sense -- until Iraq came along,” he said. “And then we needed units in Iraq.”

Many troops in those units already had served voluntary deployments in Afghanistan, so they weren’t required to deploy again. That left holes in their units that had to be filled by pulling troops from other units, he said, solving the short-term problem but exacerbating the long-term one.

“We’re up now, after doing this for four or five years, to having some units having to pull from seven, eight or nine different units to kludge together the unit you need,” Pace said. “We need to stop that. And we need to stop it on a predictable basis.”

Pace said the best way to do that is to “reset the clock and do it properly.”

Every Guardsman and reservist would be told “where you are in your cycle — when you are going to be eligible to go for one year and when you’re not going to be eligible for the next five years,” he said.

The cycle would continue, regardless of whether a deployment-eligible troop actually deployed. “And we’ll just keep the cycle going so that trainers, recruiters, everybody in the unit understands when you are eligible to go and when you’re not,” he said.

This predicable timeline will help Guardsmen and reservists tailor their time between deployments to hone skills they will need for their next deployment, the chairman said.
In doing so, he said, they can reduce the training they need after they’re mobilized for that deployment and speed up the timetable, he said.

“Nirvana for me would be that you have four to six weeks of active duty at home before you went, because you would have already been trained up well enough and all you’d have to is get out and do your final touches before you fought,” he said.

This would be a win-win situation, the chairman said. “If we need you quickly for something, you’ll be available more quickly,” he said. And troops will have the advance notice they deserve to plan, prepare and plan for a deployment.

Pace emphasized that while this formula would work well for routine missions that can be planned ahead, it won’t necessarily work in cases “where something strange happens in the world and we need more troops.”

When that happens, “we just fight the nation’s battles,” he said. “But we can give you a predictability of when your unit would be subject to mobilization and activation. And then, if the nation needs more than 20 brigades at a time, we would have to dip into the rest of the pool.”


Article Opinions

jose m hinojosa wrote:

no comments yet
11/17/06 04:24:00

Parents of a Soldier wrote:

Our son jsut spent over 1 year in Iraq with the Army. Why can't we get more troops over in a shorter span of time? Six months at a time would be better, not only for the soldier but the families as well. Not hearing from your son or daughter for 7-9 weeks is unbearable to say the least. Until you have a loved one serving you don't truly understand the tough times one goes through. It's really high time our troops come home, period! We are grateful for the troops giving us our freedom & they are very brave young people. We support our troops, not this ugly war!
11/19/06 09:11:50

Zach Cobb wrote:

I myself find the war in Iraq kind of strange myself. I mean if you actually sit down and look at it yea we had a reason to go into Afghanistan but why Iraq. i mean shouldnt President Bush's dad have taken care of that when he was in office i mean good lord our troops shouldnt be in Iraq right now they should be home with their families and loved ones not over there basically protecting them from each other i mean if u look at it they have been fighting with each other for hundreds and hundreds of years. I myself think the biggest reason we are over there is because of the oil and that President Bush wants to show everyone how powerful he is. i mean look at this way each time it came down to him winning the Presidency it was the state of Florida where his brother is Govenor where the screwups was and then the election swung his way both times and i think his brother had something to do with it
11/20/06 00:43:58

Add Your Opinion

:

:
:


Recent Items
» ‘D-Lister’ Proves Laughter is Best Medicine
» Travelers Can Claim Reimbursement for Fees
» Troops Offered Work Experience
» Recommended Changes to Retirement
» Soldier Seeks, Finds Excitement in Army
Most Popular Items
» The New Army Combat Uniform
» ACU Clothing and Individual Equipment
» Dead-on Shooting Tips from a Combat Sniper
» March2Sucess Program
» New ACU Related Questions


      Copyright 2004-2008 Activv, LLC. All rights reserved. Army.com is a service provided by Activv.
This website is not affiliated, endorsed, authorized, or associated in any way with any government, military or country.