I absolutely agree the problem with BJ. But one thing I don't like is sending reserve or NG troops overseas for 1 year tours. Send them for 6 or even 4 months and rotate them more often. Regulars can do the 1 year tour.
These folks weren't prepared for this kind of duty. Financially, physically, mentally. Let them do a 4 month tour, get some R&R at home, and they can go back again.
It's very hard to prepare your family for a 1 year deployment. Most of the reserves and NG have families, mortgages etc.
Sorry have to disagree my active duty was in Yoko- Japan. Even shipboard in peacetime with experienced personnel it is nearly impossible to get them running on their own efficiently in less then 3 months. Then they tend to get lax once they are 1-2 months from rotation. There are all sorts of little things that cannot be taught stateside for the cultures that are being dealt with. They need to be boots on ground more than 6 months. The one year tour is about the minimum that suffices for this.
Slick nearly ruined us with the 2 year enlistments. Recruits came out of boot and maybe A school, onboard about 6 months and then rotating stateside for new orders/re-enlistment or processing out.
Most Regular Army do, too. As the acting CSM I told a CW4 activated and attached to our Bn at Ft. Dix during Desert Shield when he complained about being away from his family and business in a staff meeting "All those checks you've been cashing over the years was not payment for playing Spades at the armory, they were for this, and more if need be." When he objected to being spoken to like that by an enlisted man my Bn Cdr told him "Just pretend I said it then, Mister".
Thanks again LTC Pingly.
Warning: Long Post follows.
1. Length of Deployments. Reality is, by the time you mobilize a unit (2 weeks at home station to complete/certify training requirements), then get to the mobilization station on an active duty post (MUIC), and get through that.. that's another 2 to 3 weeks minimum. Then if you are tasked w/ a job that isn't your normal duty (such as artillery units that have been converted into shake-and-bake convoy escorts), you're looking at a couple of months training (first as individuals, then as teams/squads, then as full units). You then have travel time of at least a week or so (more if you're taking specialized equipment with you). Two weeks to migrate out the old unit/integrate your unit in. Then, at the tail end, you've got to account for a week travel time, two weeks for out processing, and 2.5 days leave per month...so for each 11 months on duty, the troops get one off (typically taken as terminal leave at the end of the deployment).
What this means is that on a typical 12 month deployment of a unit, the troops are only available for about 9 months, best case. If they're doing something non-standard, you see how long it takes to get them ready and on the ground...
2. The unit listed in the Wash Post article is a worst possible case. The unit has been pulled together from diverse grouping of units, new folks have been added to the units to fill holes, and the units are tasked to do something completely outside what they've trained to do. Artillery units are great at shooting, moving, and communicating with their assigned equipment; becoming Military Police is a pretty far stretch from what they've always trained to do.
3. Currently, we're running under a limited presidential mobilization. What this means is that per the DOD, we can't grab folks from the reserve/national guard for more than 24 months in a 6 year period. Current standards dictate a stabilization period of 36 months after each mobilization, but this can be waved either with a volunteer statement from individual soldiers, or if the soldier has a critical skill set.
4. After spending one year mobilized on active duty since 9/11 (so far), my experience was very good. The active folks initially were very skeptical of reserve folks, then discovered that we were older, experienced, knowledgeable, flexible and so on... and used us in leadership positions that we never expected to get. My group was used to back fill an active unit, and we fell in on the unit (we were used as organ donors). Other reserve units that I've worked with who were mobilized and deployed as a full unit had much worse experiences. Treated as second class troops, denied supplies due to different funding, etc. and were not happy with the experience.
5. The future? Retention is NOT a problem in most units that I'm aware of. Folks are focused on what needs to be done, and working through the tasks necessary to get anything done. I'd guess that shorter rotations may be possible if troops/units have been deployed successfully within the previous XX months (?). Units have new training standards that may assist in shorter, more frequent deployments possible.
6. Employers: Yes, this is a problem. I've personally had folks ask if I was still in the reserve, and had interviews effectivly ended at that point. There have been lots of folks who have had careers damaged by their reserve/national guard service. Fixing this will require the ESGR folks to get out and do something (legal action) rather than the usual glad-handing crap. The training required to keep folks mobilization ready will cost more $$$. Finally, because of the time/energy commitment that reservists/national guard folks make, it's going to take the 'reserve pay at 55' deal to pass in the near future to maintain the force.
We're in nothing less than WW IV; the most frustrating part is the lack of attention that the media pays (unless it meets their pre-conceived story-line), and the minimal mind-space that the public has for the troops who are either downrange, on the way back, or getting ready to go... which is all of us.
Sorry, I warned you that it'd be a long one! ;-)