I was reading in the Army Times (May 29 2006) about how Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey mentioned that contrary to what may have been suggested by the troops he spoke with in Iraq, the year long rotations are not going to stop until the violence in Iraq goes down.

He said that shorter rotations would expose more Soldiers to the most dangerous times during the deployment (the first few weeks and the last few).

Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts on shorter rotations, pros, cons, etc.

Shorter is better, there is no doubt about it.

Shorter is better for families and the Soldiers.

Secretary Harvey is surrounded by some smart OIF/OEF combat veterans and he is provided some of the most advanced information at the highest levels.

So, when he mentions that the year-long rotations are staying for the reasons of keeping our Soldiers safer ... I'm with him.

Note: I recently returned from year-long rotation from Iraq.

I agree. At this time I think the Iraq situation benefits from the 1 year rotations and the experience gained in that time. Spending a full year away from home really made me think about the veterans from prior wars. If it is such a huge difference between a 6 and 12 month deployment immagine WWII. Imagine being away in heavy combat for years at a time. Not to mention they didn't have the internet or half the comforts we have now. I really appreciate what those before us went through.

As much as I hate being away from my family and beer for a year, I would stick with the year long deployments right now. We all know that the first few weeks, we are really still working on getting our head back in the game and learning the area that we are working. I think that if we did 6 month tours, that we would loose even more people and that in the end, the mission would last longer.

I really agree with what Pyro says. Still though, it has been getting really old being deployed twice now in the last 3 years. Although it is better for the mission to keep the deployments to a year long, it is seriously hurting the Soldiers. Especially those with several deployments. Still though, it makes you wonder.....when is all this going to stop? How many years would we stay in Iraq for? Is Iran our next target? How many years are we going to be in Iran for? North Korea?
It really is starting to look like the deployments aren't going away with the current state of the world. Although statistically the most casualties come from the beginning and the end of Soldiers' tours, i still would like to see less time spent on tours and maybe a bigger break in between them. It would be nice if Soldiers had a year in between deployments instead of the usual 6 months.

I would have to say yearlong deployments. Shorter deployments will just create more problems for both single and married soldiers. Just like the Marines do, out for 6 months, then back for 6 months, who wants that kind of lifestyle. At least with the yearlong deployment, you actually get the time to adjust (also since we now have Life Cycles). I am with Honorable Mr. Harvey though. The tough times during deployment are in the beginning and at the end. We lost a good NCO back in Iraq when we were slated to redeploy back in 2 weeks. That's why i really do believe that the insurgents really do watch us closely. They know when a unit is going and another is taking over. Doesn't the violence escalate when we relieve and get relieved? Anyone with me on that?

quote:

Originally posted by Wolve:
It would be nice if Soldiers had a year in between deployments instead of the usual 6 months.

3ID came back in December 2005/January 2006 and one BCT is already in the shoot for the end of this year and the other BCTs should be going Summer 2007.

For the exception of one BCT (10-12 months home), 3ID seems to be getting a 18-month+ break. (Except for NTC, JRTC and training)

Well I've been in Corps Support Battalions and I've seen a lot of Transportation Companies have 6 month breaks between deployments. Hell, one unit had a 12 month tour in Afghanistan, then had 8 months before going to Iraq, then had 6 months and went back to Iraq and now (after 6 months) they are coming up on orders again.

Division wise, sure people are getting a break, but some individual companies have been deploying a lot with little time between deployments.

We do have some transportation companies and engineer battalions that are just under 1-year in between deployments.

I always wondered if the higher ups really know how much of a pressure they are putting on military members and their families with these kinds of deployments. Then it really stinks to hear about this contractor being paid twice, three times, maybe even four times as much as you for doing the same thing or often less than you are doing and being in a "safer" environment(usually).
Anyways, I suppose that's why it is called "serving" your country. I just don't understand why the government puts such pressure on these Soldiers yet every single Soldier could earn much more for doing the same thing in the civilian world. Don't want to sound like I'm complaining, it is just that I don't quite understand why things are like that.

Im on my THIRD deployment. What is really disturbing is the fact that I KNOW I will come back here again.

quote:

Originally posted by Wolve:
Anyways, I suppose that's why it is called "serving" your country.

EXACTLY!

Soldiers choose to serve their country.

Senators and Congresspersons choose to serve their country (and sometimes line their pockets).

Policemen and woman choose to serve their country.

Our Commander in Chief chooses to serve his country.

The point is, all of the people can probably make more money in the private sector but choose not too; whatever the reason. Soldiers are no different. Some Soldiers talk a big game about what they can and can't make on the outside, but the bottom line is, a vast majority are continuing to serve their country; again, for whatever reason.

1 year = more money... That's the way I see it