Army Says Soldiers Will Change Bases Less

[kskiska]

Policy Seeks to Aid Training, Family Life

Tuesday, February 10, 2004; Page A01

The Army announced yesterday that it will discourage the type of nomadic career that has characterized Army life for generations and will instead station soldiers at one base for much of their service, an effort to improve combat readiness and make life easier on troops and their families.

The new policy calls for troops to remain at their first post for six to seven years -- twice as long as the current average -- and envisions bringing them back to the home base later in their career as well.

Army officials said the goal is to make units more cohesive by keeping them together longer, and to help soldiers specialize in ways that enhance their effectiveness. That is a departure for an Army that has moved soldiers around frequently to give them the broadest set of experiences and training possible.

The change is also meant to make military life more attractive to families by letting them set deeper roots in their communities, buy homes and keep children in the same school longer. The fast pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and their danger have caused concern that the Army could start losing troops in large numbers as spouses balk at the strain of repeated deployments there or elsewhere.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26974-2004Feb9.html

[jbm]

1. I can see benefits to this for the families...

but I'm not sure it's such a good idea. When I was in the only thing I liked about the military even a little bit was the opportunity for travel,PLUS..you always knew that you wouldn't have to put up with any specific asshole forever(course there were always knew ones to take their place!)

There was also a lot of 'good old boy' type corruption that always seemed to be going on in the background and I would think that the only thing that kept that relatively in check was the constant changing around of the people.

[lebkuchen]

2. The US is going to have to spend big bucks to boost its infrastructure

for base support stateside. Right now the feds are taking money away from public schools in stateside base communities for those military families who live off base. Where's the sense in bleeding the military community's public school systems while increasing their population with more military kids?

Overseas, whether in the Pacific or Europe, much of the base infrastructure is supported by the host nation, whether housing/utilities or building maintenance. The U.S. will be assuming those costs now as it buffers up its own support system (we hope), which it will need as it continues to deploy units downrange. Bushy war plans don't add up to a military family spending more time together. Just the opposite. The family support structure overseas is heads above what exists stateside. The military figures, stateside, everyone has an extended family member somewhere for support. Don't look to the US govt.

Also, unit rotation is expensive. The equipment will be rotated downrange as well.

The private contractors will make out huge in base support contracts. That's the prize Rummy/Cheney have their eyes on, and have, all the way back to the Reagan administration, when they wanted to close overseas "Little Americas" then. Rummy wants the families and their costs out of his hair so he can redirect funds allocated to them to him.

And, like you said, travel to Europe was one of the top incentives for anyone to join the army. That incentive will be gone soon. Small wonder Cheney was over in Italy a couple of weeks ago, reenlisting soldiers for the cameras.

[Solly Mack]

3. This military spouse will balk at remaining in one spot

I'm sick of this post and will buck , not just simply balk, at remaining here.

No, this wouldn't be good for my marriage at all. I like moving around. I like living in different places...I've no desire to put down roots here or anywhere else we have been ...I already have roots back home....I don't need to plant them elsewhere. If I wanted to be near my roots, I'd take my happy ass back home...




And if the concern is the strain of repeated deployments on spouses...how is forcing spouses to remain at shitty posts going to help? It's the repeated deployments that cause the strain..NOT the moving around.

grrrrrrrrrrrrr....

[SWPAdem]

4. If they had done this ten years ago

I'd still be a part of the green machine today...but they wanted to send my ass to FT Polk right after I bought a house in DC.