tell me why closing bases doesn't create more bodies for deployment?

[SheepyMcSheepster]

with all the talk of military base closings, i was wondering....
if these recommended base closings go into effect does that create more warm bodies that could be sent to iraq? it would seem that those staffed at these locations would have to go somewhere, could that somewhere be over seas? maybe even some of our permanent bases in iraq?

any input much appreciated, this is just something that has been bugging me the last few days, please prove this theory wrong, thanks!

[raccoon]

1. I've been wondering myself

what all these base closures are really about.

[BrotherBuzz]

2. They are closing Portsmouth Naval shipyard...

Do they need submarine repair personnel in Iraq?

[dbonds]

3. If they are building permanent bases in Iraq, then there some can

be closed here. It would be called forward deployment. But not in the 'zone'.

[Solly Mack]

4. They'll go to other posts/bases in CONUS

in some cases the job will be completely abolished...this is more likely in the event of a civilian DoD job...but not always and not even necessarily.

Could also apply to military MOS's ...if privatization takes the job.

Part of the troop realignment includes Europe. So troops are moving back to the states from European locations....but not all.

Even some of the posts/bases being realigned in Europe just means those troops are moving to other posts/bases within Europe.

It in no way means an automatic tour to Iraq/Afghanistan simply because a base/post closes.

It doesn't really "free up" soldiers because those soldiers belong to a Corp/Regiment/Division anyway... and can go to a CONUS post/base that also host others within that Corp/Regiment/Division...and those who are with the same MOS. (I'm using Regiment because there does exist a few intact self-contained Regiments)

A deployment schedule already exist. Those scheduled to be deployed remain scheduled to be deployed regardless of where they are now or where they will move to later....though changes can be made depending on the assigned schedule of the unit they join....IF they join a unit...since entire divisions will move, they will stay on track of their scheduled deployment

Does that make sense?

[SheepyMcSheepster]

6. thanks for your reply

a few questions if you don't mind?

can you spell out what the acronyms for "Military MOS" and "CONUS" mean? i don't know what they stand for.

thanks.

[Solly Mack]

7. Continental United States = CONUS

MOS=Mission Occupational Specialty

I'm a military spouse.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

8. ok thanks

so you are saying that most people who staff these bases do work that could be replaced by private contractors and/or their specialty/division is not one that would allow for them to be moved to iraq etc...?

forgive me i am a military layman,

i guess my main question would be: does the position that most of the base workers maintain keep them from being designated as someone who could be in combat?

thanks again!
:hi:

[Solly Mack]

10. As for privatization:

Some MOS's are being replaced by private contractors. I don't know if that is the case for this current round of suggested base closings.

DoD civilian employees can transfer to a new location - just as if they were actual military. They can also transfer overseas.

"Volunteers"/ NAF (non-appropriated funds) employees can go to Iraq and many AAFES (shopette/PX workers) employees do. Though why I'll never know.


Almost any MOS could potentially be deployed to Iraq. Though private contractors make that less likely for some MOS's. Also, some members of some MOS's are kept back to help run the post/bases...afterall, military posts/bases/ are self contained communities with their own shopping centers, stores,post office and schools...etc.

For example:

My husband was deployed to Iraq when he was a 3rd Corp asset and in a line unit ( a unit that's "on the ground") He is now a 7th Army asset in a non-deployable position. Meaning he holds an essential position needed for the running of a base/post. In this case, the PMO (provost marshal office)...all within the same MOS or job.



Civilian employees that are part of the DoD job structure don't necessarily go to combat theatres....that depends on the job. And then it's voluntarily on their part. Now, state department workers can go because it's their job to set up/run embassies and other offices.


The military has MOS's...and MOS's ONLY apply to those actually IN the military...not civilian employees...among those MOS's includes lawyers (JAG) and detectives (CID=criminal investigation division)....that DO go to and near combat zones to do their jobs (CID investigates accusations of war crimes among other crimes such as assault/rape theft etc)...as well as financial MOS's that also travel to NEAR combat theatres..such as Kuwait...and handle pay issues.

[Daphne08]

5. Of course, it does.

That was my first thought about this deal.

I also must say that I strongly disagree with this plan of consolidating bases which are 'distant' and 'isolated' from the citizens and communities.

That's a dangerous business, if you ask me. :scared: As I told my husband, think it through!

[trogdor]

9. You're right.

Think about it. One of the biggest changes involves the re-consolidation of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to its headquarters in Indianapolis. Seems it was only a few years ago that the regional DFAS branches were opened in the first place. This will leave a bunch of surplus 73C's with nowhere to go but the combat arms divisions' finance companies.