# Leadership that has never been deployed to a hostile enviroment.



## boomgoesthedynamite (Jul 12, 2011)

This is my first real thread other than my Intro, so if its not in the right place, or its already been brought up, someone please let me know so that way I can fix it.

I would like to get other peoples input about whether or not you all think the military as a whole should be putting CSMs and 1SGs (or the appropriate ranks for the other branches) in charge of Combat Arms units? When I left Ft. Stewart in 09 I left the best scout platoon that I have EVER been a part of. We were a tight knit platoon, and had the "family" mentality that you can only find in a group of people that have served in the shit holes of the world together. I recently talked to a buddy of mine that is still in that unit, and he tells me that the feeling is the same across the board. Everyone is trying to leave. Everyone hates where they are at. And it is all attributed to the Company getting a new 1SG. He has never been deployed. He has no profiles or anything else that would stop him from deploying. And he has crushed the moral and effectiveness of a well oiled scout platoon that used to be fully capable of any task put in front of it. Who is to blame? Is it the Army's fault for putting him in that position? Is it the Platoon Sergeants faults for not stepping up to him and making "suggestions" that would ultimately help him have that well oiled machine again? Or is this something that we are all going to have to just deal with.

I apologize for this being "Army". By all means bring your comments to the table. I would love to hear everyones opinion on this.


----------



## digrar (Jul 12, 2011)

How does a bloke get to that stage in his career without deploying in this day and age, how did he even get promoted without getting time up overseas?


----------



## boomgoesthedynamite (Jul 12, 2011)

digrar said:


> How does a bloke get to that stage in his career without deploying in this day and age, how did he even get promoted without getting time up overseas?


Thats exactly what I am saying. They are everywhere. Since I got sent to the shit hole known as Ft. Knox I see them everyday. They are high ranking. The majority of them are extremely over weight.  And they walk around with this holier than now attitude. Its everything I can do to not knock someone the hell out.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 12, 2011)

digrar said:


> How does a bloke get to that stage in his career without deploying in this day and age, how did he even get promoted without getting time up overseas?


Recruiting duty, ROTC, Pentagon, ARSOUTH, etc.

You'd be suprised how easy it is to hide.

boomgoesthedynamite- Has he ever deployed?  Bosnia, Kosovo, MFO don't rate a patch.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 12, 2011)

Reading this thread and remembering all those times I spent on TRADOC posts, being told shit by the same fucking senior shamers, just makes me happy that its almost over. I can honestly say that I have been there and dealt with that, and you could not pay me enough to go through it again.

With the shit-bird 1SG, get the CSM involved ASAP, tell your troops to push the issue on command clamant surveys (he does this, I don’t trust my leadership, and it’s a hostile environment) and tell them  to not give this 1SG any wiggle room to justify his actions (i.e. tell them to stay out of trouble). PSG need’s to keep his nose clean as well (bucking the 1SG could ruin his next NCOER and screw him out of making 1SG himself), and he needs to keep his platoon away from the 1SG (keep them out of sight out of mind, training, schools, ect). It will take the CSM/LTC or IG/Congress getting involved to get this 1SG moved. But trust me, he will get moved…

As for who is to blame? The promotion system, the Army senior leadership, the cadre of the 1SG course he graduated, his former leadership, and most of all his senior raters that failed to PID his problems and make proper recommendations on his NCOER’s.

As for Fort Knox, dude get the fuck away and stay away from TRADOC posts. You either conform to ideology of TRADOC or your career gets killed. The reason most TRADOC leaders stay in TRADOC, is b/c they get fired quickly when they return to FORSCOM. Same goes for those good leaders who understand that there is what the book says and there is a way to apply what the book says, they do not belong in TRADOC and normally get chewed up and spit out. I spent almost 3 years bouncing between TRADOC & FORSCOM posts conducting training & development, I have never been stabbed in the back so many time in my life. It ruined my life in so many ways during that time frame that words could not describe. If you are trying to get your senior leadership/instructor time in, try and stay in the Marksmanship or Combatives area, they are normally a little easier to tolerate… Best of luck man, I don’t envoy you right now…


----------



## boomgoesthedynamite (Jul 12, 2011)

I am well on my way out of Tradoc... just signed the 4187 to go back to the line. I miss the bullshit motor pool details and the endless days in the field.  I'm glad to see people posting on this subject. I hope some guys in here that dont have alot of time in get to see this so that way they can get some advice so thry know what to do in these situations. 

There's an Idea. Maybe a whole new thread that gives strong, real advise to all the newer guys. A place where they can ask for advice from the more seasoned soldiers. Even from the military civilians in here that work in the S shops. I dunno Im still new here and maybe there is another place for all that to happen.


----------



## goon175 (Jul 12, 2011)

I think the main issue is that senior leaders have the attitude of deployments are not needed to be a good/effective leader, as alot of them came up in the 80's and 90's when a combat patch was more of a rarity. That may have held true back then, if the country is not at war, then of course we will have leaders with no combat experience. As has been stated in this thread though, there is no reason for a leader in this day and age to not have a combat patch. Not having a combat patch because there is no opportunity to get one is alot different then not having one because you have dodged war for 10 years. It says alot about that leader in my opinion. So I think maybe some of the senior leaders out there don't realize that this is as much of a problem as it is. In my opinion, having leaders who have not deployed in positions over those who have is like having a guy who has been going to football practice for 10 years but never played on sunday be in charge of the guys who have been out on the grind playing in the real deal ever sunday.


----------



## Viper1 (Jul 12, 2011)

SOWT said:


> Recruiting duty, ROTC, Pentagon, ARSOUTH, etc.
> 
> You'd be suprised how easy it is to hide.
> 
> boomgoesthedynamite- Has he ever deployed? Bosnia, Kosovo, MFO don't rate a patch.



There are actually a lot of at my alma mater too unfortunately.... on the Officer AND NCO side


----------



## Teufel (Jul 13, 2011)

Leadership is leadership and combat experience isn't a prerequisite to being a good leader.  Some of our greatest leaders have very little personal combat experience.  General Petraeus does not have a CIB for example and he earned his CAB as a General Officer.  General Mattis was a battalion commander in Desert Storm, other than that all of his combat experience occured as a General Officer during the GWOT but I would follow General Mattis to hell with a spoon.  Sounds like the guys you are talking about are just bad leaders period.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 13, 2011)

Maybe I'm sorta fucking tweaked... well, actually, belay that, everyone here knows that I'm tweaked....

but the purpose of the army is to go to war, and your point as a soldier is to fight.

Boom, I know exactly where you are coming from. I had a PSG that was exactly the same way up here in Alaska. BIG Change coming from PSG's with Grenada, Panama, Somalia on the shoulder, ya know?

The only saving grace was that from the ground up, Every Line TL and ALL the SL's had been deployed at least twice. We were able to buck his retardation by banding together.  "You can't do that, here's why. You can't do that, here's why. You can't do that... ok, check it out fletch, the platoon ain't doing that regardless of what you say or what paperwork you throw at us because it'll get us killed."

I guess I don't understand, even if a dude digs being a recruiter... more bling means you attract more recruits and can actually tell recruits from experience what it's like, even if you were a fobbit... Professional Training Soldier?  Sure get more respect from the students when you've got SOMETHING on your shoulder and a CIB/CAB.

I know that some people really, REALLY, shouldn't deploy whatsoever... but that's why there's the post lawn nazi and other retard jobs, to let those people who are contractually obligated to the USA but also aren't the highest caliber, basically ETS without causing damage.  The problem is that people get put there for a reason, do a great job being the dick to everyone, then turn around get a good NCOER and get thrown at a line company.


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Jul 13, 2011)

Teufel said:


> Leadership is leadership and combat experience isn't a prerequisite to being a good leader. Some of our greatest leaders have very little personal combat experience. General Petraeus does not have a CIB for example and he earned his CAB as a General Officer. General Mattis was a battalion commander in Desert Storm, other than that all of his combat experience occured as a General Officer during the GWOT but I would follow General Mattis to hell with a spoon. Sounds like the guys you are talking about are just bad leaders period.



Sir, while you make good points, the difference between the leaders you mention and the ones at the topic of discussion (as I understand it) are that your examples have deployed.  They have been OCONUS.  They have a right shoulder SSI.  They have been the decision makers in theatre.  I believe you are right when you say a deployment doesn't make a good leader (boy have I learned that), but it does give them experience that you might not get CONUS.  It does give them an added stress that you will very rarely ever experience CONUS.  It does show that they are willing to put their personal life on hold.  They have shared experiences that not many other people on this earth will experience.

Good leader or not, having at least a right shoulder SSI shows that you didn't shirk your responsibilities as a leader (well, it shows you were there long enough at least once to rate the SSI) and hide in some cushy office job back home.  That is how I interpreted the original post.  I could be way off.  That is more common than not.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 13, 2011)

Just be sure not to judge your leaders solely by what they wear on their uniform.  A tab or a bunch of scare badges doesn't guarantee you've got a good one; the absence of the same is not necessarily indicative of a bad one.  Also keep in mind that some people choose not to wear their combat patches; it was very common in my last unit to wear neither badges nor combat patches.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 13, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> Just be sure not to judge your leaders solely by what they wear on their uniform. A tab or a bunch of scare badges doesn't guarantee you've got a good one; the absence of the same is not necessarily indicative of a bad one. Also keep in mind that some people choose not to wear their combat patches; it was very common in my last unit to wear neither badges nor combat patches.



Patch doesn't mean shit.
Lot's of people deploy without getting a patch, Kuwait doesn't compare in intensity to Colombia, but guess who gets the "I was deployed" patch?
I'll ask my question again, has the 1SG ever deployed, or are you and your friends only concerned with SSI on the right arm?


----------



## goon175 (Jul 13, 2011)

Yeah, the question is not whether they have a CIB/CAB/CMB, etc., and not do they wear there SSI or not, it is weather they have gone over or not. If they are in your unit, you will know regardless of what they wear.


----------



## boomgoesthedynamite (Jul 13, 2011)

SOWT said:


> Patch doesn't mean shit.
> Lot's of people deploy without getting a patch, Kuwait doesn't compare in intensity to Colombia, but guess who gets the "I was deployed" patch?
> I'll ask my question again, has the 1SG ever deployed, or are you and your friends only concerned with SSI on the right arm?


The 1SG has proudly proclaimed that he has never been depkoyed and has no wish to deploy. I agree that the patch doesn't mean shit. I also agree that there are are a bunch of patches that were just handed out as a thanks for playing prize.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 13, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> Just be sure not to judge your leaders solely by what they wear on their uniform. A tab or a bunch of scare badges doesn't guarantee you've got a good one; the absence of the same is not necessarily indicative of a bad one. Also keep in mind that some people choose not to wear their combat patches; it was very common in my last unit to wear neither badges nor combat patches.



I absolutely agree that soldiers or leaders should not be judged by anything other than their performance. I personally wish the Army would do away with all the patches/badges on the combat uniform, but that’s a different topic. That said, there is a credibility factor that comes into the enlisted side when dealing with combat arms. I remember having a SFC (other plt’s daddy) giving a pre-deployment speech to the company about what to expect in combat, he had never been and 70% of the soldiers he was telling this too had been. The first thought in everyone’s mind (and the topic of the week) was “what the hell does he know about it”. So again there is a credibility factor, nobody even heard a word after the “what to expect” comment b/c he had no credibility on the subject.

The other issue that people may get a little confused on is we are talking about a combat arms unit and not a support unit. I have no issue with some support people being senior leaders without combat time; simply put some support assets do not deploy. However, being combat arms during a time of war and not being deployed over the last 10 years is simply unacceptable. No combat arms soldier with multiple deployments under his belt should be subjected to the stupidity of the unknowing (that shit gets soldiers killed). As Ranger Psych pointed out, if you have good junior leadership a lot of this can be dealt with by some simple advice and help. However, that senior leader has to be willing to except it and in my personal experience they normally won’t. My personal opinion is that there is absolutely zero excuse for anyone E7-E9 or O3-O6 who is combat arms to not have made at least one deployment in the last 10 years we have been at war (NG or AD). But that’s just my opnion…



SOWT said:


> Patch doesn't mean shit.
> Lot's of people deploy without getting a patch, Kuwait doesn't compare in intensity to Colombia, but guess who gets the "I was deployed" patch?
> I'll ask my question again, has the 1SG ever deployed, or are you and your friends only concerned with SSI on the right arm?



I would not count Kuwait, Columbia, Sinai or Bosnia as combat experience compared to Iraq, Afghanistan or the Philippines. To be real honest when talking combat arms I don’t give people too much credit unless they have spent a good 12 months or more boots on ground (OIF-OEF), because there is a lot more that goes on (mental, physical and operational) that has effect on the unit during long deployments. Things that make or break the unit, that keeps soldier alive and that drive the success of the missions. I could write volumes on the subject, but most people don’t usually understand it unless they have been through it (on the combat arms side anyway).

The little things like knowing a cordon needs wire to block off LN’s who are on foot. Knock and search’s need to be slow and methodical vs Dynamic rush in and clear a corner. TCP’s need to be rolling, where you are not setting up wire and traffic cones (avoiding a VBIED attack). Again I can go on and on, but these little things that count turn into real big things when seniors who lack experience do not understand them and can’t find them in their books. Yeah the juniors should be spreading that knowledge around, but again a lot of times seniors tend to be bull headed and not want to be given advice from a junior.


----------



## Purple (Jul 13, 2011)

Good leaders are good leaders; bad leaders are bad leaders. It was my experience that skill badges, awards, and FWS SSI's were not a true indicatior of a leader's quality.  It's a BIG world out there and we're a military force with many national and global commitments. Remember - not everyone who volunteered or was drafted in WW2 deployed overseas or ever saw combat, either...and that was a hell of a lot larger military force than we have ever had during my lifetime.
Purple


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 13, 2011)

There are places in our hemisphere that are more dangerous for Americans than Iraq right now, and you don't get shit on your sleeve for going to them. Just saying.


----------



## moobob (Jul 13, 2011)

It took me a long time to deploy for the first time, after years of trying. There is no substitute for experience. However, you can be an experienced shithead, and whether you'd take that over an inexperienced good dude... The choice is clear to me, but not so much to many in the military.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 13, 2011)

moobob said:


> It took me a long time to deploy for the first time, after years of trying. There is no substitute for experience. However, you can be an experienced shithead, and whether you'd take that over an inexperienced good dude... The choice is clear to me, but not so much to many in the military.



Very true. Timing can play a huge factor in going to combat or not.


----------



## Purple (Jul 13, 2011)

cback0220 said:


> Timing can play a huge factor in going to combat or not.



Yep - you shoulda heard all the cussing around Infantry Hall from all the O's in IOAC and the NCOs in ANCOC who had come from the 82nd and the 1st and 2nd Ranger Bns and were not deployed with their units for Urgent Fury.

Purple


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 13, 2011)

I can see combat arms types not making Urgent Fury and Desert Storm, both were fairly short. But again OEF going on it’s 10th year, OIF on its 8th… WTF? There is no reason for a combat arms senior NCO or company level or above officer to not have time in either war, I don’t care if they are RC, NG or AD. If they have not made a trip to the sand box at this point, then it’s because they are avoiding it. Hell not even 4 years ago, all RC/NG units were rounding up soldier who had not been and sending them or putting them out. We had RC/NG soldier who were on 2nd and 3rd deployments while some shamers were hiding in TRADOC and CONUS training deployments.

The other important topic to be discussed here is why is the Army allowing these non combat deployed soldiers to hold senior leadership positions, when we have junior leaders with combat experience. Put the stupid combat patch aside for a bit and think about it. Combat Arms should have combat experienced soldiers in top leadership positions vs inexperienced leaders in charge of experienced. That is just plain common sense.

Think about it, an ACTIVE DUTY E8 1SG (top enlisted advisor) in combat arms company, that has not made one combat deployment in the last 10 years. Really, you guys don’t see something seriously wrong there? How many active duty Special Forces ODA Team SGT’s are out there that have yet to make a trip to a combat zone and how many of you long tabbers would want to be on that ODA?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 13, 2011)

JAB said:


> Combat Arms should have combat experienced soldiers in top leadership positions vs inexperienced leaders in charge of experienced. That is just plain common sense.
> 
> Think about it, an ACTIVE DUTY E8 1SG (top enlisted advisor) in combat arms company, that has not made one combat deployment in the last 10 years. Really, you guys don’t see something seriously wrong there? How many active duty Special Forces ODA Team SGT’s are out there that have yet to make a trip to a combat zone and how many of you long tabbers would want to be on that ODA?



There are some, 1st group did not deploy to either theater for a long time. By the time they did senior E-7's were in SWC. What happens to that now E-8 who is now in 7th group and is not in the chute to go anywhere but SOUTHCOM? Is it his fault? No, he was doing what he was told, doing great things for his country. Sometimes guys show up to group at the wrong time and are legitimately not able to deploy to CENTCOM. There may be a whole group of dudes who show up to 7th for a forseeable time who will not go to CENTCOM. Their fault? It isn't easy to jump ship and change groups(at least till a SWC tour). I am just saying.


----------



## Purple (Jul 13, 2011)

JAB said:


> Really, you guys don’t see something seriously wrong there? How many active duty Special Forces ODA Team SGT’s are out there that have yet to make a trip to a combat zone and how many of you long tabbers would want to be on that ODA?



Don't know much about SF, do you.

Purple


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 13, 2011)

cback0220 said:


> There are some, 1st group did not deploy to either theater for a long time. By the time they did senior E-7's were in SWC. What happens to that now E-8 who is now in 7th group and is not in the chute to go anywhere but SOUTHCOM? Is it his fault? No, he was doing what he was told, doing great things for his country. Sometimes guys show up to group at the wrong time and are legitimately not able to deploy to CENTCOM. There may be a whole group of dudes who show up to 7th for a forseeable time who will not go to CENTCOM. Their fault? It isn't easy to jump ship and change groups(at least till a SWC tour). I am just saying.



See I just can’t wrap my head around that (probably b/c I have no clue what goes on in SF) but to me it still just blows my mind. That said, if there is SF E8’s that have been running around south America and that is their A/O then I guess in that case it would make sense not have been deployed to OEF/OIF. But I just can’t see that on the conventional side, I mean for the most part that is all there is for the conventional side. How someone can go from being a combat arms E5 pre 9/11 to an E7-8 post 9/11 without stepping foot on the current battle field. I just can’t understand that…

To answer your question as if it’s his fault? No, but at the same time I would think that someone with combat experience would be picked for promotion over someone who has none. I would rather see a young combat experienced E7 11B making 1SG over an old non combat experienced E7.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 13, 2011)

Purple said:


> Don't know much about SF, do you.
> Purple



I think I saw an ODA doing some shit in Baghdad once, but that could have been some SEAL's.

Yeah I don't know anything about SF, to be honest every time I ask I get confused.;)


----------



## boomgoesthedynamite (Jul 13, 2011)

Wow Im glad I got some people fired up about this. Its interesting to see the differwnt responses that I'm getting. Keep it coming!


----------



## moobob (Jul 14, 2011)

My former roommate went to basic training with me and we ended up in the same unit 6 years later due to random coincidence. He has never deployed except to permissive areas in SOUTHCOM, but I'd trust him no matter where we were.


----------



## RetPara (Jul 14, 2011)

This is much more of a Big Army issue than SOF.  In BA I think this is a valid issue.  In SOF the 7th Grp example is much more valid.  I was concerned when I started noticing 7th Grp teams being deployed.

If a senior NCO in Big Army has not deployed; DA level boards should notice this.  Deployment should be a quality control factor in promotions.  This fight has been going on damn near ten years now.  There is not a lot of substantial reasons that in those NCO's that were on AD and have enlisted since 9/11 to have not deployed at least once. Granted most support specialties probably will be on the FOB... but at least they are there.   Over a ten year + period if you can't find your way to the dance, then there is no reason for anyone to fill in the blocks on your dance card for credit.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 14, 2011)

RetPara said:


> This is much more of a Big Army issue than SOF. In BA I think this is a valid issue. In SOF the 7th Grp example is much more valid. I was concerned when I started noticing 7th Grp teams being deployed.



The same things were said around 7th when 1st group started rotating. 7th has been there since 2004 I believe, AFG and IZ.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 14, 2011)

RetPara said:


> This is much more of a Big Army issue than SOF. In BA I think this is a valid issue. In SOF the 7th Grp example is much more valid. I was concerned when I started noticing 7th Grp teams being deployed.
> 
> If a senior NCO in Big Army has not deployed; DA level boards should notice this. Deployment should be a quality control factor in promotions. This fight has been going on damn near ten years now. There is not a lot of substantial reasons that in those NCO's that were on AD and have enlisted since 9/11 to have not deployed at least once. Granted most support specialties probably will be on the FOB... but at least they are there. Over a ten year + period if you can't find your way to the dance, then there is no reason for anyone to fill in the blocks on your dance card for credit.


Lot of deployments don't rate a patch, I still can't fathom the fascination with a patch on the right sleeve.
So I agree with you statement that everyone should have a deployment by now, I disagree with some here that the only deployments that count are Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 14, 2011)

SOWT said:


> Lot of deployments don't rate a patch, I still can't fathom the fascination with a patch on the right sleeve.
> So I agree with you statement that everyone should have a deployment by now, I disagree with some here that the only deployments that count are Iraq and Afghanistan.



So what is the disagreement? What deployments do combat arms go on that gives them the same experience as being deployed to OEF/OIF?


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Jul 14, 2011)

JAB said:


> So what is the disagreement? What deployments do combat arms go on that gives them the same experience as being deployed to OEF/OIF?



I think a couple that happened in the past were mentioned. Aside from Panama, I hear Honduras got kind of intense at times (second hand stories I was told, I wasn't there and haven't done any real research). I will have to check back to page one (I think) to get a couple of more that were mentioned.

ETA: Grenada and Somalia were others that were mentioned.

If you are asking about current deployments, I am not sure what all is out there at this point.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 14, 2011)

JAB said:


> So what is the disagreement? What deployments do combat arms go on that gives them the same experience as being deployed to OEF/OIF?



I feel like we are agreeing but also disagreeing. An 11B with 0 combat experience is hard to explain. The only thing I can think of is the private who gets sent to the honor guard/tomb of the unknown soldier. He is ordered there spends 5 yrs there is now a SSG with no combat experience. Is he a great soldier. Probably. Good leader, probably. Our army functioned great for very long periods of time without our leaders being combat experienced. How many guys in DS/Panama/Grenada/Bosnia saw combat? I mean real shit like guys see today? Very few really in terms of the force. Yet our army was still top notch. Did combat play a role in our army of the 80's and 90's? Other than the vets from Vietnam I would say no. Combat doesn't make you a better leader. Being a leader of men makes you a better leader. I have seen guys with no combat patch that I would follow to hell. But guys with combat patches who were soup sandwiches. How does getting shot at help you lead men?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 14, 2011)

LimaOscarSierraTango said:


> If you are asking about current deployments, I am not sure what all is out there at this point.



There are places that are very sketchy where we are, that are not mentioned on here for good reason.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 14, 2011)

LimaOscarSierraTango said:


> I think a couple that happened in the past were mentioned. Aside from Panama, I hear Honduras got kind of intense at times (second hand stories I was told, I wasn't there and haven't done any real research). I will have to check back to page one (I think) to get a couple of more that were mentioned.
> 
> ETA: Grenada and Somalia were others that were mentioned.
> 
> If you are asking about current deployments, I am not sure what all is out there at this point.


 
Yeah I was asking about current. I never posted that other combat operations did not count as combat experience, but peace keeping missions in Bosnia, Sinai and some of the FID or training mission is South America and Africa that are open to conventional combat arms are hardly comparable to OEF or OIF. Probably comparable for support, but we are not discussing support.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 14, 2011)

cback0220 said:


> There are places that are very sketchy where we are, that are not mentioned on here for good reason.



I am tracking on that bro, I am just wondering WTF on the conventional combat arms stuff. As I stated in my other posts, I could care less what support does and  SOF is playing a different game all together, but the dude started this thread about a combat arms unit having a 1SG with no combat time and running around dicking up the unit.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 14, 2011)

JAB said:


> So what is the disagreement? What deployments do combat arms go on that gives them the same experience as being deployed to OEF/OIF?


Phillipines (1st SFG)
Colombia (no hero patch on this one) (7th SFG and others)
Threat is real and guys are doing the deed, just not getting CNN headlines daily.
You can't tell me these deployments are less hazardous the a year in Kuwait, or Qatar.
The G in GWOT stands for Global.  I know a combined Conventional/SOF unit that does 179 in theater; 179 home then repeats, year in, year out. No Air Medals, no patches, no USO, no cheerleaders, forced to eat in the HN chow hall as part of the SOFA.  The information they bring has already resulted in numerous dead bad guys, three Americans coming home alive, and a friendly nation not falling to terrorists.
They were so good they got tasked for Iraq, plus the other mission, so 179/179 became 179/60.  You can't tell me the Iraq piece was the only one that should count.


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Jul 14, 2011)

cback0220 said:


> There are places that are very sketchy where we are, that are not mentioned on here for good reason.



I think there was something similar mentioned earlier.  I understand keeping certain things off of public forums (and the whole need to know basis thing).

In case my posts lead people to other conclusions, I do believe a good leader doesn't necessarily need combat experience (others have worded it better).  I do feel as though it can make a good leader better (or can even show you that someone may be a good garrison leader but a poor tactical leader).


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 14, 2011)

JAB said:


> Yeah I was asking about current. I never posted that other combat operations did not count as combat experience, but peace keeping missions in Bosnia, Sinai and some of the FID or training mission is South America and Africa that are open to conventional combat arms are hardly comparable to OEF or OIF. Probably comparable for support, but we are not discussing support.



As I said, timing is a huge piece. Lets just say as an example. A E-6 gets tasked for  DS duty/Ranger school instructor/some other bullshit job. lets just say in 2005 right as his unit is getting ready to deploy. He makes E-7 on the trail or wherever he is. He spends 3 years there. It is now 2008. He then shows up to a new unit as they are returning from overseas. They are not scheduled for another deployment for 3 years. Hypothetical but plausible. He then is up for E8. Makes it. Gets transfered out of that unit before their next deployment. Now he is back in some TRADOC desk job. He is now an E8 with no combat experience. It can happen. Sucks for the guy who is prolly squared away, and honestly embarrassed that he has no patch/CIB. But sometimes the army just isn't fair.


----------



## goon175 (Jul 14, 2011)

> As I said, timing is a huge piece. Lets just say as an example. A E-6 gets tasked for DS duty/Ranger school instructor/some other bullshit job. lets just say in 2005 right as his unit is getting ready to deploy. He makes E-7 on the trail or wherever he is. He spends 3 years there. It is now 2008. He then shows up to a new unit as they are returning from overseas. They are not scheduled for another deployment for 3 years. Hypothetical but plausible. He then is up for E8. Makes it. Gets transfered out of that unit before their next deployment. Now he is back in some TRADOC desk job. He is now an E8 with no combat experience. It can happen. Sucks for the guy who is prolly squared away, and honestly embarrassed that he has no patch/CIB. But sometimes the army just isn't fair.



The description that you wrote is exactly what does happen alot of times, and that is exactly what alot of guys on here are saying we should avoid. That, and as I understand it, it would be unlikely for him to come down on orders for an instructor position right before a deployment as personnel are typically "fenced in" at that point.

I think overall this discussion is focusing on the 5% of the guys who fall into this group who just legitimately got screwed out of deployments because a crazy set of circumstances, when really the topic is addressing the other 95% who are in this category who have dodged deployments at every chance they get. And again, its not the visible patch or CIB that guys care about, its the lack of experience. Obviously trips to south america, africa, whatever, more than validate a leaders experience in hostile environments. Who gives a fuck what is or isn't on your uniform.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 14, 2011)

Cback, so we end up with an E8 who is untested, inexperienced being put in charge of experienced and tested soldier. How is that a good thing? I don’t think 11B’s who spend 8 years CONUS hitting schools and holding training slots should be promoted over 11B’s who are spending all their time in the sand box and who are not getting all the schools. I am not saying that combat experience is everything, but it plays a big fucking factor in the Infantry. Especially when an E6 with 8 yrs and has 3 or 4 deployments and is being lead around by a E7 or E8 who has never spent a day in combat.

SOWT, I am not really tracking your disagreement. Combat experience, is time spent conducting combat operations. Combat arms (Infantry, Armor, Artillery, ect, ect types), are out mixing it up outside of the wire (most of the time), how is Kuwait, Qatar, or anywhere else comparable to that. In one place you face IED’s, ambushes, SA engagements, you’re out kicking doors and rolling hajis ass up. The others are considered vacations/RR spots from all of that. Again I am not arguing the SOF side, but damn bro, how can you compare these deployments for experience of combat? Am I missing something here?

I don’t know why this debate is getting under my skin so damn much, I am guessing it’s my experience in dealing with the inexperienced being in charge of me( a lot of hate built up there). But I think I am going to back away for now, this dumb grunt is not making any head way here. lol I’ll leave you all with this last bit though; a lot of great junior leaders with shit tons of combat experience have left the Army over this very issue (and it has not been to the Army's benifit).


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 14, 2011)

goon175 said:


> The description that you wrote is exactly what does happen alot of times, and that is exactly what alot of guys on here are saying we should avoid. That, and as I understand it, it would be unlikely for him to come down on orders for an instructor position right before a deployment as personnel are typically "fenced in" at that point.
> 
> I think overall this discussion is focusing on the 5% of the guys who fall into this group who just legitimately got screwed out of deployments because a crazy set of circumstances, when really the topic is addressing the other 95% who are in this category who have dodged deployments at every chance they get. And again, its not the visible patch or CIB that guys care about, its the lack of experience. Obviously trips to south america, africa, whatever, more than validate a leaders experience in hostile environments. Who gives a fuck what is or isn't on your uniform.



Bingo!


----------



## boomgoesthedynamite (Jul 15, 2011)

when I started this debate I was in fact refering to the 95% of douchebags out there who have intentionaly dodged deployments. It's interesting though to see the direction that the debate took.


----------



## Teufel (Jul 15, 2011)

It's not my fault I haven't been to Iraq or Afghanistan yet.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jul 15, 2011)

Teufel said:


> It's not my fault I haven't been to Iraq or Afghanistan yet.


 
Damn, nor is it mine.  I would be more than happy to have a combat position in Tahiti.   Opps,  better cancel that,  if the Boss finds out, it would be real combat.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 15, 2011)

JAB said:


> SOWT, I am not really tracking your disagreement. Combat experience, is time spent conducting combat operations. Combat arms (Infantry, Armor, Artillery, ect, ect types), are out mixing it up outside of the wire (most of the time), how is Kuwait, Qatar, or anywhere else comparable to that. In one place you face IED’s, ambushes, SA engagements, you’re out kicking doors and rolling hajis ass up. The others are considered vacations/RR spots from all of that. Again I am not arguing the SOF side, but damn bro, how can you compare these deployments for experience of combat? *Am I missing something here?*



Yes, my point; 11A/B sitting in a TOC at Arifjan, QRF/Strat Reserve up north gets the patch, and no one really questions his deployment.
Same 11A/B doing outside the wire ops in another location, gets ragged because he doesn't have a patch.

Deployments all suck, some more then others.
This 1SG  (and others) who avoid deployments are shitbirds and will probably suck their way to E8.
Lot of good leaders who won't "deploy" because of timing etc.  That doesn't mean they are bad leaders.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 15, 2011)

I don’t think I have ever ragged on any soldier for not having a patch, more like I have ragged on them for having it and not performing (i.e you should know better). To be clear on where I am coming from, the first things I like to know about leaders and soldiers, is where they have been and what have they done. Just b/c someone deployed to OEF/OIF doesn’t mean they have been involved in combat operations. I have seen TOC bitches end up with CIB’s and they never once left the wire, I have also seen dudes who were in the thick of it not get a CIB b/c they got a Article 15 while deployed. I don’t put much weight behind the patch or the badge (well a little more the badge, but you can normally tell who earned it).

What I want to see is a good amount full spectrum operations combat experience (12 months or more) running patrols, OP/LP’s, Ambushes, Raids, a few HVT missions, ect, coupled with the security, convoys, TCP’s, ect. Any clown can run a convoy down the road and make it work, anyone can run a plt/company pulling security, but not everyone can plan and conduct actual combat operations. And the more experience someone has in doing so, the better they are going to lead a plt/company in doing so.

“Combat experience” is different than simply being deployed, now where that combat experience is gained may be irrelevant, but I can tell you it’s not going to be gained in Kuwait or Qatar. I can see some SOF guys getting in other shit holes that I don’t know about. But the majority of the combat arms types are getting it in two places (Afghanistan and Iraq).

A good leader doesn’t always make a good combat leader; it’s a totally different animal. Leadership schools give you the basics to go out and lead, but experience is what refines that leader. Just because someone has been on 100 deployments, doesn’t mean his experience alone will be enough either. He needs that schooling in the basic principles of leadership as well, he needs to understand commander intent and mission essentials, but his combat experience will push him ahead of the pack when it comes to knowing how to apply those leadership skills.

To give an example; if you take a platoon of Infantry that have been running nonstop in a rough A/O, they probably have a few casualties and are a little quick on the trigger b/c of it. Then all the sudden they get pushed into a new non active A/O that is more of a keep the peace/security focused mission, the leadership needs to be able to adjust their platoon accordingly. Identifying soldiers and leaders who are not going to adjust well and moving them into positions that will not fuck the mission up. Being able to go to the company and say hey 1SG/CDR, our guys need to be on QRF instead and get their minds right, otherwise they are going to do more harm than good in this A/O. Than having an experienced 1SG/CDR that truly understands this (from past experience) and able to work the issue so that the mission is successful. That is the difference vs having a 1SG that has spent all his time in TRADOC and knows only the mission first, get it done, sorry sucks for you. There are hundreds of examples that I can give but again unless someone has been through it, it is normally really hard to understand what I am pointing out here.

To clarify some other things; just b/c we went through a time period where our leaders never saw combat and we still got shit done, doesn’t mean that we should ignore the experience factor. I guarantee you that any of the older war horses who spent 20 years before their first combat tour, will tell you the experience they gained in combat changed things (there leadership style, their planning, their expectations, ect). We have a major resource of experience right now, the focus of the Army should be to retain those experienced soldiers, train them to be better leaders and put them in senior leadership positions. Not focusing on promoting the poor bastard who got stuck doing recruiting for 10 years of war. Is it his fault? It doesn’t matter, he is not the most qualified soldier, the soldier who spent those 10 years deploying and training for war is. The ideology of promotion fairness that is simply based off of a good evaul and training/education is stupidity. We need experience, along with that good evaul and training, and when we have a soldier with it, he is the one that needs to get pushed to the top.

Hope this clears up what I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to convey in this thread…:cool:

Just wanted to add this to my already retarded long post: If I am coming off as a smart ass or jerk with some of my posts in here or whatever, it was not my intention. I get a little “angry” about the subject, due to some things I have experienced and watching some exceptional leaders who had to experience and leave the Army over this very subject. I respect all of you guy’s opinions and experiences, a majority of you guys have several times the experience I do.;)


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 16, 2011)

goon175 said:


> ....
> 
> I think overall this discussion is focusing on the 5% of the guys who fall into this group who just legitimately got screwed out of deployments because a crazy set of circumstances, when really the topic is addressing the other 95% who are in this category who have dodged deployments at every chance they get. ...



Yep.

A couple of years back a good friend of mine was at the Army's Command and General Staff College at Leavenworth.  This is where they send the mid-grade (i.e. senior captains, majors, and maybe the odd O5) to get their intermediate level education.  These are folks who are going to shortly occupy some significant staff and leadership positions in the Army.  He said nearly half his class had never deployed.  These are Army Competitive Category types- not folks in low-density career fields.

Fortunately I think that that Army is taking a closer look at relevant combat experience when it comes to promotions and selection for command.  Promotion rates are still astronomical so I think you'll see people with one or no deployments getting up to at least O5, but when it comes to selection for battalion and brigade commands and senior service colleges, there will be much more discrimination.

Another story about the dangers of judging someone by what they wear on their right shoulder- back in 2002 I was in the Officers' Advanced Course and there were were only a handful- if that- of officers with combat patches.  Some had been enlisted in previous conflicts, but there was one junior captain sporting an ARCENT combat patch.  He was given enormous (and unearned) credibility because he had been "deployed" and none of the rest of us had.  Turned out the guy had never set foot outside of Kuwait, but since it was "in theater," he was entitled to wear the combat patch.  I got closer to armed conflict when I served the MFO mission and the two years I spent in Korea than this guy ever did on his "deployment."  So you have to be very careful how you judge people by what they wear or don't wear on the uniform.

All of the above notwithstanding, I still think if you are in the Army in the grade of O3 or above on the officer side and E7 or above enlisted, and you've been in for 10 years or more and haven't managed a legit deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan, you need to do some soul-searching about why you still have on that uniform.  Especially if there are people in your career field doing three or more deployments.


----------

