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
Leadership that has never been deployed to a hostile enviroment.
- Thread starter boomgoesthedynamite
- Start date
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
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?
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
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,088
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.
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
Unverified
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!
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
SOF Support
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.
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
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,088
The same things were said around 7th when 1st group started rotating. 7th has been there since 2004 I believe, AFG and IZ.
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?
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
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
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,088
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
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,088
There are places that are very sketchy where we are, that are not mentioned on here for good reason.
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,231
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
Verified SOF
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,088
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.
Similar threads
