This is an interesting development, but we need to be careful with this one. "Non-deployable" doesn't necessarily mean "not useful." And some people are non-deployable because of combat or other causes directly related to their service. I've heard both GEN McChrystal and ADM McRaven say "don't judge your value to the fight by your proximity to the battlefield" and I agree with this sentiment completely. In my experience, there are plenty of things we can have non-deployable people do back here that could help us/them up there.
My wife got involuntarily recalled to Active Duty to serve on rear-d as a backfill for a key position in a division that went downrange. It would have saved the Army a lot of money, I think, and my family a lot of hassle, if they could have found a non-deployable Soldier to fill the position. But people didn't want to move non-deployables around to different divisions/brigades.
On a related note, it's not like people are beating down recruiters' doors to join up. We're having trouble meeting our recruiting goals, and the military is poised to increase its overall numbers. Further complicating the situation, something like
70% of the military-aged civilian workforce is not even eligible to enlist. It takes a ridiculous amount of money to recruit, train, equip, and field a member of the modern military. We might be throwing away good money, and good people, by simply booting them out in a blanket policy instead of boarding them and repurposing the good ones.
I'm personally more concerned with
all of the senior officers and NCOs who could have deployed, but never did. IMO we should focus on them. We should also take a look at all of the ridiculous stuff people are allowed to do while taking up space on the Army's roles, things like "Athletic interns" or coaches at the Service Academies, Congressional Liaisons, World Class Athlete program, scholarships and fellowships, etc.
^from a guy who deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq seven times and is not "non-deployable."
