Now that's some serious love and support for the Troops

[Laz]

WAR ON TERRORISM | Effective immediately, deployments are three months longer

Army extends war tours

The action affects troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, or those about to be sent there, but not Guard and Reserve units or Marines.

By NANCY A. YOUSSEF
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON | U.S. Army soldiers deployed to Iraq will serve at least 15 months there instead of 12, the Defense Department announced Wednesday.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the new rotation schedule, which also will affect soldiers sent to Afghanistan, would allow the Pentagon to guarantee units at least 12 months at home between war zone rotations. Without the change, five brigades would have had to return to combat after less than a year at home, he said.

On U.S. Army bases, commanders and families scrambled to determine the effect of the new deployment schedule.

About 100 soldiers from a company of the 705th Military Police Battalion at Fort Leavenworth have been deployed to Iraq since December for a 12-month tour, said post spokeswoman Janet Wray. Her office had not received official word whether these troops would be affected by the extended deployment.

The extended deployments probably will affect about 6,000 soldiers currently deployed in Iraq from Fort Riley, and an additional 3,500 soldiers will be deployed to Iraq within the next year, said Master Sgt. Cameron Porter, a Fort Riley spokesman.

The longer deployments will greatly affect military families, said Michelle Joyner, spokeswoman for the National Military Family Association, based in Alexandria, Va.

“It’s difficult once you start marking two birthdays that are missed or two anniversaries or two holidays — that makes it seem like a much longer time,” she said. “It is a long time for families to be separated, especially while they’re worried about the safety and well-being of their loved one that’s deployed.

“For military families, once the service member deploys, many of us have a mental countdown clock as to when they’re coming home and when they’ll be someplace where you know they’re safe. It becomes very difficult when you’ve adjusted to that, to recondition your thoughts knowing it’s going to be longer.”

Joyner said that extended deployments also might affect families’ practical plans that had been made for celebrating the deployed service member’s homecoming.

“This plays heavily on the children,” she said. “They don’t understand why mommy or daddy isn’t coming home” as scheduled.

Democrats charged that lengthening the time that troops would be expected to stay in Iraq is proof that the “surge” President Bush announced in January is really a long-term increase in troop strength likely to last well into next year. They also called it an acknowledgment that the Iraq war has seriously overstretched the U.S. military’s largest branch.

“The decision to extend the tours of U.S. service members by three months is an urgent warning that the administration’s Iraq policy cannot be sustained without doing terrible long-term damage to our military,” said Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat. “We don’t have to guess at the impact on readiness, recruitment and retention.”

The new schedule is effective immediately for all Army troops serving in or getting ready to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan. It does not affect the Marine Corps, whose members are rotated into the war zone for seven months, with six months between tours, or Army National Guard and Reserve units, whose tours will still last 12 months.

Gates said units that had already been extended would not be extended again.

Gates conceded that “our forces are stretched; there’s no question about that,” but said that it was better for the troops to have firm timetables.

Marine Gen. Pete Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the extension was part of a U.S. strategy to give Iraqi leaders more time to find a political solution to violence.

“What we are doing as a U.S. armed force with our coalition partners is buying time for the Iraqi government to provide the good governance and the economic activity that’s required,” Pace said.

Andrew Krepinevich, director for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis, a Washington think tank, said the extension is likely to heighten debate in Congress over whether to set a timetable for U.S. troops to begin withdrawing.

Before the Iraq war, the Army’s policy called for troops to serve one year in combat and rest for at least two years before being redeployed.

That rotation schedule quickly fell to the demands of the Iraq war, which has required far more troops than administration officials originally envisioned.

Weapons accusations
The chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq asserted Wednesday that Iranian-made arms manufactured as recently as last year have reached Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

Citing testimony from detainees in U.S. custody, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said that Iranian intelligence operatives were backing Sunni militants in Iraq while at the same time training Shiite extremists in Iran. | A10

The Star’s Joyce Tsai and Lynn Franey contributed to this report. To reach Nancy A. Youssef, send e-mail to nyoussef@mcclatchydc.com.

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/67484.html

[patteeu]

Good news. I think longer deployments and longer downtime are the way to go as opposed to keeping deployments the same and shortening downtime. Of course, growing the military is the real solution and I'd like to see an effort to increase the pace of that process.

[Laz]

Good news. I think longer deployments and longer downtime are the way to go as opposed to keeping deployments the same and shortening downtime. Of course, growing the military is the real solution and I'd like to see an effort to increase the pace of that process.
left,left ... left,right,left....

[patteeu]

left,left ... left,right,left....

:)

[Radar Chief]

left,left ... left,right,left....

Hi ho biddley bop,
I wish I was back on the block.
GI beans and chicken gravy,
gee I wish I’d joined the Navy.

;)

[Logical]

Sucks for the families of these poor fellows. Here is hoping to a change in policy that will bring them back home to their families that are often struggling to make ends meet while they are gone.

[patteeu]

Sucks for the families of these poor fellows. Here is hoping to a change in policy that will bring them back home to their families that are often struggling to make ends meet while they are gone.

What makes it more of a struggle for the family to make ends meet during a deployment? Hazardous duty pay and one less mouth to feed would seem to indicate a small financial improvement to me. I'm sure they have issues related to only having one parent home to manage everything and take care of the kids, but I'm not sure why making ends meet would be one of the difficulties (beyond the normal difficulty in this regard that many military families have to begin with).

[Laz]

What makes it more of a struggle for the family to make ends meet during a deployment? Hazardous duty pay and one less mouth to feed would seem to indicate a small financial improvement to me. I'm sure they have issues related to only having one parent home to manage everything and take care of the kids, but I'm not sure why making ends meet would be one of the difficulties (beyond the normal difficulty in this regard that many military families have to begin with).
so now you're saying that the soldiers are "lucky" to be over there dying by the thousands because it gets them more money?!?



WoWsers :eek:

[memyselfI]

What makes it more of a struggle for the family to make ends meet during a deployment? Hazardous duty pay and one less mouth to feed would seem to indicate a small financial improvement to me. I'm sure they have issues related to only having one parent home to manage everything and take care of the kids, but I'm not sure why making ends meet would be one of the difficulties (beyond the normal difficulty in this regard that many military families have to begin with).

Patt, I'd like you to read some of the dispair on this pro-war BB, Military.com, and rethink your flippant position...

if that is at all possible. :shake:

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/672198221/m/7580020221001/p/1

[patteeu]

Patt, I'd like you to read some of the dispair on this pro-war BB, Military.com, and rethink your flippant position...

if that is at all possible. :shake:

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/672198221/m/7580020221001/p/1

How about you just tell me why I'm wrong in a pithy way? My position isn't flippant at all, it's just analytical. I'm aware of the hardship that deployments put on military families, I'm just not aware of how finances are affected adversely. Educate me. Preferably in your own words.

[StcChief]

Who was drafted... oh right... they signed up.

[Laz]

How about you just tell me why I'm wrong in a pithy way? My position isn't flippant at all, it's just analytical. I'm aware of the hardship that deployments put on military families, I'm just not aware of how finances are affected adversely. Educate me. Preferably in your own words.
how about this for "pithy"

when my buddy is at home, he can sleep in his own bed, play with his kid, make love to his wife AND work a 2nd job to make extra cash. Because he's home, his wife can also work some.

when he's in Iraq, he makes extra cash for getting shot at every day and his whole family has to be alone and make due. His wife can't work because she has to take care of the kid,house and pets all by herself. Whole family has to worry ever day that dad is coming home in a body bag.


do i really have to explain which situation is better for him?

[Laz]

Who was drafted... oh right... they signed up.
jackass .......


there doesn't need to be any viable reason for war or dying soldiers because it's a volunteer army?!?!?




jackass ......

[recxjake]

jackass .......


there doesn't need to be any viable reason for war or dying soldiers because it's a volunteer army?!?!?




jackass ......

He makes a good point.... they weren't forced into the service... they want to serve this country.

[Laz]

He makes a good point.... they weren't forced into the service... they want to serve this country.

that is no way defers the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief from safe guarding every solider's life as best that he can. Too make sure that any military action is of the utmost importance so that all the loyal military men and women don't die for suspect reasons.

[recxjake]

that is no way defers the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief from safe guarding every solider's life as best that he can. Too make sure that any military action is of the utmost importance so that all the loyal military men and women don't die for suspect reasons.

Do you have any sense for history? This President has done more than any prior President in the History of this country to protect its soldiers.

[Amnorix]

that is no way defers the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief from safe guarding every solider's life as best that he can. Too make sure that any military action is of the utmost importance so that all the loyal military men and women don't die for suspect reasons.


I regret to say that this isn't the President's charge under the Constitution. While he has a moral obligation, etc., it's fair to say that the President may at times need to "waste lives" for some other, "greater good".

Just dealing in the abstract here. to say that he must "safe guard every soldier's life as best that he can", or that "any military action is of the utmost important" etc., as flat statements isn't really the correct standard.

I know what you're say, and I'm over-analyzing and getting too "lawyerly" about this whole thing, but I had to object to what I think are overbroad statements as to the President's responsibiltiies.

[Amnorix]

Do you have any sense for history? This President has done more than any prior President in the History of this country to protect its soldiers.


No context, no evidence, no proportionality, and just generally non-sensical.

I don't even know how you could begin to support this statement.

I suspect Calvin Coolidge did more "to protect his soldiers" by not using them for anything...

[Amnorix]

How about you just tell me why I'm wrong in a pithy way? My position isn't flippant at all, it's just analytical. I'm aware of the hardship that deployments put on military families, I'm just not aware of how finances are affected adversely. Educate me. Preferably in your own words.


I suspect that even with hazard pay, it's an economic negative. Babysitting, day care, chores around the house (lawn work, repair/maintenace work), etc. is just generally harder or not possible iwthout paying someone else to get involved.

But I don't know what hazard pay is. If it's 50% higher, then maybe you're right.

[memyselfI]

How about you just tell me why I'm wrong in a pithy way? My position isn't flippant at all, it's just analytical. I'm aware of the hardship that deployments put on military families, I'm just not aware of how finances are affected adversely. Educate me. Preferably in your own words.

I think the point is, if you had read the posts on the board, that no amount of money is going to make up for lost TIME. TIME is not money and as such those who miss their husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, etc. cannot be adequately compensated by that small amount of money for lost time. The fact that they are being given a token gesture of money simply adds salt to the wound. Meaning, they are being given peanuts and being told they need to be grateful for them.

One wife on there told about how her seven month old had seen his father for 2 weeks. She said she didn't know how much longer she could hang on.

Another man told of how he took emergency leave because his wife is pregnant and she's worried about her becoming depressed. He feared this news would send her overboard because she was really looking forward to him being home to help her.

[memyselfI]

Do you have any sense for history? This President has done more than any prior President in the History of this country to protect its soldiers.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

OMG. This kid is serious. ROFL

[patteeu]

I suspect that even with hazard pay, it's an economic negative. Babysitting, day care, chores around the house (lawn work, repair/maintenace work), etc. is just generally harder or not possible iwthout paying someone else to get involved.

But I don't know what hazard pay is. If it's 50% higher, then maybe you're right.

You make good points. I hadn't considered increased expenses for some of those things. I don't know how much they get for hazard pay either. I guess we don't have enough information to know for sure. Since Logical is the one who originally made the claim, maybe he has access to information that would clear it up.

[patteeu]

how about this for "pithy"

when my buddy is at home, he can sleep in his own bed, play with his kid, make love to his wife AND work a 2nd job to make extra cash. Because he's home, his wife can also work some.

when he's in Iraq, he makes extra cash for getting shot at every day and his whole family has to be alone and make due. His wife can't work because she has to take care of the kid,house and pets all by herself. Whole family has to worry ever day that dad is coming home in a body bag.


do i really have to explain which situation is better for him?

For reserve families I could definitely see your point. Maybe that's what Logical was talking about. If so, it doesn't apply in this case because the extensions only apply to active duty guys. I don't know, can they hold second jobs too?

Good job on the pithy. The parts about sleeping in his own bed and making love to his wife and the family worrying about their dad were irrelevancies that could have been cut to make it pithier, but in general you did a decent job. :thumb:

[patteeu]

I think the point is, if you had read the posts on the board, that no amount of money is going to make up for lost TIME. TIME is not money and as such those who miss their husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, etc. cannot be adequately compensated by that small amount of money for lost time. The fact that they are being given a token gesture of money simply adds salt to the wound. Meaning, they are being given peanuts and being told they need to be grateful for them.

One wife on there told about how her seven month old had seen his father for 2 weeks. She said she didn't know how much longer she could hang on.

Another man told of how he took emergency leave because his wife is pregnant and she's worried about her becoming depressed. He feared this news would send her overboard because she was really looking forward to him being home to help her.

So in other words, your link was completely irrelevant to my criticism of Logical's claim about "making ends meet." I have to say that you could have been both pithier and more responsive.

[Radar Chief]

For reserve families I could definitely see your point. Maybe that's what Logical was talking about. If so, it doesn't apply in this case because the extensions only apply to active duty guys. I don't know, can they hold second jobs too?

Only part time and only if it doesn’t interfere with military duties.
I was friends with a couple of sergeants from my company that bar tended at the local NCO/EM club. Go figure, I made friends with bartenders. :BLVD:

[memyselfI]

So in other words, your link was completely irrelevant to my criticism of Logical's claim about "making ends meet." I have to say that you could have been both pithier and more responsive.

Read the link. I was talking of the emotional cost vs. the economics. There are people there talking economics.

[trndobrd]

I suspect that even with hazard pay, it's an economic negative. Babysitting, day care, chores around the house (lawn work, repair/maintenace work), etc. is just generally harder or not possible iwthout paying someone else to get involved.

But I don't know what hazard pay is. If it's 50% higher, then maybe you're right.


In most cases for active component Soldiers a deployment is a benefit in purely economic terms. In addition to extra pay, all income is tax free. That includes reelistment bonuses. Also, statutory caps on interest rates kick in, various state benefits (no automobile tax in Kansas, for instance), and other economic benefits.

For reserve component servicemembers they have the same benefits, but it is a mixed bag and depends primarily on the income prior to activation and whether their employer makes up the difference. Generally speaking it breaks down into thirds, one third making more, another making less and another third just being a wash. There are also about 5% on either end making more money than they ever have in their life or taking a serious financial hit.

[Logical]

What makes it more of a struggle for the family to make ends meet during a deployment? Hazardous duty pay and one less mouth to feed would seem to indicate a small financial improvement to me. I'm sure they have issues related to only having one parent home to manage everything and take care of the kids, but I'm not sure why making ends meet would be one of the difficulties (beyond the normal difficulty in this regard that many military families have to begin with).

How you could see the only one parent home and not understand that adds a burden for child care expenses, I just don't get.

[Logical]

You make good points. I hadn't considered increased expenses for some of those things. I don't know how much they get for hazard pay either. I guess we don't have enough information to know for sure. Since Logical is the one who originally made the claim, maybe he has access to information that would clear it up.

Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/a/hazpay.htm)
A special pay of $150 per month, for performing hazardous military duties, known as Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/Military_Pay_and_Financial_Matters.htm

[recxjake]

Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/a/hazpay.htm)
A special pay of $150 per month, for performing hazardous military duties, known as Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/Military_Pay_and_Financial_Matters.htm

I watched the press conf yesterday... I'm not sure if it's the same as hazzard pay, but he said they get an extra 1,000 a month.

[frazod]

One of my best friends, who is an Air Force officer, will be deploying to Iraq (pulling Army missions because there simply aren't enough soldiers, and the Navy is doing it, too) for his second tour in a few months. He tells me that morale is completely in the toilet and in-service retention is next to nothing. Even career-type commissioned officers are getting out now. Also, with so much being spent in Iraq, budgetary constraints for anything not directly associated with Iraq are getting ridiculous. Towards the end of the fiscal year, has to pay for things for his troops (like toilet paper) out of his own pocket.

This war is absolutely ruining our military. :shake:

[patteeu]

Read the link. I was talking of the emotional cost vs. the economics. There are people there talking economics.

I'm not going to bother with your link if you can't even see fit to give me a preview of what I should expect to find there. You've given me every reason to believe that it has nothing to do with my narrow criticism of Logical's post.

[Logical]

Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/a/hazpay.htm)
A special pay of $150 per month, for performing hazardous military duties, known as Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/Military_Pay_and_Financial_Matters.htm

One more time for patteeu. I don't see that covering child care let along any other services that they would have to pay for in the absence of their spouse.

[patteeu]

How you could see the only one parent home and not understand that adds a burden for child care expenses, I just don't get.

How you could think that "making ends meet" is the primary concern of these families or at least the only concern worth mentioning, I just don't get.

I'll take trndobrd's expertise on this subject over yours. He has, afterall, "put it on the line for us" in Iraq.

In most cases for active component Soldiers a deployment is a benefit in purely economic terms.

[Adept Havelock]

Do you have any sense for history? This President has done more than any prior President in the History of this country to protect its soldiers.


That's a hell of an (IMO ignorant) statement.

Prove it. :harumph:

As for "a sense of history", I'm pretty sure I've forgotten more history than you'll ever learn. Especially military history.

[Logical]

I'll take trndobrd's expertise on this subject over yours. He has, afterall, "put it on the line for us" in Iraq.



How you could think that "making ends meet" is the primary concern of these families or at least the only concern worth mentioning, I just don't get.

That is only speaking to the soldiers economic situation not the families and oh by the way a lot of that is not true in CA.

[patteeu]

That is only speaking to the soldiers economic situation not the families and oh by the way a lot of that is not true in CA.

I'm not the one who EXCLUSIVELY brought up the soldiers' economic situation, you are. I just responded to it.

I'm confident that everything that trndobrd said is just as true in CA as it is anywhere else.* I'm equally confident that you don't know much about it. Most likely, you're as clueless about these details as I am.
----------------------------------



* It's certainly possible that CA doesn't have as many benefits for deployed soldiers as some other state, especially given the likelihood that they have more than their fair share of people out there who don't support the troops, but any federal benefits apply in CA just as they would anywhere else.

[trndobrd]

That is only speaking to the soldiers economic situation not the families and oh by the way a lot of that is not true in CA.


I was referencing the economic situation of the family as a whole. The Combat Zone Tax Exclusion (CTZE) makes all income free from both federal and state income tax. Along with Hazardous Duty Pay and Separation allowances, Federally mandated interest rate caps and so forth, it's a pretty good bump in income. (Yes, even the Democratic Peoples Republic of California offers some benefits :) ) I recall breaking this all down in another thread a few months ago so I won't rehash it.

Even when not deployed, most active component Soliders spend considerable time away from home either in the field, on 6 week rotations to training centers or year long tours to Korea and the like. So systems are in place to provide Active component families with a very good support system on military installations including family support groups, child care services and after school programs. Installation chaplains, various service organizations and the unit chain of command are also available.

It is the reserve component families that have a much tougher go of things during deployments. Many live hours away from the nearest military installation, so they cannot take advantage of tax free commissary and PX benefits. They are unfamiliar with the medical services and coverage benefits, and there is no local point of contact to help. Perhaps hardest of all, there is not a ready made support network of friends and neighbors that have gone through the same experience.

To be perfectly clear, I am talking strictly economic benefit, not missed birthdays, little leauge games, and all the stresses associated with being gone.

[Laz]

One of my best friends, who is an Air Force officer, will be deploying to Iraq (pulling Army missions because there simply aren't enough soldiers, and the Navy is doing it, too) for his second tour in a few months. He tells me that morale is completely in the toilet and in-service retention is next to nothing. Even career-type commissioned officers are getting out now. Also, with so much being spent in Iraq, budgetary constraints for anything not directly associated with Iraq are getting ridiculous. Towards the end of the fiscal year, has to pay for things for his troops (like toilet paper) out of his own pocket.

This war is absolutely ruining our military. :shake:
my buddy's wife has medical problems(back etc) so her ability to deal with things can really vary on a daily basis. She just can't do much on bad days. He's been over to Iraq twice now and it just destroys the family while he's gone.

[Logical]

I was referencing the economic situation of the family as a whole. The Combat Zone Tax Exclusion (CTZE) makes all income free from both federal and state income tax. Along with Hazardous Duty Pay and Separation allowances, Federally mandated interest rate caps and so forth, it's a pretty good bump in income. (Yes, even the Democratic Peoples Republic of California offers some benefits :) ) I recall breaking this all down in another thread a few months ago so I won't rehash it.

Even when not deployed, most active component Soliders spend considerable time away from home either in the field, on 6 week rotations to training centers or year long tours to Korea and the like. So systems are in place to provide Active component families with a very good support system on military installations including family support groups, child care services and after school programs. Installation chaplains, various service organizations and the unit chain of command are also available.

It is the reserve component families that have a much tougher go of things during deployments. Many live hours away from the nearest military installation, so they cannot take advantage of tax free commissary and PX benefits. They are unfamiliar with the medical services and coverage benefits, and there is no local point of contact to help. Perhaps hardest of all, there is not a ready made support network of friends and neighbors that have gone through the same experience.

To be perfectly clear, I am talking strictly economic benefit, not missed birthdays, little leauge games, and all the stresses associated with being gone.
Of the forces in Iraq what would you say the % of Active Service are there vs the rest?

[patteeu]

Og the forces in Iraq what would you say the % of Active Servie are there vs the rest?

I'm not sure why you ask, but just fyi, this policy change only applies to active duty forces.

[Logical]

I'm not sure why you ask, but just fyi, this policy change only applies to active duty forces.My question is totally unrelated to the policy change.

[go bowe]

i don't know for sure and have no link, but i vaguely recall seeing an estimate that 40% of the deployed forces were from guard and reserve components...

but that was from a year ago or more...

now i'm curious, but...

someone more facile on the internet will no doubt look it up and post it on this thread...

[patteeu]

My question is totally unrelated to the policy change.

OK :thumb:

[Pitt Gorilla]

What makes it more of a struggle for the family to make ends meet during a deployment? Hazardous duty pay and one less mouth to feed would seem to indicate a small financial improvement to me. I'm sure they have issues related to only having one parent home to manage everything and take care of the kids, but I'm not sure why making ends meet would be one of the difficulties (beyond the normal difficulty in this regard that many military families have to begin with).That's a great point. Perhaps they should extend the deployments to 2 or 3 years, with a year in between. Just think of the financial improvement!!

[Pitt Gorilla]

Of course, growing the military is the real solution and I'd like to see an effort to increase the pace of that process.I think recxjake was going to do his part.

[Logical]

I certainly don't have the experience that trnobrd has, but I do live in a military City and I have the folllowing observations.

1. The news is always showing charity events to help the needy families of the soldiers that are deployed.

2. They seem to have a huge amount of military family members lining up for welfare and other government assistance based on TV reports.

3. We have huge drives for toys for the children of service people who are deployed

4. I wonder why there are so many stories of the hardships the families are facing regarding paying their utilities, rent, and other essentials?