Thoughts on deployment lengths

There's been an idea rolling around in my head for awhile and I finally decided to throw it up on this blog for my readers to mull over, if they are so inclined. The idea is that the deployment system in the US Army is broken. This came to me some time during my second deployment before we had been informed that we would be enjoying a 15 month stay in Iraq as opposed to the 12 that we assumed we would be doing.

A bit of background: 3-2 SBCT was in Baghdad as the Corps reserve, clearing neighborhoods so that other US brigades and Iraqi Army units could hold them. The idea was that we would remove most of the insurgent threat and then some other unit would establish combat outposts and begin getting the population on their side before the insurgents came back. When the inevitable happened and the insurgents did come back then not only would they be facing Iraqi and US units but a local population that wasn't friendly towards the insurgents. The problem was that The Surge © needed more brigades than the Army could provide.

The solution was to extend some units' time in Iraq. I kept a close tab (as did my analysts) on the Army presentations that could be found floating around the SIPR that discussed the subject. One solution had only 2 brigades being extended, another around half a dozen. In each scenario 3-2 SBCT was one of the brigades to be extended and we would get to watch units who deployed to Iraq after us get to go home before us.

It made me a bit irritated.

Eventually the Army decided it was best to just extend everyone to 15 months to make it fair. I was slighly less irritated.

During my third and final deployment I once again determined that the Army's deployment system was broken, but for different reasons. There is just so much information to gather and comprehend on any one corner of Iraq that there is no way a single unit can understand it all, or even transfer it all to the next unit. There needs to be some kind of continuity that involves more than handing your replacement a hard drive with all the information your unit has gathered over the course of a deployment.

It dawned on me that what the US did in Vietnam (leave units in place and replace individuals) made much more sense for an insurgency. Granted, some camaraderie would likely be lost but I think the benefits of institutionalized knowledge would outweigh the consequences. Also, a 12 month long deployment is entirely too long for an individual. My ability to work every day for over 12 hours a day in the kind of stressful environment that an insurgency brings peaked out at around 9 months (even with mid tour leave). After that 9 month mark you start to get diminishing returns.

So here's my solution...deploy the number of units needed for a conflict and leave the units there, but rotate out individuals (like Vietnam). You can add more, or reduce, as needed. Standard deployments for individuals would be 9 months, but here's the kicker: each individual can decide to do more or less as he/she desires. The more time you do, the more benefits or choice in next assignment you have.

- 6/7 months: If you do 6-7 months you are sent back to a tactical brigade with a chance at being rotated back after 9 months or so.

- 9 months: During your deployment you have the opportunity to take mid tour leave. When you are rotated out you are sent to a tactical brigade with a chance at being deployed again after a year to 18 months.

- 12 months: Choice of assignment (within reason) after completion of the deployment. Along with mid tour leave the soldier has the opportunity for a 4 day pass (mid tour passes in Iraq varied from a quick trip to Qatar to a stay in the Green Zone in Baghdad). Soldier is guaranteed 2 years of not being deployed.

- 18 months: Choice of assignment; 2 mid tour leaves; not deployed for 3 years.

- 24 months: Two years deployed may seem absurd but I knew people who did it. Choice of assignment; 2 mid tour leaves; soldier cannot deploy for a minimum of 3 years.

There would need to be some other benefits for those soldiers who volunteer for 18 or 24 months but I can't really think of any off the top of my head at the moment. I believe most soldiers would take 9 month deployments but a significant number would volunteer for longer, either to stay with a buddy or for a sense of mission. Under this system the Army would have to be better at personnel management (which it sucks at) but I believe it could be done.