However, there are numerous reasons for which I'm not sure I'll stay as a career.
1) The deployments. The USAR used to be a strategic force ie a force which was nominally trained which could augment the Regular Army (RA) when a crisis arose. Case-and-point: In 1991, my Reserve unit, the 3/330 Infantry Regiment, a Drill Sergeant unit, was called up in support of Operation Desert Storm. Since the Army wasn't sure the scope that the war would take, they called up a lot of Reservists "just in case." My unit was going to perform basic training for the potential draftees. From 2004-2008, and 2010-2011, it was called up because the Army needed as many RA Soldiers as they could for Iraq; therefore, they used the USAR drills to back fill. This was the traditional role of the USAR.
Recently, however, the Chief of the Army Reserve (CAR) wants the USAR to be more operational. He doesn't want them to be used "just in case." He wants them to be used as an integrated and integral "force multiplier." <----Army cliche. This would mean that every fifth year, a USAR unit can expect to be gone anywhere from 6 months to a year. That's a bitter pill to swallow because a lot of people, like me, not only enjoy our civilian lives, but have careers that are such that being gone 25% of one's life can really hurt the civilian employer.* I think the CAR is afraid that the USAR may become disused, and with disuse irrelevancy, and more importantly--gasp--underfunded. He couches this in terms of not only national security (America is safer with a well-funded, well-trained Reserve), but also bang-for-your-buck. USAR Soldiers are cheaper to maintain because they don't require medical care (unless Mobilized or injured at drill), they don't require housing, they don't require food, they maintain a level of readiness that far surpasses the pay they receive, yada yada yada. I think, however, that the strain of multiple deployments and mobilizations will force a lot of Soldiers out...especially those with demanding civilian careers. In the end, the USAR will end up with people who either have no demanding jobs--on the aggregate, I would imagine, these are people who are less qualified which hurts the Army, or have civilian jobs which, in one way or another, are tied into federal jobs already which further exacerbates the civil-military divide which has occurred ever since the draft ended. Either way, I think an operational reserve is a terrible idea, and is one reason I'm not sure I'll stay in.
B) The second reason is the eponymous title of this post: I'm not a company man. Being in a BG-level command, I've seen company men. Since we are augmenting an MG-level command, I've seen company men. These are those Soldiers who eat, drink, piss, and $h!t the Army. They would better know what to do with a regulation or a weapon more than a member of the opposite sex. They are the ones who have been mobilized or deployed 4 out of the last 10 years. They are the ones who talk about integrity and honor while--like the corporate world or any high-stakes profession--forsaking those values for the sake of their careers. They are the ones who wear their uniforms in public with no shame. They are the ones who still say that Army is still defending America's way-of-life in Afghanistan. They are the ones who will still justify Iraq. They are the ones who think that those who serve are better than those whom they serve. They are the ones who get promoted. I'm not them. I'm not a company man. I look around, and I say "So what? How am I making America better?" While I'm certainly happy to be a part of the draw down in Iraq (Thank God the Iraqi government wouldn't give Soldiers judicial immunity), what was the purpose? Why was the Army drug through the mud the last 8 years? Why were the floodgates opened to anyone and everyone who had a pulse to join? (I must say that under the current austere recruiting environment, I probably would not have been accepted to OCS because I required a medical waiver, and all medical waivers have now been banned for those wishing to join as officers.)
The above doesn't mean that I don't have pride in the Army. I do. I think the Army is larger than the current foreign policy; like the church, the institution is larger than any one part. However, I'm not blindly committed to the Army. I'm not a company man, and I think that, more than anything, will prevent me from making the Army a career.
(Now watch, in 25 years when LTC Krogh is retiring, this will be read aloud to everyone present.)
*NB: The ARFORGEN model--the model which dictates deployments for the Reserves--states that every fifth year, a Soldier could be/will be deployed. A Soldier is "untouchable" for two years, is notified for deployment for two years, and deployed on the fifth. Of course, that Soldier will still attend mandatory schools, drills, taskers, and other training...plus mobilization training...which is in addition to the year away. Since I joined on August 20, 2007, 50 months ago, I have been gone 15 months. When I return from Kuwait, I will have been in for 59 months, and gone for 23 months...or 40% of my life since 20 August 2007. That will add up to a little over three months of every year. Who thinks that sustainable? How many professions and employers will suffer that abuse? I think it is untenable, and will drive out a lot of qualified Soldiers, Soldiers, you know, who love their spouses, homes, friends, families, jobs etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment