Deploy or 'Find Something Else to Do' in Civilian Life: Mattis

[orangecrush]

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis used tough terms to back up the new deploy-or-get out rules, saying those held back for administrative reasons place an unfair burden on troops who routinely serve multiple combat tours.

"You're either deployable, or you need to find something else to do. I'm not going have some people deploying constantly and then other people, who seem to not pay that price, in the U.S. military," Mattis told reporters traveling with him on his way home Saturday from a week-long trip to Europe.


...
In a department-wide memo released Thursday on "Retention Policy for Non-Deployable Service Members," Wilkie said he would also seek to establish "standardized criteria for retaining non-deployable service members."

However, "service members who have been non-deployable for more than 12 consecutive months will be processed for administrative separation," the memo states. In addition, the services do not have to wait until a service member has been non-deployable for 12 consecutive months to begin the separation process.


https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/02/18/mattis-deploy-or-find-something-else-do-civilian-life.html

Veterans - service members -

your thoughts?

[Marengo]

1. USMC vet, support this 100%

[orangecrush]

6. Thanks!

[john657]

2. U.S. Army combat vet here,

I wholeheartedly support this.

[orangecrush]

7. Thank you!

[LuvLoogie]

3. Well it would have to be on a case by case basis, probably.

I could be a chronic or long-term medical issue, in which I could see a separation with access to VA healthcare.

They may be facing some retention issues and looking for malingerers or skaters to either be available to the mission or separate to free up resources for those who can/are able to deploy.

[orangecrush]

10. That sounds logical

Thanks for posting!

[atreides1]

4. Okay!

Of that 235,000, about 99,000 are on the list for administrative reasons, such as not having all their immunizations or required dental exams. About 20,000 are not deployable due to pregnancy, and 116,000 are not deployable due to either short- or long-term injuries or wounds.

The 99,000 is an easy fix and would require the chain of command to get involved in making sure that those personnel get their shots and teeth examined, even if that means marching their asses down to the medical clinic to get it done!!!

As for the 20,000 pregnant service members, once they deliver and finish up maternity leave, the chain of command makes sure that all the t's are crossed and all the i's are dotted and put them back into the rotation to deploy!

How many of the 116,000 are non-deployable due to non-combat injuries? Of those how many can be processed for medical discharge or retirement?

That leaves those who were wounded or injured in combat...for which there will be numerous exceptions to the new rules forcing out service members unable to deploy for 12 consecutive months! Once again how many of these personnel can be medically retired?

On the other side of this, is the question of replacing the losses...I'm not sure how recruiting is doing these days, but 235,000 spread across 5 services is a lot to replace!

[orangecrush]

11. I have read

many stories of people wanting out because of unending deployments.

[alarimer]

5. End the illegal wars of occupation. NOW!

And fuck you Mattis, you warmongering piece of shit.

[hack89]

8. Retired Navy - support this 100%

spent a lot of time overseas away from my family.

[orangecrush]

12. Hopefully

this is a step in the right direction.

[milestogo]

9. But he's okay with working for a chickenhawk who was never willing to pay the price.

[orangecrush]

14. Totally true

but for people serving in the military who have endured multiple deployments, it is sound administrative move, politics aside.

Stopped clock, etc.

[gratuitous]

13. Do I have this right?

If service members don't deploy they should get out of the service? Does that ease or add to the burden on those deployed? If sufficient numbers of folks separate, where is the military going to get people to relieve those who are deployed? Will a draft be necessary, or will there be some other program to encourage high school age students to join up, knowing that deployment will be pretty sure and pretty fast?

[orangecrush]

15. Good questions

I think post #4 gives the best answer.

[hack89]

16. What is the point of enlisting if you don't want to deploy?

Last edited Fri Feb 23, 2018, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

That is what the military does. It is not some big secret.

[gratuitous]

17. My grandson enlisted

The high school recruiter who joined himself to my grandson at the hip during his last two years of high school convinced him that my grandson would never amount to anything, wouldn't be able to get into college, would just mount up massive debt for a worthless degree, and that his only hope for getting out of his rinky-dink town was to join the military. There would be good pay, fabulous benefits, and top-notch training for a great career.

There was a small gap between the promise and the reality.

[orangecrush]

18. Very sorry

to hear of this.

[orangecrush]

19. Agree

I believe it's in the oath.

[Igottasay]

20. size limits

There are limits to the number of personnel in the military forces.

If you are maxed out in personnel then you have to get rid of non deployers to recruit more people into service to increase the pool of eligible deployers, thus lessening the burden on servicemen who deploy every year.