Keddrick Corday Thompson: but there are many units situations and personnel whom don't make sense. This is the Army as we know it...and a lot they do sometimes don't. Hell, the BC and CSM hasn't even drilled with its unit yet.... So this crap wild.
I do get this a lot from Soldiers that I've talked to, who wanted to go into the IRR. This appears to be a case where the leadership doesn't communicate with the troops.
When I drilled, we kept in contact with each other, in the detachment. We also kept in contact with the command team. We passed information down from the command team to the individual PSYOP teams throughout the month. Additionally, a week and a half before each drill, we had a leadership/training meeting specific to that up-coming drill.
We actually spent our drill time actively engaged in training; whether we were in garrison or out in the field.
Our leadership at the battalion and PSYOP Group (Brigade Equivalent) levels kept us posted about what was going on.
As for your BC and CSM not drilling with their unit. Perhaps both are learning more about the deployment that you guys are going on. They may be performing their drill via RST.
Keddrick Corday Thompson: That's why I say face to face...there is no ignoring emails regarding transfer potentials, and rear d acceptance and coordination among other things. Those hard questions will be addressed, those meetings will happen period.
You claimed that S2 and S3 reviewed your memo and encouraged you to send it to the BC and CSM. This had to occur as a result of a "face to face".
Additionally, you could've made phone calls. You may have gone to your unit between drills to talk about this issue. You could've done this between February and June. They can't ignore a phone call... Followed by an "in-person" visit between drills.
If they're ignoring your emails, that may be a bad sign for you. Standing up a rear detachment may not even be on their radar. They may have other things to do to prepare for deployment. As such, they may see your "rear detachment" email and dismiss it. Your email would just get ignored. It's not going to be the priority; they have their hands busy doing priority stuff.
Keddrick Corday Thompson: And historic context is fine...still not legitimate.
The historic context is legitimate. Look both terms up. The Army isn't the only one that defines what constitutes deployments. Not only does the Army define it in the terms I use here... They identify it in phases. This involves a mobilization process that begins with assembling at the unit and ends with the completion of the mobilization process at the mobilization center.
Then there are the Deployment phases that involve movement to the port of embarkation, the movement to the theater, etc.
The word "mobilize" derived from the word that meant to "make movable".
This occurs when you assemble the troops and array them to be able to move. Mobilization is the process of making a unit movable. Deployment is the process of sending them from the point of mobilization to where they're needed.
Keddrick Corday Thompson: Because any real soldier, especially historic times such as WW2, Cold War, etc...gone laugh at anyone dumbest saying they deployed from US state to another US state
Again false. I'm also a Cold War Veteran, and have deployed during the Cold War. Granted, I didn't deploy to another location in the US. However; they described deployments back then as I describe them now... Mobilization movement to another location beyond the home unit's location. This was whether that location was in the US or elsewhere.
Additionally, troops deployed to US territories during World War II. A couple of those territories had since become states.
Keddrick Corday Thompson: Dumbbass*
Says the guy, who joined the Army in the 21st Century, pride-splaining to someone whose military service began during the Cold War... What Cold War Veterans would think about my definition of deployment... Which happens to be the same as the definition that I'm using now... Based on my experiences serving in the military during the 20th Century... Beginning during the Cold War.
Keddrick Corday Thompson: A patch from a unit obtained from overseas is a deployment period.
Wrong. According to AR 670-1, paragraph 21-17, it's called a "Shoulder Sleeve Insignia-Former Wartime Service", or "SSI-FWS" patch. Meaning, if you're a Soldier that deployed to a combat theater, as defined by the US military, and meet the criteria for an SSI patch, you'd get the SSI patch.
It's not a deployment patch.
The Army does deploy people to overseas locations that do not earn the Soldiers an SSI-FWS patch (not deployment patch). So, even when you're deployed overseas, and if it's not at an SSI-FWS qualifying area, then you do not get an SSI patch for that deployment.
I saw a Soldier wearing an SSI-FWS patch for an overseas deployment that didn't qualify for an SSI patch. I informed her about it. She removed it but started wearing it again years later.
By your definition, this Soldier did not deploy because she did not earn an SSI-FWS patch... When in fact she did deploy.
Don't confuse combat deployment with routine deployment (operational or administrative).
No comments:
Post a Comment