# Potential career effects of not having deployed to Afghanistan



## chris_log (12 Apr 2009)

If the 2011 'end date' or 'mission change date' (or whatever it's called these days) holds true, then few of the troops joining now will see combat (or in my case, most of the folks going through ROTP right now will not deploy to Afghanistan in the kinds of roles they think they are).

I can't wait for when, in a couple years down the road, we see the Army split along the lines of those who were there and those who weren't with all the career, promotion and other implications that holds. There's a reason they are quickly cycling mid to senior level army officers through that mission...


(Edit by Mod to correct typo in slit thread title. - MO)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Apr 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> I can't wait for when, in a couple years down the road, we see the Army split along the lines of those who were there and those who weren't with all the career, promotion and other implications that holds. There's a reason they are quickly cycling mid to senior level army officers through that mission...



This has been covered extensively here before. It will be nothing new. It won't be much different than the guys that served in Europe, doing trip wire duty for NATO. Then the guys that were in Bosnia, then Somolia, or a dozen other places we've been. We will always be fighting the last action, and yes, each has it's dinosaurs that refuse to give up the past, and fails to see the present as an opportunity instead of a hurdle.


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 Apr 2009)

And, soon enough, those who were "only in Afghanistan" will have their turn to be accused of being the dinosaurs.


----------



## chris_log (12 Apr 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This has been covered extensively here before. It will be nothing new. It won't be much different than the guys that served in Europe, doing trip wire duty for NATO. Then the guys that were in Bosnia, then Somolia, or a dozen other places we've been. We will always be fighting the last action, and yes, each has it's dinosaurs that refuse to give up the past, and fails to see the present as an opportunity instead of a hurdle.



I don't know, my own impression as well as what has come up in discussion with people with more years served that I have years alive indicates to me that Afghanistan and the who went vs who didn't will be different then in years past...if for no other reason then it is much more of a shooting war then any of our other missions (and before anyone jumps on me, I am well aware of what happened on previous missions i.e. Bosnia and Somalia) and that 'image' of what the mission was will come into play. 

I have witnessed this already...in Gagetown the instructors who a) students listen to the most and b) seem to really run the show are the ones who have deployed to the sandbox. Other instructors without any tours or who served on what are now looked at as being 'peacekeeping' tours seem to be shuffled to the side. On top of that....look at how much exposure and attention to other minor missions get (for those who don't know, its none). No welcome home parades, no Timmy's certificates, no dedication videos etc etc. 

I agree with you that this isn't anything new...but I sense that Afghanistan is very much going to be the defining mission for the CF for quite some time and that people who didn't 'get in on the action' are going to find themselves treated as second-rate compared to those who did deploy. 

I'm not entirely sure if I'm wording this well (I'm someone will get up in arms about it) but I think you guys get what I'm trying to get at. I personally feel like I *have* to go to Afghanistan (best bet for me is 1-11...if there is going to be one) not just because I want to go and 'do my bit' but also because I wouldn't feel qualified to lead people who, for the most part, will have deployed.


----------



## Run away gun (12 Apr 2009)

Young officers since the dawn of time have been leading men and women who have served in different operational theaters than themselves. After WW2, after Korea, after the Gulf, after Kosovo, after Somalia, etc. There has always been junior officers who didn't "get in on the action" and yet they still come out as good commanders.

In my personal experience, nobody has been looked down on for not deploying, it is those that actively try to avoid deployment that get the cold shoulder.


----------



## chris_log (12 Apr 2009)

Run away gun said:
			
		

> Young officers since the dawn of time have been leading men and women who have served in different operational theaters than themselves. After WW2, after Korea, after the Gulf, after Kosovo, after Somalia, etc. *There has always been junior officers who didn't "get in on the action" and yet they still come out as good commanders.*
> 
> In my personal experience, nobody has been looked down on for not deploying, it is those that actively try to avoid deployment that get the cold shoulder.



I don't doubt that, it was more of an observation on my personal feelings. 

(As an aside, holy tangent batman)


----------



## len173 (12 Apr 2009)

I've never seen anyone looked down upon by those that chose to deploy because they didn't, or are too late.

However, they're was one instance where a guy stated that guys with WAY more experience in terms of years in weren't as good, because they had only deployed to Bosnia, and he'd been to A-stan. That was just one stupid opinion though.


----------



## Armymedic (12 Apr 2009)

How far Afghan experience will go toward positive career progression will depend on the individual. PERs are annual, and accordingly each persons individual experience can only positively impact their performance if they chose to use it appropriately.

Idiots as mentioned just above who chose to use their experience inappropriately (I am better than you), will do so at their own detriment.

Even the most "unsuccessful" or "embarrassing" missions provides those who were on them with learning experiences that will make them better soldiers.


----------



## Greymatters (12 Apr 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> I don't know, my own impression as well as what has come up in discussion with people with more years served that I have years alive indicates to me that Afghanistan and the who went vs who didn't will be different then in years past...if for no other reason then it is much more of a shooting war then any of our other missions (and before anyone jumps on me, I am well aware of what happened on previous missions i.e. Bosnia and Somalia) and that 'image' of what the mission was will come into play.



Each group of men and women who deployed in previous years thought their operation was the 'defining moment' for the CF - Gulf War 1, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, etc.  Like those gone before, within five years after the end of this one, it will be replaced by a new one.  But for now, service in Afghanistan will be the current defining standard of comparison for the near future. 




			
				Piper said:
			
		

> I have witnessed this already...in Gagetown the instructors who a) students listen to the most and b) seem to really run the show are the ones who have deployed to the sandbox. Other instructors without any tours or who served on what are now looked at as being 'peacekeeping' tours seem to be shuffled to the side. On top of that....look at how much exposure and attention to other minor missions get (for those who don't know, its none). No welcome home parades, no Timmy's certificates, no dedication videos etc etc.



As has happened after each of the previous tours mentioned, and it always happens that those without tours will be pushed aside by those who have been out there and done the job for real...




			
				Piper said:
			
		

> I agree with you that this isn't anything new...but I sense that Afghanistan is very much going to be the defining mission for the CF for quite some time and that people who didn't 'get in on the action' are going to find themselves treated as second-rate compared to those who did deploy.



IMO, those who didnt get 'in on the action' may be treated as second rate, but this wont be true for all trades in the CF...



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure if I'm wording this well (I'm someone will get up in arms about it) but I think you guys get what I'm trying to get at. I personally feel like I *have* to go to Afghanistan (best bet for me is 1-11...if there is going to be one) not just because I want to go and 'do my bit' but also because I wouldn't feel qualified to lead people who, for the most part, will have deployed.


----------



## socialhandgrenade (12 Apr 2009)

Actually ,I think that the opposite is true ,I think that if you deploy it might hurt yuor career, I.E. It takes about 1 year to do work up and the tour and all the leave involved .Now while that is going on the chance of getting on some career courses that you need for advancement are slim.
  But the guys that are back and not deploying are getting advanceed past the guys that go on tours .This is just what i have observed with my 3 tours to Kandahar  .
 my 2 cents
SH


----------



## Trooper Hale (13 Apr 2009)

Socialhandgrenade makes a strong point. I've noticed the same thing, by blokes being deployed they miss out on courses that people back home will do in their place. HOWEVER, this is usually remedied when they get back.
I know that people who have been deployed are preferred for courses, even though they dont perhaps deserve them, as they've done their time over there and get pushed ahead.
Take two diggers who've been in for the same amount of time but one has been deployed, at Trooper level at least, unless the undeployed dig is absolutely fantastic, he'll miss out while the veteren gets his gunner or junior leaders courses.
I think anyone who argues that everyone is equal is joking themselves. If the only gong on your chest is a Defence Medal (ADM, given for four years service) then you'll be pushed aside for a bloke who's had a trip and has his Iraq or Afghan gongs swinging.


----------



## len173 (13 Apr 2009)

You just never know either. Afghanistan may be the defiining mission for a year, and then the sh** hits the fan somewhere else, a new mission is born, and A-stan is yesterdays news. Who knows what the future will bring. :akimbo:


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And, soon enough, those who were "only in Afghanistan" will have their turn to be accused of being the dinosaurs.



Too late, I got accused of being a dinosaur on the PSP Petawawa forums regarding a comment made about non-military people wearing CADPAT.  :


----------



## pbi (13 Apr 2009)

Shooting war or not, Afghanistan will slowly fade away, just like other shooting wars (ones that took a much greater toll on us). It will continue to inform our thinking for a while, to a gradually declining degree, until something comes along to push it into the wings once and for all. Unfortunately, much of the experience we have accumulated amongst mid-grade officers and NCOs will be lost in the next few years by the retirement wave: some veterans who will make it to higher ranks will have had their Afgh experience at a very low level, and will find it doesn't apply directly (or at all) to the problems they have to struggle with. It's called the evolution of armies.

That said, we should be very careful not to disrespect or disregard what we have learned (and, I think, in many cases re-learned) in Afghanistan. It has been a very hard school for what was, in 2001, essentially a peacetime Army that was badly in danger of losing its way. We have come a very long way in those eight years, and now we can see our brothers and sisters in the Air Force coming along as well. There will be much good to remember and retain for quite a while. The war has brought us back to our true traditions as Canadian soldiers, as opposed to the phony "tradition" of UN peacekeeping that was marketed for public consumption, and was really only based on about a decade or less in which our major force deployments were under the UN.

Eventually, Afghanistan will be off the table and onto the shelf. But that's my point: onto the shelf, not into the garbage can.

Cheers


----------



## DirtyDog (13 Apr 2009)

socialhandgrenade said:
			
		

> Actually ,I think that the opposite is true ,I think that if you deploy it might hurt yuor career, I.E. It takes about 1 year to do work up and the tour and all the leave involved .Now while that is going on the chance of getting on some career courses that you need for advancement are slim.
> But the guys that are back and not deploying are getting advanceed past the guys that go on tours .This is just what i have observed with my 3 tours to Kandahar  .
> my 2 cents
> SH


I know what you're saying, but I think in the longer run, the guy with the tour will be farther ahead.  I know in my case, a bunch of us new guys got to go on tour with the 3-08 BG, while the rest of us stayed back.  Some of us were lucky enough to get some pretty big career courses and other bonus stuff while they were away. I'm talking PLQ, recce, CQCI, sniper plus all the regular QL3 courses.  Some of us are further ahead career course wise then some of the guys who went on 3-08 and were on 3-06 as well and have twice the time in as us.  

But when we leave on 1-10 (provided they don't come) they will have their chance, although opportunities may not be as plentiful with only a rear party to run things in house.

I think with regards to Afghanistan, there will definitely be the "haves" and "have nots".  I can't speak for everyone, but I know for a fact all the younger and newer guys automatically seem to have more respect for anyone that's been there.  In fact, I've seen it numerous times from Ptes who'll say "What does he know, he hasn't even been there".  It's even worse if a lot of your senoir NCOs have never been and you've got a bunch of Cpls who have and tell the troops to pretty much disregard half the stuff a Sgt's saying because he "doesn't know what it's like over there".

What's funny is seeing it break down even further when someone will say "I was over" and the other guy will say "Well you weren't on 3-06 during Medussa" or "YA, but you were force protection..." or whatever.


----------



## socialhandgrenade (13 Apr 2009)

Well Piper ,I agree with all most all that you have said.The problem is that allot of the guys will probably go over again and again .It is just a shame that that is not taken into account for either having career courses written off or parts there of.

 As for he was with force pro ,or on Medusa  or what ever .the things that i have learned is the last tour was always the hardest ,and that no one wants there own actions made to appear smaller then what they where.Its just the way life is. As for guys dismissing what the SGT says, if he has not been there is unprofessional .And the CPL's that where there should validate some of the positive things that where said.So that when the young guys go over they have some faith in there COC.

just my 2 cents
SH


----------



## len173 (13 Apr 2009)

The majority of those that I've met, who've been over are very professional about it. If you ask, they tell. They never downplay anybody elses accomplishments, and in fact usually downplay their own role quite a bit.

I know most people can't answer this without speculation, but what are peoples thoughts about getting a tour after 2011? It looks like I've missed the boat on A-stan. But I understand it's likely that a PRT will be left over. What do you think the odds of a private 031 getting a tour after the battlegroup leaves. I know there will be plenty more missions, I just want to look at all options to do my part.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Apr 2009)

len173 said:
			
		

> I know most people can't answer this without speculation, but what are peoples thoughts about getting a tour after 2011? It looks like I've missed the boat on A-stan. But I understand it's likely that a PRT will be left over. What do you think the odds of a private 031 getting a tour after the battlegroup leaves. I know there will be plenty more missions, I just want to look at all options to do my part.



Just focus on doing your job.  When opportunities come along for future missions, that's the best way to improve your chances if you meet the criteria for individual positions.


----------



## len173 (13 Apr 2009)

> Just focus on doing your job.  When opportunities come along for future missions, that's the best way to improve your chances if you meet the criteria for individual positions.



Thanks for the advice, you're right.

I'm just slowly realizing how much opportunity this career is going to open up to me, and it's really hard not to always be thinking about what the future may bring. But I just need to focus on doing well and working hard at the present.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Apr 2009)

The only part of the program you can control right now is your own performance.  For the rest, I've posted this before, but it might help give some overall perspective:



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> If you join either infantry or armour, you will get posted to a unit after your training.  It may be the unit of your choice, or it may be where the Army needs you most. So, here's the formula:
> 
> A.   If you start now, and estimate a year for recruiting and six months for training
> B.   And you hope that the planned cycle of unit rotations overseas doesn't change, and pick a trade based on that
> ...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (14 Apr 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> If the 2011 'end date' or 'mission change date' (or whatever it's called these days) holds true, then few of the troops joining now will see combat (or in my case, most of the folks going through ROTP right now will not deploy to Afghanistan in the kinds of roles they think they are).
> 
> I can't wait for when, in a couple years down the road, we see the Army split along the lines of those who were there and those who weren't with all the career, promotion and other implications that holds. There's a reason they are quickly cycling mid to senior level army officers through that mission...
> 
> ...



For young officers who will get to the field force after the mission wraps up, I wouldn't worry about promotion being hindered by the lack of an Afghan combat tour because you will generally be competing with your own generation who would be in the same boat. In any case, as others have said, that generation may well have its own shooting war. Since you can't do anything about it I wouldn't worry about it.

Can anyone here shed some light on how the Canadian Army was in the late 50s with the integration of Koren War Vets, WWII Vets and those without either? Please note that I am _not_ asking rhetorically.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Apr 2009)

For those whom I haven't bored with tales of my younger days, I enlisted in 1957 as a gunner and was commissioned in 1961. My service up to and including the award of the CD was spent on regimental duty (including training at the school and a spell as an IG) except for 15 months at HQ 4 CIBG which was still field oriented. In that time I saw the preponderance of Second World War veterans thin out, followed by the Korean Vets. At the same time there was not the plethora of UN ribbons as the multi-mission days were still in the future.

As I recall it, those of us without any ribbons were aware of the distinction between the folks you mentioned. We also understood that the number of ribbons was not an indication of ability. There were super soldiers and duds along with the good old middle of the pack types in all versions, be-ribboned or not. Respect was based on character and performance. I only saw one instance where a person, actually a WO2 (MWO today), tried to pull the 'have you ever been shot at" line. There also was a wide range in age in the field units - say from the teens into the late forties and the early fifties at nearly all ranks. Mind you, First War vets were active in the Commissionaires, so it's all relative, I guess.

The army was aware of the thinning out of the combat vets and it was of some concern at the highest level. There were various schemes dreamed up to attach people to other Commonwealth armies, but as far as I know, all were stillborn. By 1970 people with the Cyprus ribbon began to consider themselves as the next best thing to combat vets, and there was some looking down the nose at everybody else.


----------



## Greymatters (14 Apr 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The army was aware of the thinning out of the combat vets and it was of some concern at the highest level. There were various schemes dreamed up to attach people to other Commonwealth armies, but as far as I know, all were stillborn. By 1970 people with the Cyprus ribbon began to consider themselves as the next best thing to combat vets, and there was some looking down the nose at everybody else.



A trend that carried on until about 1989, with the exception of a few UNMO positions with other deployments...


----------



## brihard (16 Apr 2009)

pbi said:
			
		

> Shooting war or not, Afghanistan will slowly fade away, just like other shooting wars (ones that took a much greater toll on us). It will continue to inform our thinking for a while, to a gradually declining degree, until something comes along to push it into the wings once and for all. Unfortunately, much of the experience we have accumulated amongst mid-grade officers and NCOs will be lost in the next few years by the retirement wave: some veterans who will make it to higher ranks will have had their Afgh experience at a very low level, and will find it doesn't apply directly (or at all) to the problems they have to struggle with. It's called the evolution of armies.
> 
> That said, we should be very careful not to disrespect or disregard what we have learned (and, I think, in many cases re-learned) in Afghanistan. It has been a very hard school for what was, in 2001, essentially a peacetime Army that was badly in danger of losing its way. We have come a very long way in those eight years, and now we can see our brothers and sisters in the Air Force coming along as well. There will be much good to remember and retain for quite a while. The war has brought us back to our true traditions as Canadian soldiers, as opposed to the phony "tradition" of UN peacekeeping that was marketed for public consumption, and was really only based on about a decade or less in which our major force deployments were under the UN.
> 
> ...



Well said.

As a reservist, I come from a slightly different perspective on this one. I'm from a reserve regiment that contributed 8 to 1-06, 35+ to 3-08, and looks to have in excess of 40 embarking on TF 1-10. From all appearances, 1-10 will probably be our last chance to send troops to the sandbox in any significant numbers. While the numbers certainly are not comparable to any reg force unit, for a reserve regiment they're pretty significant.

Because of the peculiarities of the reserves, few of our more senior leadership have had the chance to deploy to Afghanistan. We have a couple captains, and MWO and a couple Sergeants, but other than that it's all JRs. Already on our tour I was hearing that the more senior people back home have been trying to figure out just what to do with us, and how to integrate us back into the unit. In many cases our experiences and skill sets have gone so beyond the typical regime of IBTS and other basic soldier skills training that most of what we've learned is simply irrelevant to normal training in a reserve unit, due to the specificity and complexity of the various tasks we did overseas. A typical reserve regiment, for instance, has little use for my knowledge of combat logistics patrols. The same could be said for personnel deployed in CIMIC or PSYOPS. The battlegroup guys can bring a bit back, but even there TTPs change so quickly that relatively little of what they have done can be translated into the basic lessons learned that form the backbone of skills maintenance training at the reserve level. Basic soldier skills always endure, of course, but proficiency in these certainly isn't contingent on a tour in Afghanistan.

From what I've seen, most of the reservists coming back home from Kandahar are being held in VERY high esteem by their units, and those of us who stay in will likely find ourselves elevated above other peers who do not have the overseas experience we have, despite it being largely irrelevant to the level of training we do on a normal basis. All else being equal, reservists who have volunteered to do the real thing for a bit will pretty naturally stand out somewhat from those who have not either by choice or circumstance. The same can probably be said of the regular force.

There is a danger in taking our experiences in Kandahar and trying to extrapolate too much from them. What we learned in Kandahar is relevant to Kandahar. The army, and I think I can safely say that reserve regiments in particular may be at significant risk in trying to task-tailor their training specifically to a contemporary operational environment that may no longer be relevant in just a few more years. We could be largely out of Afghanistan in two years, and potentially committed in strength to some other mission, such as in Africa, within a year or two of that. Much of the specifics of what we've learned will have to be shelved.

I would suggest then that the ultimate value of Afghanistan veterans in the Canadian Forces of the post-Afghanistan near future will not be in specific experiences or lessons learned, but instead will be found in the mindset of those who've operated recently in very fluid, unpredictable tactical and strategic environments. I think that these crappy little insurgencies, brushfire wars and civil conflicts will be prototypical of what we will see for the duration of the careers of anyone who is in now. What we will have as a result of Afghanistan is at least a solid core of rising leadership who have learned the necessity of flexibility of thought and operations, and who have seen the very real application of the 'mission first' mindset that our military has traditionally been known for. 

Anyone who has deployed will not likely see their career hurt, but likewise those who have not been to Kandahar will have their own kick at the cat wherever we go next. A few loudmouths might trumpet their Afghanistan experience as the be-all end-all, but the quiet professionals who guide the army will recognize who has _learned from_ Afghanistan, even if those lessons aren't first hand. The ability to take what has been learned by others and use it to make oneself a better soldier will always be a sure path to career advancement, particularly if you seize the opportunities that inevitably _will_ present themselves, rather than lamenting those that didn't.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Apr 2009)

There's another strong second order effect of Reservists deploying to Afghanistan - greater community awareness and engagement.  With much of the Regular Force now installed (for good or for ill) on large bases far removed from urban areas (Edmonton, Winnipeg and Halifax being exceptions), it's the local Reserve units that provide a greater community footprint and link to the communities.  Having those veterans out in the larger community sphere helps build closer links between the CF and the larger Canadian population.

There is however now a trend to forget, in the words of the CLS, that "Afghanistan is _a_ war, not _*the*_ war."  The skills we employ there are not the sum total of all skills and competencies we must maintain - schools teach some things we don't do in Afghanistan because they are skills that may be required elsewhere, and provide a well-rounded toolbox.  Finding the balance between mission specific and core skill training will provide debates, discussion papers and games of Mess pokey chest for the next generation...


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Apr 2009)

I was in the British Army during the time of the Falkalnds War. 2/3rds of my regiment went to war (1&2 PARA) and we - 1 PARA - went to Northern Ireland. We had exactly the same concerns at that time.

Most of those who returned from the war were clear that any of us would have done just as well as they had. The system did not openly discriminate between Falklands vets and the rest of us. Now, more than 30 years later, my unofficial survey shows that there are just as many of my 1 PARA peers who are at full colonel level and above as there are 2 or 3 PARA 'vets'. 

I don't think it matters. Do your job, keep your nose clean etc etc etc and all should be well.


----------



## d_edwards (13 Jun 2013)

I dont think it is a concern.  How you perform now will have far more impact.   There are as likely to be thuds with ribbons, as without.


----------



## AgentSmith (15 Jun 2013)

Good job bumping a 4 year old thread


----------



## d_edwards (16 Jun 2013)

Crap, didnt notice that, my bad
 ???


----------

