• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Six-month postings questioned

MPIKE

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
insert posted under fair dealings preamble here...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060905.AFGHANSOLDIERS05/TPStory

THE AFGHAN MISSION: TACTICS
Six-month postings questioned

OMAR EL AKKAD

The decision to send Canadian troops to Afghanistan for six-month rotations is both a reflection of the great toll such deployments take on soldiers and their families, and an indication of how short-staffed the military is, Canadian historians say.

The tradition of sending soldiers oversees for six-month periods began with Canadian involvement in Bosnia more than a decade ago. During Canada's military role in Korea, soldiers were stationed for one-year stints.

"I think in part it's a reflection of the short-staffed nature of the military," historian Jack Granatstein, a professor emeritus at York University in Toronto, said of the current six-month rotation. However, he added that the length of deployment also factors in the "terrible impact" that longer periods in a war zone can have on a soldier's family life, especially when there is a chance that soldier may be deployed multiple times in a relatively short number of years.

For most reservists, a six-month deployment translates to a one-year commitment because there is six months of preparation beforehand. About one in five Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is a reservist.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the riskiest part of a soldier's deployment is the earliest, when the battlefield is still new. But while initial rounds of fighting tend to be severe, University of Calgary historian David Bercuson said, "There's still a very large chance element" in combat, meaning it is difficult to predict which periods are likely to be the bloodiest.

Some have suggested the military drop its six-month rotation schedule and try a different approach. For example, Dr. Bercuson said, troops tend to get a three-week leave toward the end of their deployment, cutting down on the number of soldiers in the field. That has led some to suggest that troops be deployed for only four months, but not be given leaves, he said.

Since Canada's initial involvement in Afghanistan, the military has been applying lessons at home that it learned abroad, especially in training facilities in Wainwright, Alta., for soldiers about to be deployed. However, as the number of Canadian casualties in Afghanistan inches up -- 32 Canadians have died since the troops arrived in Afghanistan in 2002 -- the next major challenge may well be the launch of a troop-reinforcement strategy. That may be difficult to face for a force that has come to rely heavily on technology, Dr. Bercuson said.

"It's not like exercises. When you get on the ground you realize it's the same grind as any other war," he said. "That tends to knock you back on your heels a bit."

Came across the article above and wondered if there was any merit to it?...  In policing, there has always been endless debate on who has the best shift schedules. (ie 4on 4off vs Continentals type shifts etc)  There are tons of studies on pros/cons for any type to increase work performance or health.

In reading the above, it states the "Some" have been trying to find a better system for deployments.  This is the first I've heard of this type of discussion and I had thought that the current system was considered a good balance from what other nations use for deployments.  Is it possible to shorten things further as the article suggests?  Initially, in thinking about it I can see more cons against shortening it further and a convenience argument just doesn't outweigh the need for competent skill levels gained with the current or longer system. no?

Cheers
 
Well, they have a few facts wrong to begin with.  The 'Six Month Tour' is not a new thing.  Originally the Tours were a year long and I don't think that the troops had much in the way of 'Work Up Training' as they already did a lot more in the way of Ranges, Exercises and Training for War, than most can budget for in today's Army.  They were highly trained for the day, and more or less sent off to Egypt or the Sinai for a year and rotated home.  I think the 'Six Month Tour' came about over time in our Rotations to Cyprus.  At the time six months was what they figured would be best for the Soldier and his Dependents.

Today, with a shrunken Budget, we have taken all the monies for Training Exercises (that used to be Annual and Semi-Annual Training Events in the Cbt Arms Units.) and thrown it into a six month Work Up Schedule for those deploying on a 'Six Month Tour'.  We have been robbing Peter to pay Paul and now it has come home to roost and we are hurting for it.  That is what Canadians wanted every year in the Federal Budget - the Peace Dividend; and that is where we are at today......crippled, totally neutered!
 
George Wallace said:
Well, they have a few facts wrong to begin with.  The 'Six Month Tour' is not a new thing.  Originally the Tours were a year long and I don't think that the troops had much in the way of 'Work Up Training' as they already did a lot more in the way of Ranges, Exercises and Training for War, than most can budget for in today's Army.  They were highly trained for the day, and more or less sent off to Egypt or the Sinai for a year and rotated home.  I think the 'Six Month Tour' came about over time in our Rotations to Cyprus.  At the time six months was what they figured would be best for the Soldier and his Dependents.

Today, with a shrunken Budget, we have taken all the monies for Training Exercises (that used to be Annual and Semi-Annual Training Events in the Cbt Arms Units.) and thrown it into a six month Work Up Schedule for those deploying on a 'Six Month Tour'.  We have been robbing Peter to pay Paul and now it has come home to roost and we are hurting for it.  That is what Canadians wanted every year in the Federal Budget - the Peace Dividend; and that is where we are at today......crippled, totally neutered!

The six month tour definately came up long before Bosnia. I'd say you are right with the Cyprus tour. Some were there longer initially but certainly in the 70s they were doing 6 months
 
I saw the G&M article and thought it was useless drabble made by people who know nothing about the military and why we do 6 month tours. Also there was no talk about the reconstitution after tours, and dealing with PERSTEMPO issues of courses, postings, etc.
 
The tradition of six month operational rotations probably came about due to United Nations requirements rather than a conscious decision on the army's part.  UN resolutions for peacekeeping missions were usually authorized for a six month period and re-authorized every six months.  As stupid as it sounds, missions like UNFICYP (40+ years) and UNIFIL (25+ years) have been voted on by the members of the UN Security Council every six months. 
 
I would argue that going to one-year tours would show that we are stretched.  This is a big, fat red herring.
 
After six months in a place like Kandahar, the soldiers need a break.

I used to think we could do more by switching to 9 months rotations over the 3 year cycle.  I know think this would have been too much for the current operation.  Six months work.
 
blackadder1916 said:
The six month operational rotations probably came about due to United Nations requirements rather than a conscious decision on the army's part.  UN resolutions for peacekeeping missions were usually authorized for a six month period and re-authorized every six months. 

During a television interview over this past weekend, General Lewis Mackenzie said that the UN six-month mandate was the origin of the current tour length.

c
 
Thanks gents.. Not my intention to add to the drabble.  I just thought this mouse trap was workin' fine.

Cheers
 
cardinal said:
During a television interview over this past weekend, General Lewis Mackenzie said that the UN six-month mandate was the origin of the current tour length.

Far as I know that is true. Old tales speak of one-year army tours back in the 1960's and 1970's but the UN standard was set for all participating in 'peacekeeping' missions.

I agree that a six-month mission is easier on families, but must admit that many other countries deploy their soldiers for one year at a time.  In this respect, I beleive that soldiers should be offered the option of extending for another year with approval from medical staff and command staff.  I can say for myself there were a couple of tours where I would have loved to have stayed longer than 6 months as I was just getting into the swing of the job (in fact the request was passed through the chain on my last tour, but was denied by higher staff at NDHQ).

Of course there wouldnt be such a problem if the planning staff guys would actually book time for us to do proper handovers or debriefs (on my last tour I got given 2 hours to learn everything I could from the guy I replaced; when I left there 7 months later there was no one to hand over or debrief to).
 
The original UNEF tours (Gaza/Sinai) (1956 to 1967) were 1 year in length; there was a somewhat open ended UN mandate.  Ditto the earlier (and still ongoing) UNTSO tours - which got even longer when dependents were allowed (are they still?) in, at least, the '60s and '70s.  The Congo tours ('60s) were only six months - as were the UN Mandates.  Cyprus came later (64/65?) and it, too, had a formally renewed six month mandate.  Tours with the ICCS in Vietnam ('60s and '70s) were also six months although the mandate was also open ended.  I suspect that in the ICCS case this had more to do with Canada's desire to rotate as many officers  as possible through the area for professional development.
 
Centurian1985 said:
I agree that a six-month mission is easier on families, but must admit that many other countries deploy their soldiers for one year at a time.  In this respect, I believe that soldiers should be offered the option of extending for another year with approval from medical staff and command staff.
There are also many nations with shorter deployments, and deployment lengths typically vary even inside of a nation (by a person's/unit's function).  As a general rule, our BGs need to come & go as formed organizations.  There could be one or two HQ positions that are offset or of different durations, but these would have to be planned as such (and not created at the whim of the position occupant).
 
Edward Campbell said:
I suspect that in the ICCS case this had more to do with Canada's desire to rotate as many officers as possible through the area for professional development.

I recall that on my 1988 Cyprus tour, a lot of the younger officers (platoon commanders) were rotated out of country every three months!
 
Back
Top