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

US changes "dwell time,"

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
24
Points
380
Safe At Home
September 17, 2011
Article Link

Starting next month, most U.S. Army troops going overseas to a combat zone, will get at least two years in the United States base when they return from combat. This time at their home base, with their families, is called "dwell time," and the more of it you have between combat tours, the less likely you are to have stress related mental problems. This is a big deal, but there are several other reasons for the two year dwell time goal. These include morale, keeping combat veterans in uniform, as well as the reduction in combat stress.

The more you keep the troops in a combat zone, beyond a certain number of months, the less likely they are to re-enlist. Note that everyone in the army works on employment contracts (of 3-4 years, usually). Not everyone renews their contracts when they expire. But since September 11, 2001, an above average number of people have. That has gone up even more in the last year, because of the recession. Keeping combat veterans in the army is very important, because people (officer or enlisted) who "re-up" are the most valuable people you can have in combat. But keep them out there too long, and they will start to leave. Not in large numbers at first, but eventually you will suffer large losses.

Last year, the army increased the dwell time to 14-15 months. Some units were even getting 17-18 months between combat tours. The goal was 24 months of dwell time. To achieve that, the army added 65,000 troops to its strength over the last few years, and developed software that went through everyone's personnel records to make sure everyone eligible to go overseas, went. That put less stress on the troops who seemed to be going over every 24 months.

In 2007, at the height of the Iraq fighting, army troops were spending a bit less than a year at home for every year overseas. Some were overseas for 15 months at a time. Three years ago, the army was also in the midst of a reorganization, which didn't change the number of troops, or equipment, in a brigade, but did change how they are organized and used. The reorganization created more brigades, and made the army even better able to deal with the kind of heavy deployments required in 2005-7.

The math works like this. The army, marines and reserves can muster about sixty combat brigades. During 2004-7, there were 19 brigades deployed to combat zones (15 in Iraq, three in Afghanistan and one in South Korea.) That's when the army began working to get active duty troops two years dwell time for every year in a combat zone. For reserve troops, the goal was home for four years, overseas for one. It was believed that, with a little help from the marines, the army can just about make that. The increase in troops sent to Afghanistan will delay this dwell time plan for a few years.

The more time you spend in combat, without dwell time, the more likely you are to develop combat fatigue. That can mean anything from transferring to a non-combat job, to a medical discharge (that gets you a pension and life-time medical care). Both of those options cost the army money. The army would rather see if additional dwell time will enable troops to recover from the stress that comes from being in a combat zone (even if not in combat). The additional dwell time would be possible if most troops were withdrawn from Iraq. That's not a sure thing until the Iraqis settle some of their current disputes.

In addition to the dwell time increase, the army is cutting the combat tour from 12 months, to nine, beginning in January. For some units, that will mean two months of dwell time, for each month spent in a combat zone.
More on link
 
Sounds like a great initiative. I really like to see Canada adopt the program to ENSURE everyone eligible deploys not the same people over and over while others stay at CTC's etc. It would be great for the guys "stuck" in out of deployment postings as they would get posted back AND flush the waste we have in the ranks who has been hiding out for the past 10 years.
 
I'd agree too, Dogger. Seems like a good function for the career management cell with an extra pers or 2 for each trade to recommend certain pers be attach posted for tours and get them out of static positions. Not that all of the people in schools and static units are dodging tours, it may be quite the opposite.
 
dogger1936 said:
Sounds like a great initiative. I really like to see Canada adopt the program to ENSURE everyone eligible deploys not the same people over and over while others stay at CTC's etc. It would be great for the guys "stuck" in out of deployment postings as they would get posted back AND flush the waste we have in the ranks who has been hiding out for the past 10 years.

We've done this argument round and round in the past. It's often not the fault of the soldier that they don't deploy. I spent three years in Shilo as Clinic WO and tried everything to deploy. Even when we were short PAs on Ops I still couldn't get on a tour. So it's often not for lack of trying. Not to say that's what you meant, just to point out the other side of the coin.
 
Would definitely be a benefit to troop morale.

There was a huge problem with morale between '03 and '07 after bringing in the "Stop Loss" policies to be able to meet numbers necessary to maintain operations in both theaters. One story I recall about a member of the National Guard who had been deployed to Iraq and was less than 30 days from completion of his second tour when they extended the tour duration from 12 to 15 months. When he finally returned to the US, his unit was retasked to go to Af'stan, and after 30 days of leave promptly went on a 3 month pre-deployment training schedule, then deployed overseas for another 15 months. His guard contract was supposed to end 60 days after his original return from Iraq, but due to being stop lost, since his unit was already tasked, he was prohibited from leaving the Guard until the end of the unit's deployment.
 
Or you could have a boss who keeps yanking your deployment every time your departure time drew close becvause 'we need you here more'.  Very frustrating.

I recall discussing this 'wait time' with some Marines years ago; at the time, they thought that having a one-year wait between deployments was ludicrous; funny to see the USA following a similiar policy now.  I would also point out that US tours tend to be considerably longer than ours, and would justify a longer 'dwell time' than ours.

 
This will go a long way to quwelling the uneasiness down south due to repeated tours in very short periods of time.

As for the rest of it WRT our issues:

HERE HERE!!

Speaking as one of those confined (and I use that word on purpose) to one of those said postings in CTC, I agree wholeheartedly that we need to come up with a better system.

I've missed out twice in 3 years because I am a "one of" and there is no one "available" to take my place here, but a buddy of mine in the same trade can go on his 4th tour? It's either that or like a good friend of mine at another school here; he has it in writing that he is "too valuable" and they are too short of (insert rank) with his experience.

Well, how the hell is anyone supposed to get experience if we are stuck for years on end, rotating through CTC (or any other training establishment for that matter)?

We must learn to use or resources better and the Cmdt's have to be brought on board.

Wook
 
ModlrMike said:
We've done this argument round and round in the past. It's often not the fault of the soldier that they don't deploy. I spent three years in Shilo as Clinic WO and tried everything to deploy. Even when we were short PAs on Ops I still couldn't get on a tour. So it's often not for lack of trying. Not to say that's what you meant, just to point out the other side of the coin.

Agreed. However with a system like this you would get your equal opportunity to deploy as you wish. AND the 50 yr old SSM who hasnt left New Brunswick since his return from his last Lahr tour would be given the opportunity to deploy OR get out and let the next generation get promoted.
 
dogger1936 said:
Agreed. However with a system like this you would get your equal opportunity to deploy as you wish. AND the 50 yr old SSM who hasnt left New Brunswick since his return from his last Lahr tour would be given the opportunity to deploy OR get out and let the next generation get promoted.

Given the number of times, both on here and out there, that i have heard "i don't want to go to that f****g school" and the bellyaching over losing LDA i'm sure there wont be a rash of request for school postings to go replace those school guys who never deploy.

Right ?
 
CDN Aviator said:
Given the number of times, both on here and out there, that i have heard "i don't want to go to that f****g school" and the bellyaching over losing LDA i'm sure there wont be a rash of request for school postings to go replace those school guys who never deploy.

Right ?

I think if I was the career manager I would file those under " who cares" or "so what" ;)

In this model they are developing soldiers going to schools have great recent knowledge and those going to the regiments to deploy are fresh after years of sitting static. And of course there are those who release which isnt necessarly a bad thing either.

This isnt about belly aching; it's about what is the best use of our resources.
 
dogger1936 said:
I think if I was the career manager I would file those under " who cares" or "so what" ;)

Thats how i look at it but then again, i wouldn't make a popular career manager.

In this model they are developing soldiers going to schools have great recent knowledge and those going to the regiments to deploy are fresh after years of sitting static.

I agree 100% but i'm not so confident that using logical argument will make guys volunteer to go to schools.

it's about what is the best use of our resources.

Preaching to the choir here.
 
Back
Top