Dh is quitting the military after 19yrs

[KungFuPanda]

I think this is some of what I was trying to get at. I feel like (and I may be wrong-I only have my anecdotal experience) the army relies too much on the reserves right now and it makes me not recommend it to people. I think it probably saves taxpayers money, but it isn’t really fair to the soldiers or their civilian employers.

 

Besides the deployments, the reserves make other demands of dh. For instance, he is supposed to attend a conference call once a week at 6pm. He is usually still working. Most of the time he can take a break and take the call, but he sometimes can’t. The army doesn’t really understand that at all-they expect him to drop everything for their agenda (that is what soldiers do). But, the army doesn’t pay our bills-his civilian job does. Which one is he supposed to put first?

 

Or, another example, Dh told them he couldn’t go on orders for these certain dates because he had a big thing to do at work-something that only he can do. They still tried to put him on orders for those dates anyway-because in general that is how the army works. But, again, Dh has to keep a civilian job for the next ~20 years until he can collect retirement from the military. He can’t just leave them in the lurch.

 

Then there are the every four year deployments. And the times they have given him jobs that are close to full time jobs, but he has to basically do two full time jobs because he wasn’t willing to give up his civilian job (they offered to put him on orders). But, Dh doesn’t get to pick his job in the military. If they tell him he is doing x job, he has to do it. Some slots are more time consuming than others and his life outside the army has no bearing on what job he gets in the army.

 

It makes me think they need to hire more active duty soldiers. It isn’t that Dh is some special case. I really don’t know how anyone manages to keep both the reserves and their civilian jobs happy.

 

Disclaimer: this is my interpretation of dh’s reserve experience. He may have a different one.

 

That's a little nutty.  Thinking of your reserve unit's as full-time active duty soldiers is like using credit cards for daily expenses instead of emergencies.  It's just a long-term plan.  It's also sounding a bit like how Walmart tries to run everything with part-timers to cut their own expenses.

[Paige]

That's a little nutty.  Thinking of your reserve unit's as full-time active duty soldiers is like using credit cards for daily expenses instead of emergencies.  It's just a long-term plan.  It's also sounding a bit like how Walmart tries to run everything with part-timers to cut their own expenses.

 

The problem is that some of the most needed units for Afghanistan and Iraq were found only in the Reserves so they were sent over and over. It's not fair and not what people signed up for. 

[wonderchica]

I have no idea what a typical deployment schedule is for the Reserves, but for the full-time soldiers and Marines I know, most have had 7-8 deployments since 2005ish (counting “full length†deployments of 7-18 months at a time to Iraq/Afghan, not shorter). Just for context for those less familiar.

[lovinmyboys]

I have no idea what a typical deployment schedule is for the Reserves, but for the full-time soldiers and Marines I know, most have had 7-8 deployments since 2005ish (counting “full length†deployments of 7-18 months at a time to Iraq/Afghan, not shorter). Just for context for those less familiar.

That sounds like active duty is on deployment 50% of the time and reserves are 25% of the time. If this is common, I don’t know how that is sustainable.

[Lanny]

When I was young there was a "Draft" and I didn't want to be drafted so I became a "Weekend Warrior".  So, one signs up (in those days) planning to do one weekend a month and 2 weeks in the Summer for training.  But, in the worst case, they can keep you Deployed the entire time if it is necessary.  As a recent poster (several posts above this post) mentioned, some of the most critical units with special expertise are Reserve units. I believe some of those were activated after the Hurricanes hit Houston/Miami/Puerto Rico last year. 

 

It is a crap shoot and post 9/11, probably better for many people to go Active Duty and not go into the Reserves.

[QueenCat]

??? Of course we're at war. We're nearly always at war. We're currently in the 2nd longest-running war in American history, with no end in sight. We have soldiers in 150+ countries of the world, doing.......I'm not really sure what soldiers do in 150+ separate countries actually, but I digress.

 

 

 

The OP said that we weren't at war, which was part of her frustration as to the expectation on her husband. That's what prompted my comment.

[TechWife]

The problem is that some of the most needed units for Afghanistan and Iraq were found only in the Reserves so they were sent over and over. It's not fair and not what people signed up for. 

 

Haven't they had time to develop active duty units that can carry out the needed tasks by now? 

[Happy2BaMom]

The OP said that we weren't at war, which was part of her frustration as to the expectation on her husband. That's what prompted my comment.

 

Sorry about that; I had forgotten that. 

 

I would add though, that the idea that we aren't at war is part of the hazy smoke screen that military members and their families are crawling through now. "We" (whatever that means anymore) pretend that we aren't at war (did the war in Afghanistan ever really get formally declared a war?), but the U.S. is sure living like they/we are. The # of military obligations that the U.S. has to meet now, in war zones, terror zones and areas around them, plus whatever else emergency comes up, really means that the U.S. needs to declare that we are at war and that we need some sort of draft. But I have come to believe that the gov't doesn't want that controversy and that corporations don't want to give up the cash cow that contractors get to milk during times of undeclared war conflict and, plus, it all sounds great - "war on terror", "beating ISIS" - and I'm sure a lot of it is valid, but it's also a never-ending amorphous blob that just demands resources and rarely gives any sense of victory or satisfaction.  

[Sneezyone]

Haven't they had time to develop active duty units that can carry out the needed tasks by now? 

 

Not really. We've been operating, at the federal level, on continuing resolutions for most of the last decade. Those don't allow for up or downsizing or new capital expenditures for worn-out equipment.

[Paige]

Haven't they had time to develop active duty units that can carry out the needed tasks by now? 

 

I don't think they want to. It would involve restructuring and changing the way they do things. I don't mean that to sound as if I think they are lazy, callous, or uncaring either. I think it would be difficult to make such big changes while they are at war. I'm not military, so this is all hearsay, but there's reasons these kinds of units are reserves and making them active all the time would be difficult for reasons that I'm sure exist but I don't know since it's not my job. When DH tries to explain I lose interest and my eyes glaze over, but I know there's reasons. 

Edited February 21, 2018 by Paige

[TechWife]

I don't think they want to. It would involve restructuring and changing the way they do things. I don't mean that to sound as if I think they are lazy, callous, or uncaring either. I think it would be difficult to make such big changes while they are at war. I'm not military, so this is all hearsay, but there's reasons these kinds of units are reserves and making them active all the time would be difficult for reasons that I'm sure exist but I don't know since it's not my job. When DH tries to explain I lose interest and my eyes glaze over, but I know there's reasons.

So it sounds like the active duty military isn’t really structured to go to war from what you are saying. That’s scary. The fact that an organization isn’t fluid enough to respond to a crisis that they are seventeen years into is scary as well. In seventeen years, no one has been able to figure out how to make the active duty military work for the existing threats. Wow. Yet, the reserves are ready, capable and doing the job. It sounds like the active duty military could learn from the reservists. I’m sure it’s complicated, but if one group can pull it off and another can’t and hasn’t learned to do so over many, many years, then that speaks to significant organizational issues.

[TechWife]

Not really. We've been operating, at the federal level, on continuing resolutions for most of the last decade. Those don't allow for up or downsizing or new capital expenditures for worn-out equipment.

Reorganization is needed, which often costs money. If the active duty service isn’t war ready, then it speaks poorly of our budget process. I won’t go into that in detail as it would violate board rules regarding politics. This thread has certainly open my eyes to some issues, though.

[Paige]

So it sounds like the active duty military isn’t really structured to go to war from what you are saying. That’s scary. The fact that an organization isn’t fluid enough to respond to a crisis that they are seventeen years into is scary as well. In seventeen years, no one has been able to figure out how to make the active duty military work for the existing threats. Wow. Yet, the reserves are ready, capable and doing the job. It sounds like the active duty military could learn from the reservists. I’m sure it’s complicated, but if one group can pull it off and another can’t and hasn’t learned to do so over many, many years, then that speaks to significant organizational issues.

 

I think they are ready but the plan the whole time was for them to go to war with the support of the Reserves. I think sometime a long time ago they decided it didn't make fiscal sense to keep certain types of units active 24/7 year round, but that doesn't mean those units aren't needed for war. It means those units don't need to train daily for their jobs. Active duty troops don't just go to war, they stay home and train and are paid to be on duty all the time even when they aren't deployed. For some units, TPTB have decided that weekends and 2 weeks a year should be enough for most of the soldiers to be ready to do their jobs if they are needed. Active duty and reserve units often have different functions- one unit doesn't do all the jobs. So you'll deploy active duty fighters supported by Reserve mechanics and fuel suppliers, for example. 

 

I think that's how it all works...again, I'm just a spouse who isn't really involved. 

[Lanny]

Readiness is very poor. So many aircraft that cannot fly. No spare parts for them. Few mechanics to fix them.  So many machines that don't work.  The troops are weary, from so many repeated deployments during the past 15 years.  And now, they cannot kick the can    (NK) down the road any more and that may become a catastrophic situation during 2018.  Very tough for those who are in the mlitary (active duty and reserves) and their families.

[Tsuga]

Haven't they had time to develop active duty units that can carry out the needed tasks by now? 

 

Data from 2008 suggests that 1/20 of our armed forces aren't even citizens. My ex-H was one.

 

We pay crap, crap, crap to our NCOs and foot soldiers compared to similarly dangerous jobs in the US (firefighters and police). It's disgusting.

 

I don't know where the money goes but I suspect overpriced weapon development consultants at Lockheed Martin.

 

They have privatized and part-timed so much of our country to cut costs in the short term. The next generation will surely suffer. :(

[Happy2BaMom]

Data from 2008 suggests that 1/20 of our armed forces aren't even citizens. My ex-H was one.

 

We pay crap, crap, crap to our NCOs and foot soldiers compared to similarly dangerous jobs in the US (firefighters and police). It's disgusting.

 

I don't know where the money goes but I suspect overpriced weapon development consultants at Lockheed Martin.

 

They have privatized and part-timed so much of our country to cut costs in the short term. The next generation will surely suffer. :(

 

Dh was still in the service when the one of the big rounds of "privatization" was rolling through. We were living in a historic (but undeclared historic) base house and contractors got scheduled to perform "updates". They rolled in on the announced day, ripped the living cr*p out of the kitchen (complete with all-wood cabinets that were all trashed & thrown out) and dining room (ditto), knocked down walls and completely changed this beautiful house into a bland blob. It was more *efficient*. This was just one example out of many we witnessed where short-term money may have been saved, but a lot of good, high-quality things were discarded (cheaper to just throw them out) and there was *no* thought given to the process (that takes time, and time is money, and contractors don't care anyhow about the long-term consequences). 

 

I have no doubt that there are times, perhaps many times, where the private sector can save money over gov't services. But dh now works for a contractor (he got tired of slaving away in federal gov't service and constantly listening to people degrade what he & his fellow workers did, so he jumped ship to the private side) and, trust me, there is a lot of stand around and waitwaitwaitwait and excess fees (IMHO) charged for all that work performed for the gov't, so the whole thing doesn't seem very efficient for me. And it's a lot harder to track how & where all that money gets spent, too. 

 

And, yes, the next generation will suffer.