Guest Form 8 Posted March 26, 2009 Posted March 26, 2009 Are the folks doing 1 years at the deid on CED? If so I stand corrected. You cannot PCS to an area we're at war at. Which is why I asked. They were doing 365 day TDY's on CED Orders.
Vertigo Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 You cannot PCS to an area we're at war at. Which is why I asked. They were doing 365 day TDY's on CED Orders. We're not at war with Qatar or UAE yet that is considered the AOR and people are doing 365s there.
Guest Form 8 Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 We're not at war with Qatar or UAE yet that is considered the AOR and people are doing 365s there. I guess since you're supporting a war from both locations.
Spoo Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Your points make sense but you offer no alternative. We tried the sanctions-isolation-big stick method with North Korea and what happened...they got nukes. If you say diplomacy doesn't work than what does work? I say try direct diplomacy, maintain the big stick (so to speak) of military power, work regional alliances and organizations (NATO, AU, OPEC, etc.), harass them at the UN, use targeted sanctions, all of it. Diplomacy and military power are not an either/or choice...it's possible to use all the foreign policy tools in our bag at the same time in order to try to meet our objectives. Fair enough. Two things though: I never said diplomacy doesn't work and I should've said, "Carrying a big stick is an effective means of keeping the peace when dealing with certain nation-states"...or something like that. I disagree with Toasty's thinking. We haven't indiscriminately bombed "whoever" we wanted to in the past few years and there are times when drawing the proverbial line in the sand is required. As far as Korea goes, sorry bro - Korean nukes were a direct result of Clinton's Pyongyang appeasement program...sorry, political dialogue and progressive blah, blah, blah. Our foreign policy strategy of the recent past hasn't been any different than what you've suggested above. In fact, it supports my assertions - you have to tailor your response to the situation/nation. Oh, and I still think it should be the Total War Against Terror. Then we'll be able to by stuff using TWAT money, you can be a supporter of the TWAT, there'll be TWAT contingency orders, you can accumulate O-1 time fighting the TWAT, something about working in CE and laying pipe...you get the idea.
disgruntledemployee Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 GWOT GWOT GWOT GWOT GWOT GWOT GWOT GWOT GWOOOOOTTT.......GOWTKITY GWOT Out
Techsan Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 GWOT GWOT GWOT GWOT GWOT GWOT GWOT GWOT GWOOOOOTTT.......GOWTKITY GWOT Out Dude, take your pills.
zrooster99 Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 You cannot PCS to an area we're at war at. Which is why I asked. They were doing 365 day TDY's on CED Orders. Yes you can. I know for sure that at a minimum there has been talk of making certain assignments within the AOR 1 year remotes, and am pretty sure that in some instances that has become a reality.
Mutt Posted March 27, 2009 Author Posted March 27, 2009 Yes you can. I know for sure that at a minimum there has been talk of making certain assignments within the AOR 1 year remotes, and am pretty sure that in some instances that has become a reality. During my time in Saudi, the Major I was deployed w/ was considered "PCS'd" to the AOR for a 365. He was actually entitled shipment of household goods. Its all semantics, who gives a f*ck. It sucks no matter which way you look at it.
bucky60k Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 This whole concept of calling terrorist attacks "man made disasters" by DHS along with burying our head in the sand from GWOT is why we will never achieve any sort of long term victory against these guys. Osama certainly isn't changing his definitions. For Jimmy Jihad its either death or victory...
Hacker Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 There's a hilarious thread on the GWOT name change over at AirWarriors. More specifically, they're addressing the fact that DHS no longer sanctions use of the word "terrorism" because, according to the Obama administration, it is too related to the former administration's "politics of fear". So, the thread offers alternatives to to the new administration term, "man made disaster." My favorite is "man-made negative outcome event," although there are many which are actually more hilarious than that.
Wolf424 Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 (edited) Everyone knows what happened...some Col. was sitting in the pentagon one bullet short on his OPR and thought to himself: "I'll just change the name "Global War on Terror" to "A Contingency Operation. That will fill some white space!" edit: grammar Edited March 27, 2009 by TheWolf424
Guest Hueypilot812 Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Our government is already a "man-made disaster". Does that mean the Feds are all terrorists? No, it doesn't. Using a bland, catch-all term like "man-made disaster" ignores the fact that some disasters were unintended, while others were designed to inflict maximum pain, suffering and FEAR. Hence why the term "terrorism" or "act of terror" fits, and changing the verbiage to anything else is an attempt to deny what it really is. We're not at war with Qatar or UAE yet that is considered the AOR and people are doing 365s there. I can't speak for the Deid or UAE guys, maybe it's different (although I doubt it). But EVERYONE I've run across in the AOR so far that's doing a 365-day remote is on CED orders. By the way, if you get tagged for a 365, even though you're on CED orders you're still able to claim some PCS entitlements because the regs authorize you to move your family, if necessary. That may be where the confusion comes in. Being on a "1-year remote", a "365-day deployment", etc all pretty much means the same thing. Granted, to AFPC gurus there IS a difference between the two (PCS versus a contingency deployment), but in my experience I've seen both terms used interchangably. Technically, anyone on 365-day CED orders is considered a "365-day extended contingency deployment", while those actually PCS'd somewhere (like Korea) are considered to be on a "1-year remote assignment". But like I said, I've had people refer to 1-year deployments out here both ways...but they are all on CED orders, with the TDY length set at 999. I would be surprised if those at the Deid/UAE are treated any differently than the other locations within CENTCOM...I have yet to run in to anyone that's actually PCS'd here.
Vertigo Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Being on a "1-year remote", a "365-day deployment", etc all pretty much means the same thing. Granted, to AFPC gurus there IS a difference between the two (PCS versus a contingency deployment), but in my experience I've seen both terms used interchangably. Technically, anyone on 365-day CED orders is considered a "365-day extended contingency deployment", while those actually PCS'd somewhere (like Korea) are considered to be on a "1-year remote assignment". But like I said, I've had people refer to 1-year deployments out here both ways...but they are all on CED orders, with the TDY length set at 999. I would be surprised if those at the Deid/UAE are treated any differently than the other locations within CENTCOM...I have yet to run in to anyone that's actually PCS'd here. Cheers- thanks for clearing up the confusion.
disgruntledemployee Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Dude, take your pills. Lighten up, Fransis...it was a joke. Out
Techsan Posted March 28, 2009 Posted March 28, 2009 Lighten up, Fransis...it was a joke. Out I was joking as well, and my name isn't Fransis.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now