Replies

"Even though there are some who do not have to deploy, they do their part and volunteer."

I think that needs to be emphasized. Although I'm sure there are those who have pulled every string available to keep from deploying until now, I'd bet that's not the majority. I noticed the article specifically mentioned the example of Foreign Area Officers (FAOs). I can comment somewhat intelligently on this since I was selected for that program prior to resigning my commission. An officer selected for this will typically be a senior Captain who has already had his/her company command. Depending on the area specialty they are selected for, they will normally be sent to a civilian university for a Masters program and incur an active duty obligation of two years for each year in school...so two years in school, then four years on active duty...then they will go to the Defense Language Institute (DLI) for a course of study (IIRC 6-18 months, depending on the Language), then specific FAO training and posted as an attache at an Embassy (and all Officers somewhere in there would need to do CAS3 at Fr. Leavenworth as a matter of career progression.)

So say somebody was selected as a Korea, Chinese or Russian FAO in 2002-3 when things were just starting up in Iraq. They would have finished their Masters in 2004-5 at the earliest, and been in DLI for a year or so after that. Then, with 3+ years of very specialized and expensive training to serve at the ROK, Chinese or Russian etc. embassies.

After all this training, it would not be cost effective for the Army to NOT use them in that capacity. This is just one example of why some of these people have likely not seen a combat tour, through no fault of their own. Likewise, I'm sure there are North Africa/Mideast FAOs who have been serving for years in theater on diplomatic assignments which do not count as combat tours...