least to most likely heading to real warzones

navy2016

5-Year Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
609
What are the officer positions that are most likely to be deployed to war zones and least likely to be deployed to war zones?

I am asking about the Navy in particular.

I figured SEALS= combat definitely?
SWO- on a ship all the time?
sub-underwater?
aviation- flight deck- heard it is a very dangerous place
 
In this day and age it doesn't matter. Pretty much everyone is headed there. Even if you are a SWO you don't spend your entire career on a ship and it is entirely possible that you end up sitting in a war zone.

Now, if you are looking at number of times deployed of course someone in a spec ops billet is likely to go multiple times. If you are a pilot/nfo with an expeditionary electronic attack squadron you will likely go multiple times. If you are a pilot/nfo of other flavor (EP3 for example) you may find yourself there every 3-4 months. Other aviators will likely get more than one chance to be flying off the carrier over war zones.

Doctors, depending on the stage in their career and specialty, tend to deploy quite a bit these days. Intel O's are in the same boat.

You also mentioned submarine officers, they'd be in the same category as SWO's.... potentially heading as an IA/GSA/non sub tour.

The tempo can be vastly different though, Spec Ops, plan on being gone quite a bit. Obviously this will change over the coming years though.
 
Doctors, depending on the stage in their career and specialty, tend to deploy quite a bit these days.

My godson is in med school now and will be a Navy doctor in a couple more years. Could you give any general info on where Navy docs tend to deploy most, and for how long? Or is that much too broad a question pre-specialty?

Thanks!
 
My godson is in med school now and will be a Navy doctor in a couple more years. Could you give any general info on where Navy docs tend to deploy most, and for how long? Or is that much too broad a question pre-specialty?

Thanks!

Well I can tell you that I just got back from 7 months in Iraq and another local country.

The Navy uses a General Medical Officer program for most types of docs so after one year of post-graduate training your godson will likely end up being attached to a deploying unit. They will likely do at least one deployment and right now the most likely places are Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, ship in the Gulf, followed lastly by some other random deployment site (Japan, Africa, etc)

For the specialties: right now FP, ER, Ortho, Anesthesia, General Surgery (I'm missing one or two here) tend to be the hardest hit for deployments.

Edit: sorry forgot length. Most Navy physician deployments are 6-8 months in length. You can get sent IA with the Army and do 15 months though.
 
Let's take a minute here to make an important distinction: not everyone who goes to Iraq or Afghanistan is in "combat." Combat is a distinct and unique set of circumstances. A Navy doctor in Iraq is not in combat. A staff officer working in Al Faw Palace is not in combat. Being deployed to a in a "war zone" is not analogous to combat, nor is it a guarantee of any interaction with the enemy on any level. Is it possible? Yes, of course. Likely? No, not at all. Most individual augmentees from the Navy will not be engaged in any form of combat (note that I said most, not all).

We had the privilege of working with some great Navy folks from MU6 and MU12. Very good people and quite experienced and courageous guys. They saw plenty of "combat" as you think of it. The Navy Reserve Seabees we had attached to us didn't see anything close to combat, despite being forward deployed.

Think about what combat does and doesn't mean.
 
OP also need to take into consideration the fact that things change. Just because the current scenario is heavily focused on COIN operations, doesn't mean the next one will be.

No one can predict exactly when and how the next war or combat zone will be. Could be very air centric (Like the first month or so of Desert Storm, or all of the conflict in Bosnia), could be fighting pirates off the coast of Africa, could be pushing back the hordes of N. Koreans, could be a massive naval battle over control of the Straights of Mallacca, or it could be a 40 year continuation of what we're doing now, only in several more locations.

I'm guess what I'm trying to say is don't choose a path based on will I or won't I see conflict, or which career has the best chance to "be in the action" or "as far from it as possible". You just never know.

Besides, America is asking you to defend her when you raise your right hand to take that oath. It's part of the job description to be ready to be in harm's way to do so. Some more than others usually, but ALL are expected to be ready and willing to do their duty.

Do your research. Pick a career based on what you think you would love to do. If "how close you are to the action" is one of those factors that helps you fall in or out of love with a particular career, then fine. But don't get upset when the next war kicks off and you find your career field plays a major or minor role opposite of what you were planning for.
 
The OP's use of "I figured SEALS= combat definitely?" makes me think that he's not thinking about a "war zone" because he's concerned about the weather.

Not to be a stickler but the OP's original post was titled "least to most likely heading to real warzones"

Agree that most people deployed to the various war zones around the world are not entitled to wear the Combat Action Ribbon or other similar devices as they are rarely in direct "combat" with the enemy. Although that reduces the mortality and morbidity significantly for those people there are still quite a few "Fobbits" who end up going outside the wire on a regular basis (I know plenty of docs who have to go out to do "humanitarian" missions and similar). I also know of one Army LtCol physician(maybe Col, can't remember at this time) who was killed in a helicopter crash (don't remember if it was enemy action at this time) in Iraq as well.

By and far though as you mentioned, those who are in billets such as infantry/spec ops/helicopter crew (fixed wing generally are flying too high to be in much danger anymore) you are going to be engaged in direct enemy combat. The others still have a risk, but will be less than those kicking down doors every day.
 
Not to be a stickler but the OP's original post was titled "least to most likely heading to real warzones"

Agree that most people deployed to the various war zones around the world are not entitled to wear the Combat Action Ribbon or other similar devices as they are rarely in direct "combat" with the enemy. Although that reduces the mortality and morbidity significantly for those people there are still quite a few "Fobbits" who end up going outside the wire on a regular basis (I know plenty of docs who have to go out to do "humanitarian" missions and similar). I also know of one Army LtCol physician(maybe Col, can't remember at this time) who was killed in a helicopter crash (don't remember if it was enemy action at this time) in Iraq as well.

By and far though as you mentioned, those who are in billets such as infantry/spec ops/helicopter crew (fixed wing generally are flying too high to be in much danger anymore) you are going to be engaged in direct enemy combat. The others still have a risk, but will be less than those kicking down doors every day.

Indeed that is what he asked, but as I mentioned I don't think anyone is concerned about a "real warzone" because of the weather or lack of weekends. People are concerned about "real warzones" because of the very things that make them warzones, namely combat. If this OP was concerned for some other reason, I'd be interested to hear it.

Yes, I am familiar with MCMOs or "humanitarian" missions.
 
Well I can tell you that I just got back from 7 months in Iraq and another local country.

The Navy uses a General Medical Officer program for most types of docs so after one year of post-graduate training your godson will likely end up being attached to a deploying unit. They will likely do at least one deployment and right now the most likely places are Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, ship in the Gulf, followed lastly by some other random deployment site (Japan, Africa, etc)

For the specialties: right now FP, ER, Ortho, Anesthesia, General Surgery (I'm missing one or two here) tend to be the hardest hit for deployments.

Edit: sorry forgot length. Most Navy physician deployments are 6-8 months in length. You can get sent IA with the Army and do 15 months though.
Thanks very much, kp2001, I appreciate you taking the time to answer. My godson is a USNA grad, and with so many classmates deploying I know he will want to do his part.
 
Indeed that is what he asked, but as I mentioned I don't think anyone is concerned about a "real warzone" because of the weather or lack of weekends. People are concerned about "real warzones" because of the very things that make them warzones, namely combat. If this OP was concerned for some other reason, I'd be interested to hear it.

Yes, I am familiar with MCMOs or "humanitarian" missions.

Scoutpilot is "spot-on" on this one folks. Being in country does not equate with actual combat. For many they never see the other side of a concrete barricade or the outside of an air-conditioned trailer. It's the difference between earning a CIB through actual combat involvement as opposed to being awarded a CAB for being in the wrong place at the right time. Much like the entire Army now wearing berets, i.e. we're ALL winners!
 
Last edited:
Scoutpilot is "spot-on" on this one folks. Being in country does not equate with actual combat. For many they never see the other side of a concrete barricade or the outside of an air-conditioned trailer. It's the difference between earning a CIB through actual combat involvement as opposed to being awarded a CAB for being in the wrong place at the right time. Much like the entire Army now wearing berets, i.e. we're ALL winners!

Not every CIB is "earned" and not every CAB is for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's a very disrespectful remark to many soldiers who, despite your obvious distaste for the device, earned their CABs by being blown up, rained on day after day by mortars in a small JSS, and hit by small arms fire. Your attitude makes me wonder if you rate either device.
 
Not every CIB is "earned" and not every CAB is for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That's a very disrespectful remark to many soldiers who, despite your obvious distaste for the device, earned their CABs by being blown up, rained on day after day by mortars in a small JSS, and hit by small arms fire. Your attitude makes me wonder if you rate either device.

Well you have a valid point there, my error. My comment was not to disrespect those who have earned either badge. I will leave it at that.
 
No, I think that your comment sounded exactly as you meant it to.

Please do not escalate my poorly stated initial comment into something that it is not. It was not well thought out and presented badly and I admit that. In no way was I trying to disparage those who have earned either a CIB or CAB. As Scoutpilot said, "Not every CIB is "earned" and not every CAB is for being in the wrong place at the wrong time." I agree with him.
 
Please do not escalate my poorly stated initial comment into something that it is not. It was not well thought out and presented badly and I admit that. In no way was I trying to disparage those who have earned either a CIB or CAB. As Scoutpilot said, "Not every CIB is "earned" and not every CAB is for being in the wrong place at the wrong time." I agree with him.

Where I come from, the debate over whether or not an individual rates a certain priviledge is usually confined to those who actually rate it.
 
I wonder how many of these places also talk about the difference between an O-3 and an O-4?
 
Back
Top