HAMMER: Korea was the first war where the US Army rotated Soldiers in and out of theatre in significant numbers, a practice that has continued ever since. In doing practical and instructional knowledge is lost and lessons have to be re-learned, sometimes at great cost. How would you change the manner in which we now rotate Soldiers into different conflicts across the globe? Are the benefits worth the cost, when our enemies remain in place and continue to learn? What are the pros and cons of each system?

As units rotate in and out of theatre, our “fight tonight” readiness becomes compromised. From my limited military experience, a rotational unit establishes a fighting/training stance, fights or trains, and then begins preparing for redeployment. Much time is lost, and “fight tonight” readiness compromised during the establishment and redeployment of a unit.
Each region/conflict may call for different measures. Concerning the ROK, and maintaining a “fight tonight” stance, I suggest shifting the focus and the manpower more on permanently stationing units rather than rotational units. Permanently stationed units will not lose time and compromise the “fight tonight” status by continually establishing operations and redeploying.