Talk:Individual augmentee

Misguided Criticism
 * Critics of Individual Augmentee, especially politicians, do not understand or appreciate how this service allows for the sea intensive sailors to stand out and experience the real military. In 2006, I requested Individual Augmentee assignment, but as I was considered too old (47) and too near retirement (2008), I was turned down. My motivation and the motivation of many other sailors involved an opportunity to really make a difference by experiencing the very end of the “tip of the spear”. The closest many of the sea intensive rates got to provide such service was sitting 30 miles off the coast in air conditioned spaces, training to attack virtual hostile submarines. Additional motivation came from fewer and fewer opportunities to stand out for purposes of advancement, fewer and fewer shore billets (including those I did not qualify for because I did not shine like the top 1% in my trade). For many sailors, IA was a unique escape from high level of expectations, where lethal wounds came from paper bullets, as opposed to being in the real military. I joined the Navy to defend my country, not preen for a living. retrograde62 [PST 20:20 July 17, 2014}  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.11.65 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above is in reference to the article entry "Congress has expressed concern that the Navy, with a traditionally sea-centric role, may be spreading itself too thin (some units have up to 40% of personnel on IA duty) and in the process may lose some of its core competency in traditional seagoing warfare." This would work, that is if it were not for the fact that large parts of the Navy do not have a "target rich environment", with much of the time spent training to fight a hypothetical enemy. Much is written on the role of naval forces against an asymetric enemy, but with providing absolutley no specific applications, scenarios, or examples. Questions like "how to use an Arleigh Burke DDG against Al-Queda" are not touched. If a given unit is already manned at 150%, 40% loss will have no impact. retrograde62 [PST 3:20 July 19, 2014}

Historical Section
I highly question this use of statement of Naval Personnel assigned to Marine Corps Units. For what I know Individual Augmentees is no where near the same as those personnel. For those personnel, as they near rotational time frame, and interact with their detailer receive order to the marine corp unit for a prescribed tour length. It is NOT TAD. During their time frame assigned, their periodic evaluations as signed by the Marine Corp unit commander. Personnel assigned are only from specialties as prescribed by the Marine Corp unit table of strength/manning. I also note the article is very lacking in any references. Wfoj3 (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Individual augmentee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070605234857/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq56-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq56-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Individual augmentee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425043331/http://www.jackson.army.mil/IRR/TFM.htm to http://www.jackson.army.mil/IRR/TFM.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)