Talk:Individual augmentee policy

The program does indeed exist, I'm involved with it, and I can give numbers. The previous user commented about no Google Results most likely because the DoD has kept virtually all of the information on classified computer networks and few official statements have been made outside of this realm. The existence of the program is not classified, however. The program actually began as early as 2004, has had at least 55,000 participants, and currently has just over 15,000 members in Iraq and Afghanistan as I type this. More guidance is desired on posting of information based on work knowledge, vice public reports. Bdmccray 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I was a bit too hasty to poste the above message...I found thousands of hits on Google, but now I see what the problem is. The article is titled "Individual Augmentee Policy". It's very likely the DoD may not use that precise term (they favor Individual Augmentee Program, or simply refer to Individual Augmentees). The article would be better called "Individual Augmentee", and could include both a description of the program and the policy that guides it. I would be happy to write the article based on personal involvement and existing web resources, but before I do that I propose the name be changed. Is this possible without a total deletion of the existing article? Perhaps a redirect? (Never tried that before). Bdmccray 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This may de better merged in with a list of DoD related terms; it does seem notable, but at the moment doesn't seem to be large enough for its own article. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do the merge--I'm asking anyone else with experience in that to take up the project of at least *adding* it to the DoD list. As far as outright deleting the article--this may be the answer, however I'd like to add two things:

- The person who wrote this appears to be upset, perhaps because he/she was sent to Iraq under this program (some volunteer, like myself, but others are ordered by their branch). The truth is that Navy and Air Force personnel are selected for specific needs (never infantry soldiers), they are given the equivalent of the major portion of weapons and tactics training that Army basic recruits receive (remember, a fair amount of any branch's basic training/boot camp is based on teaching the basics of "how to be in the military"--these IAs on the other hand are experienced military members who only need to learn the specifics of weapons and not how to march or prepare uniforms for inspection), and they are NOT sent as infantrymen or turret gunners. In fact, there are written prohibitions against IA personnel being assigned to "door-kicking" missions for which they are not trained. If you ask most Army NCOs they will tell you that few junior Army personnel are even involved in these types of missions since most of military training has always been "on the job". It takes years to develop the tactics required--they aren't learned in basic training. Most IAs are sent as specialists to either fill Army billets that are in short supply, or to do jobs the Army has little or no expertise in (like myself). Representative jobs include corrections, food service, advanced electronics, classroom instructors for Iraqi Army students, and most importantly, administrative jobs. Statistically, except for transport between forward operating bases, the vast majority of IA's never leave the base (or "go outside the wire" as the Army terms it). There have been over 15,000 IAs in Iraq in the last four years, and there have been only a handful of fatalities.

- There IS some merit in the discussion of the article as a news piece because there has been some Congressional controversey on the subject in recent months. Between 5 and 8 percent of the Navy is in Iraq at any given time (I'm not sure about Air Force numbers), and although the Chief of Naval Operations is supportive of the program, a number of Congressmen have asked Navy officials if the Navy might be both losing core competency skills and spreading its manpower too thin by these missions. It also begs the obvious question: If the Navy can do without nearly a tenth of its sailors at any given time, why are they on the payroll in the first place? I suspect that while the topic may not merit its own article at this time, it's strongly correlated to the subject of military recruiting and retention and deserves some discussion in another military-related article. Bdmccray 14:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Although the article is factually wrong and probably misplaced, I temporarily removed the deletion tag--I need to think about this for a day or two before proceeding. Other views are appreciated. Bdmccray 14:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * DO NOT, FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, REMOVE THE DELETION TAG. Edits made to remove deletion tags (or any other maintiance tag for that matter) are usually viewed as vandalis edits, and are reverted when spotted and reported to admins if the circumstances permit further scrutiny of the actions. Its a fast way to make this a hopeless case. What I recommend is leaving a detailed message on the page for the Military History wikiproject, asking/demanding editor input to help overcome the tag. Editors with the MILHIST project are familar with the guidelines of Wikipedia as a whole and will be more prone to fight on your behalf to keep the article here if they see that the project has a use for it or that it is real and supported by facts provided via citations. If you can make the case the for retaintion of the article here through the MILHIST project then you will have a chance to keep this wikipedia article up and running; however, I caution you that even with the backing of a project there is still a chance the article will end up deleted. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On the issue of merging: To ask that an article be merged add the tag, where "x" is the article where you would like to see the information end up. This will place the article in a merge category, alerting other users that the page is a candidate to be merged. Next, create a section here by adding the text   to a line all by its self, and below that line explain in a few sentences why you think the article should be merged. If the proposed merge gains a vote of consensus then the article will have any meaningful content moved to the propsed merge page, and this page will be recreated as a redirect to the new location of the information in its post merged state. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Tom. I wasn't aware of the feelings about the deletion tag, but it makes sense. I'm going to go ahead and recommend on my end to just delete the article and add the facts manually (supported by citations) to the individual military articles that I feel relevant. To figure out where, I'll have to do some research. To say that is a merge is stretching it---as I already pointed out, most of what is on the page is factually wrong and the creation of the article in the first place was likely done for the wrong reasons. I am in Iraq and am very busy the next few days, so I'll have to put off research on where to place the information until later in the week. Thanks again for your help. Bdmccray 17:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't give up on the article yet, there are still some options we can excerise. If the article is still by the time the weekend roles around I will look into either improving the article quality or finding a article that could be a suitable host and merging the information there. On the issue of the deletion tag: The removal of tags is generally only approved if the person removing the tag has adressed the concerns that prompted the tag of the article in the first place, and in this case that was not the case. I would rather not have some one hollar at you for removing the tag if that can be avioded. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I went ahead and created a new article at "Individual Augmentee" and redirected "Individual Augmentee Policy" to it. This should solve the problem. I don't have time to do this now because I have a lot to do this week with my job, but I suspect there could be something added to the United States Navy article under the section dealing with work with other branches. Currently there are sections for the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard. The fact that 12,000 Navy members are in Iraq (I'm one of them) and (depending on what numbers you use) between 40,000 and 55,000 have been there tells me there ought to be some reflection of the Navy's work with the Army somewhere in that article. Feedback would be appreciated. Bdmccray 20:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)