Warriors in Peace Operations - Strategic Studies Institute - U.S. Army

260th TTD relied entirely on the 28th TB for support of its
equipment.
Failure to cut the umbilical cord with my two
subordinate units caused some friction between the two
transportation battalions. The friction centered over dual
loyalties and which battalion’s Family Support Group
would service the families of the deployed soldiers. What
added fuel to the fire was a rumor that began before
deployment and continued throughout December.
When the two units deployed with the 181st TB, no one
was certain how long they would remain under the 181st
TB. My brigade commander told me that my battalion
headquarters must be prepared to deploy—when he was not
sure, but more likely prior to February 1. However, there
were rumors that organizations deployed for the expected
1-year tour of duty in the Balkans could expect to remain
intact as part of the restructuring of USAREUR. This
information caused great consternation for the soldiers of
the two deployed 28th units, but also for the families of these
same soldiers.
The dual-loyalty issue was the result of poor communication
between the commander of the 181st TB and myself.
This was quickly remedied when Lieutenant Colonel Moore
and I agreed that the 28th would remain the resupply
channel for the 70th TC and 260th TTD until the requisition
process became established in the ISB. Day-to-day
command and control of the two units was the 181st TB
responsibility. Operationally, this arrangement worked
smoothly due to the professionalism of all commanders and
personnel involved; however, the 70th TC and 260th TTD
remained emotionally tied to the 28th TB. Herein lies the
problem with the Family Support Groups.
Both battalions were proud of the efforts of their Family
Support Groups whose leadership came from the wives of
the battalion commanders. Both wives were energetic,
enthusiastic, and proud individuals, believing that their
individual FSG was the best to service the families of the
181