Having read a rather interesting article in The Economist regarding our current doctrine I was struck by a particular contrast between the British and American length of tours. The Americans (as I am sure many here are aware) conduct 12 month tours, while the British use 6 month tours. The Economist referred to this as leading to "discontinuity and short-term thinking". I believe there is a certain merit to the idea of longer tours however, I'm also aware of the extra strain this would place on the Armed forces, in effect I'm asking two questions; 1. Would it be feasible to have longer tours? a) What affect would it have on equipment? b) What affect would it have on the individual soldier? (being UOTC I could not imagine what mental strains op tours put on soldiers) c) Would the period of recovery needed for each unit be so long as to permanently retard that unit's effectiveness? d) Would this exacerbate or help with overstretch? 2. Would a 12 month tour be more effective? a) In regards to local dignitaries building relations with senior officers. b) In regards to changing tactics on the ground, and indeed both geographic and "local" (who the bad guys are) knowledge of that area. c) In situations such as training the ANA or ANP with regards to building a relationship between the trainer and the trainee. I hope this isn't too much of a bone question, but the this question doesn't seem to have been discussed specifically before. Many thanks.