Talk:United States Army Installation Management Command

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

here's my question

is the phrase

expeditionary operations in a time of persistent conflict,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headlikeawhole (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cool with me you, wikipedia & the WP:WikiProject Military history ? I'm personally curious exactly what it means. also, it's "start quality" - so, that kinda helps us as a user of this content, right? not sure how that ought to relate to an editor's approach here.

it may not really present a problem. to boil down: for me personally, "is USAIMC saying we're in such a time now?" I'm sure OCPA uses language like this all the time. persistent does seem well-chosen. I'm glad the US army has-- ya know-- solid names & definitions & missions for all the departments and entities within our force. at the risk of blowing lindsey Graham's spot up, I ask a question he has posed: "do u believe we're at war?" and see how everybody reacts. so, is this a relevant question? can we avoid asking it outright in a serious way here & now? (That's what I'd prefer.) If we can then we can thereby avoid answering it. Then can we modify the opening of this article in good faith? Bingo Bob 23:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just a small rewording

The phrase in question is the stated mission of the organization. It is what they are saying about themselves, not a statement or commentary on the state of the world. It is the opinion of the organization in question about how they see their mission. It is a fact that the phrase is the stated mission of the organization. I'll change the sentence to "... the stated mission is ..." Does that seem reasonable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.217.176.19 (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to sign the reply: Slade Walters 01:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.217.176.19 (talk) [reply]

Not clear

What is the army definition for an "Army Garrison?"

It seems that only Garrison employees (i.e. IMCOM employees) call things "garrison this" and "garrison that." I was reading the base newspaper the other day and it said that "all garrison soldiers and employees will participate in a safety stand down next week." It should have said "all Fort ____ soldiers and employees will participate in a safety stand down next week."

Another example is the tendancy for garrison employees (IMCOM employees) to call the base USAG _____ instead of Fort _______. For example Fort Bragg, not USAG Fort Bragg; Fort Sill, not USAG Fort Sill.

Anyway I came here to clarify the Army's definition of "garrison," but didn't receive clarification. My suggestion is to note that in the article. As it stands, the term "garrison" across the army refers to the group of civilian employees and Soldiers that make up that base's IMCOM folks. That's the working definition anyway...except that IMCOM employees think everyone is Garrison, and they think that IMCOM is in charge of more than just the *management* of the post. For this reason they will frequently refer to a base's IMCOM commander as "Installation Commander," even though "Installation's IMCOM commander would be more accurate. The highest ranking commander on post is the installation commander...in CONUS it is most frequently a general officer. --74.195.63.121 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garrison refers to the area of an installation where the primary, day-to-day functions are conducted, as oppposed to the training area (which is often vastly larger). Garrison also refers to people, places, entities in the US Army Garrison (USAG). So both uses are correct because it has different definitions depending on the usage. Installation Commander almost never refers to the USAG Commander as the latter is almost always subordinate to the former. However, the Garrison Commander is responsible for almost all installation support activities such as public works, safety, law enforcement, etc. Confused yet? Just wait, it gets more interesting! In most installations, the commanding general or officer answers to the major command they are a part of (FORSCOM, TRADOC, etc.) while USAG falls underneath Installation Management Command (IMCOM). However, the Installation Commander is still directly senior to the Garrison Commander and is usually one of the only people who has such a relationship.

Think of it like this: the superintendant of an office building being leased by a business answers unofficially to the business in order to support their client, but officially answers to the landlords. Thus, all of the activities that support the business in the building are managed by the super for the business but in fact, have nothing to do with calling the shots for the direction of the business. Bristus (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Army Installation Management Command. 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/20101014032222/http://www.imcom.pac.army.mil/ to http://www.imcom.pac.army.mil/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]