As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Army to Reduce "Dwell Time" to Maintain Surge
siliconenhanced
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,130497,00.html
This is fucking nuts for various reasons. Some highlights:
Yeah, its hard because you retards refuse to institute a draft and are failing to take to heart the lessons of the Vietnam War, not to mention you told Shinseki to pretty much suck your ass when it came down to how many troops would be needed for an occupation.
Well, let's see. Considering the Army standard is slowly but surely becoming 15 fucking months, and its already breaking down families and soldiers involved. The reason the Marines can do seven months is because they typically spend about five months in country, and there's less of them compared to what the Army is fielding. Also, the fucking battle plan changes everytime a new commander takes over Iraq. First it was "train the Iraqi Police (IP) and Iraqi Army (IA) and get the fuck out". Then it became "suppress the insurgency!" which transformed into "oh shit get back into the bases!" which has now morphed into "let's put some guys into the middle of a neighborhood, make them live there, and see what happens."
Something else: This guy is an Air Force general, which IIRC is still doing fucking four months over in places like Qatar and the UAE and calling it a "combat deployment".
I love the military's way of "proving" things. Say something off the fucking wall and dare someone to challenge it. And if someone does, talk about a "super double secret report that will only embolden the terrorists if we release it in its entirity" that agrees with everything you're saying.
These happy assholes have broken one of the finest militaries seen since the Wehrmacht. This is NOT one of the most well trained and equipped militaries, and its been proven over and over again. Right now we've scrapped through the bottom of the barrel for recruits and now we're digging into the gunk that's UNDER the barrel. I recently had to kick a Reservist Recruiter off my fucking steps because the dickhead wouldn't no for an answer until I called the police on him. But meanwhile to keep the bosses happy its time to stick our heads in the sand and play pretend back in that fantasyland called the Pentagon.
There's not enough desk in the fucking world for me to bang my head against.
This is fucking nuts for various reasons. Some highlights:
The head of Joint Forces Command, Gen. Lance Smith, said "it would be very difficult" to provide fresh forces to ground commanders in Iraq without shortening the 12-month "dwell time" at home base - a period when new troops can train for counterinsurgency operations and previously deployed troops can rest.
Yeah, its hard because you retards refuse to institute a draft and are failing to take to heart the lessons of the Vietnam War, not to mention you told Shinseki to pretty much suck your ass when it came down to how many troops would be needed for an occupation.
The same shithead wrote:Currently, Army troops serve for about one year in Iraq and are supposed to be home for one year before they deploy again. The Marine Corps sends its units to Iraq for seven months, with seven months intended at home station - though that has been hard to attain for some in-demand units.
"If that's workable for the Marines, then why stay back for a year?" Smith said during a breakfast meeting with defense reporters in Washington.
Well, let's see. Considering the Army standard is slowly but surely becoming 15 fucking months, and its already breaking down families and soldiers involved. The reason the Marines can do seven months is because they typically spend about five months in country, and there's less of them compared to what the Army is fielding. Also, the fucking battle plan changes everytime a new commander takes over Iraq. First it was "train the Iraqi Police (IP) and Iraqi Army (IA) and get the fuck out". Then it became "suppress the insurgency!" which transformed into "oh shit get back into the bases!" which has now morphed into "let's put some guys into the middle of a neighborhood, make them live there, and see what happens."
Something else: This guy is an Air Force general, which IIRC is still doing fucking four months over in places like Qatar and the UAE and calling it a "combat deployment".
Today's military is one of the most experienced and well trained in American history, Smith added, saying less time at home would not affect their performance in combat because so many of the troops are well seasoned in counterinsurgency operations.
I love the military's way of "proving" things. Say something off the fucking wall and dare someone to challenge it. And if someone does, talk about a "super double secret report that will only embolden the terrorists if we release it in its entirity" that agrees with everything you're saying.
These happy assholes have broken one of the finest militaries seen since the Wehrmacht. This is NOT one of the most well trained and equipped militaries, and its been proven over and over again. Right now we've scrapped through the bottom of the barrel for recruits and now we're digging into the gunk that's UNDER the barrel. I recently had to kick a Reservist Recruiter off my fucking steps because the dickhead wouldn't no for an answer until I called the police on him. But meanwhile to keep the bosses happy its time to stick our heads in the sand and play pretend back in that fantasyland called the Pentagon.
Though Pentagon officials are hedging on saying how long the surge will last, Smith is beginning to look at how the U.S. military can sustain it.
"We live in a 'what if' world," he added. "We always do worst case planning."
There's not enough desk in the fucking world for me to bang my head against.
Army of the Thousand Sorrows - My Skorne Blog Updated 8/27!
siliconenhanced on
0
Posts
I especially love the commercials.
However, a draft would be a terrible mistake. One of the reasons the USA sucked ass in Vietnam was because of the draft. Take kids out of their schools and send them to foreign territory to get slaughtered by seasoned guerrillas? No.
The Republicans have been ass-raping our military for years now. Let's just hope the Democrats don't resort to the same level of douchebaggery.
PS: On a side note, if you are a troop, you ought to look into John Murtha. He's fantastic when it comes to military issues.
It's not that people don't support the troops, but rather they don't support the wars those troops fight.
If I was considering joining the military and saw them sent overseas to fight an illegal and immoral war, I would change my mind and not join.
If they always do worst case planning, why is it that the war was advertised as being winnable 'on the cheap?' That would seem like you're ignoring a hell of a lot of cases.
I don't think its the lack of veteran's benefits that's keeping the lines at the recruiters office short...
How about the draft during WWI and WWII?
That isn't the case at all. The entire "we support the troops" crap is simply paying lip-service to try and pretend people actually know what those troops are going through. Frankly, if anyone in this country really supported the troops we would do much, much more to help them reacclimate to civilian life and attend to their medical needs when they got out of the service.
Frankly, people getting out of prison get more support then our troops do.
I'm not sure but if I have to make an educated guess, I would say that the reason the draft worked in WWI and WWII was because the drafted American troops went against enemy forces that were already tired and worn thin. And there are physical factors, such as the terrain in Europe being very familiar to that of the USA (i.e. where the draftees trained), unlike Vietnam which is basically made of jungles and swamps.
Entirely different situation. Morale was a lot higher. For this war, if they started drafting people, the military would be in even worse shape than it is now.
Mind naming the nation-state's regiments that our drafted soldiers would be fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Templewulf: I am the troop (see sig), and I know all about Murtha.
The entire "we lost Vietnam cause of the draft thing" is old meme, because otherwise we have to blame the idiots like Westmoreland and his general staff and the fuckers in the White House for losing that war. Its easier to pretend that we lost because America's youth didn't have enough "moral fiber" and was more interested in smoking dope than killing the godless VC.
The politicians in this country don't want to have to answer to the populace for fighting wars ; I believe the Democrats are finally starting to get the picture that they were elected to stop the war, not to fight it how they believe it should have been fought. Right now, since its a "volunteer" force, there's the easy opt out of "no one made you sign the contract", which is fucking retarded.
The war in Vietnam was lost because of shitty tactics, shitty equipment (the M16 originaly would not fucking fire when it got damp or began to heat up, genius when you're fighting a war in the Southeast Asian jungle!) brought to you courtest of the Military Industrial Complex (hey its cheaper to make this weapon fully auto and give it a 20 round magazine. FUCKING BRILLIANT), and fighting for lame ass platitudes while your mission changes every year.
A draft could be the best thing for this country. When you realise it could be your ass in the sling as opposed to that idiot who decided to join the Army instead of get his degree in Political Science, you stop thinking shit like "Pre emptive strike" is fucking cool.
So, based on that logic, how does the draft in Vietnam have any bearing on a draft for Iraq?
Iraq is a harsh and hostile environment just like Vietnam was.
The Ardennes wasn't a harsh and hostile environment? Or the trenches in WWI?
Did you read my post at all? You know, the one where I said the entire idea that the draft was the reason we lost Vietnam is simply an excuse for the incompetence of those who ran the war?
Its not that the US citizens won't fight, its more that they need a fucking reason to fight. Its why any comparisons between WWII and this current conflict piss me off. Iraq is not fucking Grossdeutchland. WWII was mainly two fascists states (Germany and the USSR) beating the shit out of each other, and if hadn't have been for us arming the other one, I'm pretty sure eventually Germany would have won.
We have a great military when it comes to winning wars. With draftees or volunteers, it doesn't matter. They've never lost a war that we've waged. They have lost a number of peaces that we've waged, though, since those are a lot harder to fight, afterall.
I agree with you. I'm not arguing with you.
I want Ege02 to explain his retarded logic.
*Europe's terrain resembles most of the US. Someone from, say, Ohio would feel at least somewhat at home in Germany's climate. Same with someone from Oregon or Alabama. Plus the languages spoken at least come from the same root as English, so eventually you can power your way through the local tounges.
*You place those Ohio, Oregon and Alabama kids in Vietnam and they don't know what the hell. Anyone not from Hawaii is completely out of their element, both from the climate and language.
*Everyone not from Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada or the Mojave part of California is out of their element in Iraq, and the written language, to most Americans, resembles squiggles, never mind the spoken version.
I'm pretty sure Ohio wasn't covered in trenches and no man's land back in the day. Or we had a lot of treebursts over here.
Or the fact you're comparing three entirely different types of war and losing the point entirely in the process.
The entire root of his point is wrong though, which makes the entire damn thing moot. The generals don't want draftees because then they can't do crazy shit like stop loss or IRR call ups to them, and the regular Army types (Much like they did during the First and Second World Wars) are going to ask themselves Why am I putting up with this shit? and uh oh there goes the "standing Army". Plus the fact they then have to take the blame for the war being lost. Its much easier to say "Oh only if the troops would have fought, we would have won the war" which absolves the politicians and generals and manufacturers of any blame.
The US military still does not know how to talk about defeat.
We could fight a war on the moon and if the tactics, reasoning, and equipment were sound, we'd win with conscripts or volunteers. In Vietnam or Iraq, we've had neither.
The point is that Ege02 said the draft in Vietnam was different from the draft in WWI and WWII because Vietnam was a harsh and unforgiving argument. I want him to explain what insanely stupid universe that statement is valid in.
...ege's?
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
I don't know how you came to this conclusion. Sounds like it's just your personal opinion.
The fact of the matter is that conscript armies are never as strong and capable as volunteer armies. It's the whole quantity vs. quality thing. And the last thing you want to do to win wars in hostile environments against experienced enemy soldiers is to send in conscripts.
The draft was not the reason USA lost Vietnam War, but it played into the general scheme of things nevertheless. One of the reasons the public stopped supporting the war was the amount of military injuries and casualties suffered by the USA (60k MIA, 150k WIA, 2k MIA).
Draft is a terrible idea for many reasons.
This is not the reason we lost Vietnam. This is the reason we left Vietnam. We lost for a host of other reasons. But had we not been drafting people at random to send their ass to die in that shithole, you can bet your sweet ass we'd have had "volunteers" getting killed there even longer.
Shit, we'd probably still have troops fighting in Vietnam.
Hence the reason reason a draft would be the best possible thing for the Iraq war...because it would fucking end it.
I also agree that it's a lot easier for fatass armchair generals to sip their lattes and support more saber-rattling or pre-emptive strikes when they know it's not them or their kid that's going to end up having to die for them.
Wars like in Vietnam and Iraq are different. At least, they should be. The other side is fighting guerrilla warfare, an entirely different animal, while the US still wants to fight a war of attrition.
Because there was an actual accountability for the fact that a lot of people were sitting pretty in Saigon trying to use tactics made for the battlefields of Europe in a southeastern jungle? What, did you think they pretty much said "here's a rifle go to war?" Fuck no. Infantry training was 20 fucking weeks, and then they went to the jungle. It didn't matter whether or not they were conscripts or regulars, they got the same amount of training and then they went off. So your point about "you don't send conscripts" into battle is fucking moot and shows you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about or a grasp of basic American history. Who the fuck do you think fought the Revolutionary War?
And I'm getting my source from COL David Hackworth, cause you know, he fought the fucking thing.
I'm glad to see you know about as much of military history as you do of what causes women pain.
The thing that makes trenches ever-so-slightly less of an hostile environment than jungles/desert is that in trench warfare, you know where the enemy is. Conscripts are much more capable of performing well in trench-warfare than against guerrilla tactics (as seen in Vietnam).
Besides, although it is true that WWI was fought in trenches, WWII was not. And in that case, the environment was familiar. The lush meadows and pine forests of Europe are nowhere near as harsh as the jungles of Vietnam or Iraqi/Afghani deserts.
I mean really, you have to be an absolute retard to be in favor if instituting draft for Iraq.
No, the last thing you want to do to win wars in hostile environments against experienced enemy soldiers is to not have any sort of 'forethought' or 'planning' for what to do when your soldiers actually meet the enemy. We won the war in Iraq. We won that in 2 weeks flat. It was exceptionally easy. What we lost in Iraq is the peace, and do you know why? Because Rumsfeld threatened to/did fire anyone who talked about post-war Iraq and considered planning for it to be a good idea.
You know so much about military history but you think draft would be a good idea for Iraq.
Says a lot about your intelligence.
The entire thing about conscript training being the same length as professional soldier training is meaningless.
Because ONE FIGHTS WILLINGLY AND THE OTHER DOES NOT.
Yeah because God knows that they just laid down and died in the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, War, Mexican American War, Spanish War, Civil War, Phillipines Incursion, WWI, WWII, and Korea.
YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON. TYPING IN CAPS IS FUN.
And no reservist should ever spend 50% of their enlistment deployed involuntarily unless it's WWII. I know several that spent 3+ years of 6 on involuntary overseas deployments. Fucking insane. Part-time benefits for full-time assfucking? I'll pass. Word to the wise, kids...never, ever join the reserves/Guard. Ever.
Do you even have any idea what a majority of the "combat" in Iraq right now is like?* Yes, there are a few urban areas where it can be intense. However, a large number of our troops are not exactly humping it for kilometers in the desert every day. They're going out on patrols in air-conditioned HMMWV's, and coming home to air-conditioned CHU's. There are a lot of areas and a lot of positions in Iraq that conscripts could most definitely fill. It's not like a majority of our troops are dying because they don't know how to slog it out toe-to-toe with Abdulla...they'd dying because they're driving along one day and the road just explodes on them. Or walking to get some chow and a rocket falls on their head. How are conscripts much more likely to fall victim to this?
* - In all honestly, I probably don't either...the shit changes, and I've been gone for over a year now. But I can guarantee you it in no way resembles Vietnam, WWII, WWI, or any of the other retarded comparisons I've heard.
Is "You are an absolute fucking idiot" a valid response in a D&D thread?
I suggest you read about the Battle of the Ardennes before you try to insist that the forests of Europe are not as harsh as the Vietnam or Iraq.
Obviously you don't know only the conscripts got hit by the tree bursts.
Oh wow. You did not just compare the Revolutionary War to the Iraq War. Because that would be mind-boggling. You see, in the Revolutionary War, those conscripts were fighting for something they actually believed in (i.e. their independence). Same in Mexican American War, Spanish War, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, etc. For the Iraq War, this is not the case. The majority of the public is against it. Morale is terribly low. So it doesn't matter for how long or how hard you train those conscripts.
Really, are you seriously daft enough to not realize that the level of public support for a war drastically reduces or increases the effectiveness of conscript soldiers (which come from -- get this -- among the public)? Fighting when shit hits the fan != fighting for oil on the other side of the world.
How do you get blown up by an IED more effectively?
Wouldn't we just end up with more targets for roadside bombs? I'll admit, I am kinda ignorant of the situation over there, but I'm not quite sure I understand what the fuck we are doing over there anymore.
It sure seems like we are standing in the middle of a civil war, using our service men to stop the bullets each side is firing at each other. Now, a draftee's chest will stop lead just as well as a volunteer's chest will. He can probably do a pretty good job of manning a check point too.
What exactly are more troops over there going to be doing? How exactly are 20,000 or 200,000 more going to make a difference? Is there actually some threshold where folks will decide to lay down there guns? The goal, then, is what? A squad on every street corner? We failed at bringing them democracy, so we are going to settle for tyranny?
I don't get it.
Mainly I'm all for a draft because it will stop the fucking war once "supporting the troops" becomes more than putting a yellow ribbon on your SUV, which is the point others have made and ege02 has missed.
Ege02:
You said, and I quote:
Which isn't fucking true. Stop trying to backpedal and stop derailing the fucking thread. THis isn't so much about the draft as much as the fact that apparently a year in Iraq and a year back in the States is just too good for the Army.
Well, in theory I think the idea of the "squad on every corner" would be to quell sectarian violence long enough for them to establish a working government. As it stands, neither one is really happening.
As for how a few hundred thousand more troops would help do so, it's simple. Roadside bombs have to be planted. The more people you have, the more patrols, the less time to plant them. The more doors you can kick down, the more of the bombs you can find before they're planted. It's also hard to get a good death squad going when the Americans pull through your 'hood every 10 minutes, since regardless of how badass you are to women and children we'll still kick the shit out of you (conscripts or no).
Oddly, by increasing patrols, reducing IEDs and carbombs, you could probably reduce the number of deaths even with more targets over there. Well, maybe.
But it takes almost an order of magnitude more troops to actually accomplish this. We're talking at least 500,000. Which we don't have. And never had from the start. This was was doomed from day one without a draft. Granted, I'd not have favored it with a draft, either...but at least it might have worked out better.