==
So? That doesn't change my point that a bodyguard would sensibly consider US infantry a dangerous risk to their mission. It just means they'd also be worried about their fellow members as well. You've failed to provide any reason why Blackwater bodyguards shouldn't be able to keep the infantry from killing them and their charges. Even the good soldiers succumb to the environment there very fast, adopting a shoot-first paranoid mentality. Its often a valid adaptation to crappy circumstances, but that doesn't mean anyone else should have to lump it.
I have no idea whether these particular rumours are true, but if they follow what is said here (ie specifically disarming US troops) that doesn't apply. What you are talking about is ID and engagement procedure, such as approaching checkpoints and making sure you are recognised. Certainly there is a problem there, as British troops have often found out, so I can see your point. Thumbs up for taking extra caution with recognition and ID procedure.
However, once recognised, then proceding to disarm the US troops and get them down on the ground would be fucking ridiculous. Are they really expecting US troops to fire on heavily armed US Blackwater employees just for...fun? That isn't the action of a professional, responsible bodyguard, it's the action of a paranoid power freak.
==
So? That doesn't change my point that a bodyguard would sensibly consider US infantry a dangerous risk to their mission. It just means they'd also be worried about their fellow members as well. You've failed to provide any reason why Blackwater bodyguards shouldn't be able to keep the infantry from killing them and their charges. Even the good soldiers succumb to the environment there very fast, adopting a shoot-first paranoid mentality. Its often a valid adaptation to crappy circumstances, but that doesn't mean anyone else should have to lump it.
I have no idea whether these particular rumours are true, but if they follow what is said here (ie specifically disarming US troops) that doesn't apply. What you are talking about is ID and engagement procedure, such as approaching checkpoints and making sure you are recognised. Certainly there is a problem there, as British troops have often found out, so I can see your point. Thumbs up for taking extra caution with recognition and ID procedure.
However, once recognised, then proceding to disarm the US troops and get them down on the ground would be fucking ridiculous. Are they really expecting US troops to fire on heavily armed US Blackwater employees just for...fun? That isn't the action of a professional, responsible bodyguard, it's the action of a paranoid power freak.
Basically. The idea of civilians disarming soldiers in general is not something that I can't imagine an appropriate scenario for. But the circumstances under which Blackwater bodyguards would have reason to legitimately see identified US soldiers as a threat to their charge are...well, let's just say unlikely. Downright remote. Despite the undisciplined and deranged killcrazy rapists that The Cat thinks we tend to be. More likely it was just an extreme example of the exact kind of dickwaving that any soldier who has had dealings with PMCs has probably seen before.
EDIT: Also, I'm surprised that if we're getting our Blackwater scaremongering on I didn't see any mention on going through the thread of their role on US soil, such as during the aftermath of Katrina, as well as other services provided on this side of the globe. Widely overblown, mind you, but still something that seems like it should be mildly troubling.
I'm not much impressed by Blackwater, but I am much amused by the level of hysteria and rumour in this thread.
Hysteria? I'm not hysterical. I'm angry and offended that there are people out there theoretically working for the American government in a war zone (and a war that I'm already not all that hot about) killing civilians, disrespecting our established military, and generally making Americans look like even more schmucks on an international scale than we probably already did. If some guy blows up parts of my city because some mercinaries killed his mom in Iraq, I'll be downright pissed.
Ever been in the forces? EDIT: Apparently not by your other posts. Well the very fact that you're a fcuking civvy jobag bespeaks a certain level of shallow-dimensionality and total lack of discipline if you ask me, so cock off. Watching Platoon and playing Call of Duty doesn't count. Twat.
"Fucking civvy jobag." Nice.
I don't need to have been in the service to take a principled stand on it. The fact that you resort to ad hominem attacks against me bespeaks a certain lack of respect for other people's beliefs and opinions, so I'm not going to waste a lot of time on your response.
Same difference. I do wish people who know fuck all about what actually happens on the ground would stfu.
Why don't you just correct me instead of telling me to Shut The Fuck Up? Tell me where I'm wrong, please. I'm not so narrow minded to think that my arguments are unassailable, and will gladly admit it if you can tell me why it's so important that we have ill-supervised civilian contractors in a war zone doing jobs that are traditionally the military's. If I don't know fuck-all, please tell me about fuck-all: it sounds interesting, and something that an average American like me should hear. It looks to me, from my armchair, that the entire advent of military contractors in Iraq is just propping up a failed international policy that is costing more and more lives every day, both civilian and military. They're serving to make a few friends of the administration incredibly rich, while tarnishing an already bruised reputation overseas.
Dracomicron on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
I'm personally more disgusted by the gang rape thing than by what could be attributed to confusion and stress in the field.
I don't need to have been in the service to take a principled stand on it. The fact that you resort to ad hominem attacks against me bespeaks a certain lack of respect for other people's beliefs and opinions, so I'm not going to waste a lot of time on your response.
I apologise for refusing to be lectured on lack of discipline and 'shallowness' based on the fact I didn't dig the latrines or peel the potatoes in my FOB. I apologise for calling you - a 32-year old civvie who describes himself as a 'warrior-poet' and seems to think he understands soldiering from reading 'military books' and having a few mates as soldiers - a twat for saying so. But most of all, I'm sorry that you are such an ignorant cnut that you honestly don't count the years of training when soldiers do those menial tasks ad infinitum, and think a lack of soldiers peeling potatoes on operations is a flaw in your Army, especially when they have one or two other things occupying their time, such as, I don't know, operations.
See, if you had come in here and raised the question of contractors and privatisation in the military, I would have been most courtious. But what would you think of me if I wandered into, say, a Christian thread, and shouted "hey jesus is a tard n so r all u, thy didnt even burn his testicles only nails in hands n spears he was wuss i wuld have been much better even tho ive only ever had a papercut im well hard me...so ladies and gentlemen, may we discuss the finer points of Aquinas' musing on the dichotomous interaction of omniscience and omnipotence?"
Don't think we'd be talking much about Aquinas. You show wanton ignorance, you will get shit for it. Apologies.
Not Sarastro on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Well, if you're a contractor, you aren't a soldier, either. You're a mercenary. Also, We've heard enough about PMCs doing absolutely unacceptable shit. If you want to defend yourself, you have to explain why that shit's acceptable, rather than complain that we're all numbskulls who don't understand the situation. Especially since there are soldiers here who have been there.
They fervently believe in their "mission," (though I frighteningly have no idea what that mission is) and I would compare them to crusaders, insofar as they believe that pretty much any action is justified if it furthers their cause.
How does that stop them from leaving the US and working for a James Bond villain before the next term starts? Would America covertly hunt them down before that happens, like in a Tom Clancy novel?
Well, if you're a contractor, you aren't a soldier, either. You're a mercenary. Also, We've heard enough about PMCs doing absolutely unacceptable shit. If you want to defend yourself, you have to explain why that shit's acceptable, rather than complain that we're all numbskulls who don't understand the situation. Especially since there are soldiers here who have been there.
Thank you for reading my original post where I said I wasn't defending Blackwater. I know it was half a page up and this reading thing is hard for you.
Not Sarastro on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Well, if you're a contractor, you aren't a soldier, either. You're a mercenary. Also, We've heard enough about PMCs doing absolutely unacceptable shit. If you want to defend yourself, you have to explain why that shit's acceptable, rather than complain that we're all numbskulls who don't understand the situation. Especially since there are soldiers here who have been there.
Thank you for reading my original post where I said I wasn't defending Blackwater. I know it was half a page up and this reading thing is hard for you.
Yes, excuse me for mistaking your refuting people attacking Blackwater as a defense of Blackwater.
The very fact that our soldiers don't even have to peel their own potatoes or dig latrines anymore bespeaks a certain level of shallow-dimensionality and loss of discipline, if you ask me.
What the fuck?
Ever been in the forces? EDIT: Apparently not by your other posts. Well the very fact that you're a fcuking civvy jobag bespeaks a certain level of shallow-dimensionality and total lack of discipline if you ask me, so cock off. Watching Platoon and playing Call of Duty doesn't count. Twat.
I was attacking a specific idiotic thing he said, not refuting all his arguments on Blackwater. I can argue with you here without automatically intending to refute everything you've written in other threads, right?
D- Try Harder.
Not Sarastro on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The very fact that our soldiers don't even have to peel their own potatoes or dig latrines anymore bespeaks a certain level of shallow-dimensionality and loss of discipline, if you ask me.
What the fuck?
Ever been in the forces? EDIT: Apparently not by your other posts. Well the very fact that you're a fcuking civvy jobag bespeaks a certain level of shallow-dimensionality and total lack of discipline if you ask me, so cock off. Watching Platoon and playing Call of Duty doesn't count. Twat.
I was attacking a specific idiotic thing he said, not refuting all his arguments on Blackwater. I can argue with you here without automatically intending to refute everything you've written in other threads, right?
D- Try Harder.
Okay, I agree, that was a stupid thing to say. The way you argued with him, or the way he argued against your argument, or whatever, confused me to the point where I thought you were actually talking about something important. I think, by the way, he was more decrying the lack of required discipline base that PMCs may have, rather than not having to literally physically peel potatoes etc. If he was, that's kind of silly, but PMCs are fucking scary. Hells, Hideo Kojima is using them in his MIC-intensive future, so you know they have to be a little insane. Apologies.
The silly thing is that I think there is definitely an issue there concerning the effect of contracting out and privatizing many Army branches & basic support services - this is more concerning the UK forces recently (the Ministry of Defence having gone as far as contracting out fucking military training in some areas), but I understand there are a few comparable things happening in the US. Stuff like contracting out catering to private companies has an obvious deleterious effect on the military, though on ops the UK still has Army chefs peeling potatoes. It's all a part of the same civilian defence / government department culture that uses Blackwater, and it isn't a good one.
But you know, Aquinas vs olol jesus tard. There was also a lot of speculative babbling and exaggeration at the start of this thread from people who clearly aren't very well informed, and as McDermott said, just because they accidentally hit on the right answer, doesn't mean you pat them on the back for it.
I think we're getting off the subject, and I apologize for any disrespect towards the military that my words have unintentionally caused. I was just thinking, though, that one of the things I always respected about the military was that they took care of their own shit. Who would I rather have peeling potatos in back? A) someone who is paid by Halliburton to do it, or a soldier following a KP roster? Quite honestly, it's B, for me, because if something happened, a mortar shell hit the mess or a fire started or someone pulled a gun, I would trust the soldier to put down the potato peeler and take care of business. The paid guy... who knows what he might do, right? He could end up doing more harm than good.
The authentic armed forces has been having such trouble recruiting (for a variety of reasons) that they rely on contractors. I understand why they have all non-combat jobs assigned to non-military personel: when your armed forces are spread so thin that you extend tours and have a large percentage of the National Guard deployed overseas, you can't afford to have soldiers doing anything but military actions. I disagree with this philosophy, personally. It's just one of many fucked up things about us being in Iraq. I have fundamental ethical views against the war and the way that it has been persecuted.
Please stop with the personal attacks and insincere apologies. Yeah, I worded things poorly because something that makes perfect sense in my head doesn't always come out clearly. If you take issue with what I say, enlighten me. I guarantee you that I'm willing to listen. Unlike many internet posters, I don't have a burning need to argue about how people are arguing.
Oh, and "Warrior-Poet" is a Stephen Colbert reference. I miss that show.
I'm not pro them being there. For the aforementioned getting in the ways reasons, but not because they had the temerity to pull guns on the wrong group of people. Jesus Christ, is there one person in this entire fucking forum capable of reading one of my posts and seeing what's actually there?
Cat, what makes you think Blackwater wouldn't pull guns on Aussie troops?
They fucking tried it. We didnt back down.
American Troops have tried it too. We didn't back down.
Basically, if you try disarm Australian troops on deployment, prepare for a fight.
Also, since Vietnam, where we received a lot of friendly fire from Americans, and not overly impressed with the training or level of professionalism displayed by the american military we tend to be highly suspicious of them. Don't get me wrong they generally are great guys, but far from being the smartest.
I've pointed a weapon, on instant, at a group of american troops and ordered them to disarm. They thought that being american made them immune to our rules.
Basically, from an outsiders perspective who has been there and seen it, there isnt much difference between blackwater and the us military.
If a VIP in Iraq had local security enforcement culled from loyalist militias and they told American troops to disarm in a similar situation what would our reaction be?
American Troops have tried it too. We didn't back down.
Basically, if you try disarm Australian troops on deployment, prepare for a fight.
Clearly bravado and macho pride are more important than acting sensibly and reasonably responding to a situation.
Rubbish.
I knew plenty of British officers and NCO's who would have reacted in exactly the same way, just saying "Look lads, we're not putting our weapons down, so you go ahead, shoot us, and cause the biggest inter-NATO scandal in its history. Or: fuck off and be on your way".
Ordering trusted, western allied soldiers to disarm is not acting sensibly and reasonably, treating & using them as, you know, allies is.
Nexus: the situation with 'friendly' Iraqi or Afghani forces is not even remotely similar, since there is good reason to assume they, or elements of them, may not actually be friendly. Case in point is the news headline today. There is not good reason for Americans to believe a British section is going to purposefully shoot them up.
American Troops have tried it too. We didn't back down.
Basically, if you try disarm Australian troops on deployment, prepare for a fight.
Clearly bravado and macho pride are more important than acting sensibly and reasonably responding to a situation.
Rubbish.
I knew plenty of British officers and NCO's who would have reacted in exactly the same way, just saying "Look lads, we're not putting our weapons down, so you go ahead, shoot us, and cause the biggest inter-NATO scandal in its history. Or: fuck off and be on your way".
Ordering trusted, western allied soldiers to disarm is not acting sensibly and reasonably, treating & using them as, you know, allies is.
I'm not saying that it's reasonable to request an allied unit to disarm without providing the reasoning for the order. I'm just saying that outright refusing the order without seeking out said reasoning is equally unreasonable, or nearly so.
I mean, I've never fought in Iraq, but if it's anything like Chechnya I can only presume that, being a warzone, circumstances vary wildly and you can never be certain of a situation, especially if you haven't attempted any inquiries into it.
Fighting an insurgency vs Russian forces is, I imagine, a wee bit different to fighting as part of a NATO / coalition force against an insurgency. I can see ostensibly allied tribal / factional forces being an ID / trust problem in those situations, but NATO have a lot of ID procedures, wear distinctive & visible markings, and trust shouldn't even be an issue once recognised. Certainly between Britain, US, Australia, & Blackwater.
If some obviously whacked out, drunk or whatever allied soldier with a gun was waving it around, then that's a situation in which you are flexible, but we're talking about what seem to be procedure & SOPs here.
Though my stance on MrIamMe's post remains, given the fact that he was so quick to follow up by claiming to have disarmed American forces, inept or not.
We didn't disarm them, they TRIED to disarm us. Cos apparently Iraq insurgents dress in AusDesCam, carry styers, and go on patrol these days.
Never had an issue with the brits, we advance one person without a weapon, credentials are checked, people counted and credentials checked.
Sorry to the patriotic americans but your troops are not considered great troops on the world stage, have a history of shooting allies, and so we tend to be a bit suss of you. Like I said, great guys, but not great soldiers.
Maybe I shouldnt have posted, however having seen both forces from an outside viewpoint on operations, I felt more qualified than most.
I've pointed a weapon, on instant, at a group of american troops and ordered them to disarm. They thought that being american made them immune to our rules.
Sorry to the patriotic americans but your troops are not considered great troops on the world stage, have a history of shooting allies, and so we tend to be a bit suss of you. Like I said, great guys, but not great soldiers.
I'm curious how much of this is due to the increased use of reservists and national guard guys.
Edit: Perhaps also the sheer number of US troops compared to others. 150,000 vs 4,000 UK and 1,000 AUS.
Sorry to the patriotic americans but your troops are not considered great troops on the world stage, have a history of shooting allies, and so we tend to be a bit suss of you. Like I said, great guys, but not great soldiers.
I'm curious how much of this is due to the increased use of reservists and national guard guys.
Edit: Perhaps also the sheer number of US troops compared to others. 150,000 vs 4,000 UK and 1,000 AUS.
A large portion of our reservists (like myself) are actually former regular soldiers. Just a note.
And yes, the sheer number has a lot to do with it. When you need to field an army of our size (which is a fuckload larger than the UK's or Australia's), you're obviously going to have to dig a bit deeper. This says nothing of the competence or professionalism of the average soldier, or even most soldiers. It only takes one idiot (or just one mistake) to lead to a friendly-fire incident.
And, as you noted, we simply have a fuckload more guys in Iraq, as well as pretty much every other UN or NATO operation, than any other individual nation. So of course we're going to have more friendly-fire incidents. That's just simple probability. Let's see the UK or Australia provide 130,000 soldiers and not have any fuckups.
Until then, I think a few people here ought to shut their cake-holes.
mcdermott on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Sorry to the patriotic americans but your troops are not considered great troops on the world stage, have a history of shooting allies, and so we tend to be a bit suss of you. Like I said, great guys, but not great soldiers.
I'm curious how much of this is due to the increased use of reservists and national guard guys.
Edit: Perhaps also the sheer number of US troops compared to others. 150,000 vs 4,000 UK and 1,000 AUS.
Right on about the Reservists, these people aren't real soldiers, they're civilians, and putting them in a hot zone isn't going to work out well.
EDIT: Just saw Mcdermott's last post, my bad.
There's also the fact that the US recruiting standards have plummeted because of the lack of recruits. We now welcome fucking felons into the service. The bottom of the barrel is now being scraped because georgie realized the public wouldn't want to sign up en masse for a war once they realized that it didn't need to be fought.
It all goes back to the Bush admin being obsessed with controlling the face of the war. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were incidences involving the US military doing something they shouldn't, and instead of making a very public affair of the court martial, they covered it the fuck up so the public didn't get pissed.
I think it was the Finns that had one of their soldiers tried for fucking war-crimes involving the torture of a POW. Of course you would never hear about that happening to a US serviceman or woman, because the Admin doesn't give a fuck, and these leeches are left alone and allowed to thrive.
Finally, given the absurd amount of deployments the Reservists and Regulars are being put on, and the obvious mental trauma shit like that inflicts it doesn't surprise me in the least that we're given a shitty image around the world- and it's all georgie's fault. The majority of the military are kick ass people, but when some assholes fuck it up, that blame gets shoved onto their backs too. The blame should be put on the fucking handlers who are supposed to be overseeing them- the same government that's supposed to be keeping an eye on Blackwater. But I won't hold my breathe unless some major scandal occurs and those fucks are impeached.
Not reservists so much as sticking National Guard guys in there. No offense to them but they are trained for riots and natural disasters not hot warzones.
Not reservists so much as sticking National Guard guys in there. No offense to them but they are trained for riots and natural disasters not hot warzones.
Also incorrect. They receive the exact same basic training, and all of their drills and annual training is also geared towards either force-on-force warfare or occupation (previously a la Bosnia, now a la Iraq/Afghanistan). Has been for quite some time. We actually don't train at all for riots/disasters, at least I've not spent one second training for such in my seven years in the Guard.
This isn't to say we have the same level of training as the regular forces. We don't. Though before deploying NG units to spend several months training up stateside, which is why my activation involved 18 months gone even though only 12 was spent in-country. And why some NG units have neared the 2-year mark. And again, there is a solid backbone in both the Guard and Reserves of prior-service soldiers who have spent time on active-duty. It's actually a huge recruiting channel for them.
Lastly, there are only two primary differences between National Guard and Reserves. One, Reserve units are often support units (shit like water purification or laundry services or whatever) that the active Army doesn't want to pay for full-time when not needed, whereas National Guard units tend to be actual combat units (infantry, cavalry, etc.). Two, NG units are (in theory) under state control. Their primary commander in chief is the state's governor, not the President; it's not until activated by the regular Army that they come under federal control. Aside from that, the training and equipment aren't really much different than the Reserves.
Seriously, anybody who doesn't know "for really real" what they're talking about should just stop.
EDIT: In short, we do and have for some time trained for "hot warzones." Both overseas, and for the remote possibility that the US itself might become one.
A large portion of our reservists (like myself) are actually former regular soldiers. Just a note.
Oh, yeah, I meant no offense. My line of thought was more the lower morale a Marine or soldier recalled under the IRR would probably have, compared to active duty folks. That's got to make a difference in performance.
A large portion of our reservists (like myself) are actually former regular soldiers. Just a note.
Oh, yeah, I meant no offense. My line of thought was more the lower morale a Marine or soldier recalled under the IRR would probably have, compared to active duty folks. That's got to make a difference in performance.
What a clusterfuck.
Oh yeah, IRR'd and stop-lossed soldiers are some bitter, angry motherfuckers more often than not.
Sorry to the patriotic americans but your troops are not considered great troops on the world stage, have a history of shooting allies, and so we tend to be a bit suss of you. Like I said, great guys, but not great soldiers.
I'm curious how much of this is due to the increased use of reservists and national guard guys.
Well, it's not a new opinion, or limited to the aussies. I'm sure a lot of it in Iraq currently has to do with large numbers of reservists & NG, but it was an issue in Gulf 1, Bosnia, and so on. I've always rather assumed that it is part the large number of US troops deployed, but also the sheer size of the US Army, which means standard training isn't quite at the level of smaller armies like the UK. It also means that where, with the UK, our 'elite' basic regiments (Para, RM, etc) are a large percentage of deployments (this is to do with combat brigade structures), in the US it is more spread out.
The best US units are very good, but most allied soldiers don't run into those units that much on deployment. Except occasionally your SF, who are fucking everywhere, but not the ones shooting at LandRovers from checkpoints.
Yeah, NS, that's probably a large part of it. You simply aren't going to field a military as large as ours and fill deployments as large as ours (seriously, like I said, let's see AUS or the UK put 100K+ soldiers anywhere for a few years at a time) and maintain the same kinds of standards as an army 1/5 of the size can maintain. It's the same way that US Marines are generally known for having higher standards of training than Army, and units like the Rangers/SF are known for having higher standards than both.
EDIT: Or, in other words, I'd put our 100K best soldiers against the UK's (which is about their entire Army), or anybody else's, any day of the week.
I think that your demand that we field huge armies before we can comment is rather a specious argument - you do realise there are only 20 million Australians on the planet and 70-odd million Brits, right, compared with 300 million in the US? Proportionately, our defence forces are on par with everyone else's, and larger than many. Simple scale doesn't cause the poor training standards, I'd say its far more closely related to actual armed-forces policy (and I've seen you bitch about your own army's training programs and their.. ahem, variability before, so lets not get huffy), as well as the fact that your primary recruitment base are likely to be less educated and. I'd speculate, less healthy than ours. Even our poorest schools aren't as bad as a lot of your rural and ghetto high schools in areas where grunts are primarily sourced. Universal healthcare and a food system that's not as heavily industrialised impacts on a population's physical health, and yes, intelligence. I don't think you can make a 'slip-through-the-cracks-of-a-big-system' argument; the cracks would have to be pretty massive.
Hey Cat, Australia currently has less than 4,000 troops stationed overseas on operations, out of 20 million people. The US has what, 160,000 or so deployed out of 300 million? Maybe more, depending what you count. So we're deploying soldiers at a rate of what, two to three times yours (compared to population)? So yeah, battle fatigue will be more of an issue and you'll hear more about US friendly fire incidents than you will Australian just due to pure numbers, even before we get into proportions. Same for Britain.
EDIT: Or, in other words, I agree that saying AUS should have to provide 160,000 troops is unreasonable. So make that 12,000 or so. Maybe 15,000. Indefinitely.
I think that your demand that we field huge armies before we can comment is rather a specious argument - you do realise there are only 20 million Australians on the planet and 70-odd million Brits, right, compared with 300 million in the US? Proportionately, our defence forces are on par with everyone else's, and larger than many. Simple scale doesn't cause the poor training standards, I'd say its far more closely related to actual armed-forces policy (and I've seen you bitch about your own army's training programs and their.. ahem, variability before, so lets not get huffy), as well as the fact that your primary recruitment base are likely to be less educated and. I'd speculate, less healthy than ours. Even our poorest schools aren't as bad as a lot of your rural and ghetto high schools in areas where grunts are primarily sourced. Universal healthcare and a food system that's not as heavily industrialised impacts on a population's physical health, and yes, intelligence. I don't think you can make a 'slip-through-the-cracks-of-a-big-system' argument; the cracks would have to be pretty massive.
The point is that it only takes one gung-ho idiot to start an incident, and your odds of a random hit are a lot higher when you're fielding a hundred times as many troops.
Also, that it's easier to maintain higher recruiting standards (even when maintaining the same soldier:civilian ratio) when you won't be sending your boys off for 16 out of 24 months, over and over again, with no end in sight. It's not just because Australians are naturally healthier and smarter than Americans.
Also, that it's easier to maintain higher recruiting standards (even when maintaining the same soldier:civilian ratio) when you won't be sending your boys off for 16 out of 24 months, over and over again, with no end in sight. It's not just because Australians are naturally healthier and smarter than Americans.
You might have a hope of a point if the US troops' reputation wasn't established a lot earlier and has persisted between wars. It was commented on in the book of Black Hawk Down, for instance, and in that case it was the army rangers bitching about what a pain the ass regular infantry were. I've no doubt that persistent high deployment exaggerates it, but its not the ultimate source. I also don't believe the frequency of stuffups can be explained by the bad-apple theory.
Its a private security company. One of their employers just happen to be the DoD
How are they in trouble when Bush is gone?
They are still a security company. They may lose contracts in Iraq/Afghanistan, but thats not gonna put them under.
Read the news sometime. They've been caught basically acting as if they're above the law. The current administration is happy to turn a blind eye, but the next....not so much.
They ordered us, we ordered them, our SGT steps in, and situation is calmed down with no disarming on any side.
edit: Im following cat out of this thread now.
So if I'm following this:
They told you to disarm; you refused.
You told them to disarm; they refused.
They are the ill-trained soldiers in the scenario...why?
Posts
I have no idea whether these particular rumours are true, but if they follow what is said here (ie specifically disarming US troops) that doesn't apply. What you are talking about is ID and engagement procedure, such as approaching checkpoints and making sure you are recognised. Certainly there is a problem there, as British troops have often found out, so I can see your point. Thumbs up for taking extra caution with recognition and ID procedure.
However, once recognised, then proceding to disarm the US troops and get them down on the ground would be fucking ridiculous. Are they really expecting US troops to fire on heavily armed US Blackwater employees just for...fun? That isn't the action of a professional, responsible bodyguard, it's the action of a paranoid power freak.
Basically. The idea of civilians disarming soldiers in general is not something that I can't imagine an appropriate scenario for. But the circumstances under which Blackwater bodyguards would have reason to legitimately see identified US soldiers as a threat to their charge are...well, let's just say unlikely. Downright remote. Despite the undisciplined and deranged killcrazy rapists that The Cat thinks we tend to be. More likely it was just an extreme example of the exact kind of dickwaving that any soldier who has had dealings with PMCs has probably seen before.
EDIT: Also, I'm surprised that if we're getting our Blackwater scaremongering on I didn't see any mention on going through the thread of their role on US soil, such as during the aftermath of Katrina, as well as other services provided on this side of the globe. Widely overblown, mind you, but still something that seems like it should be mildly troubling.
Hysteria? I'm not hysterical. I'm angry and offended that there are people out there theoretically working for the American government in a war zone (and a war that I'm already not all that hot about) killing civilians, disrespecting our established military, and generally making Americans look like even more schmucks on an international scale than we probably already did. If some guy blows up parts of my city because some mercinaries killed his mom in Iraq, I'll be downright pissed.
"Fucking civvy jobag." Nice.
I don't need to have been in the service to take a principled stand on it. The fact that you resort to ad hominem attacks against me bespeaks a certain lack of respect for other people's beliefs and opinions, so I'm not going to waste a lot of time on your response.
Why don't you just correct me instead of telling me to Shut The Fuck Up? Tell me where I'm wrong, please. I'm not so narrow minded to think that my arguments are unassailable, and will gladly admit it if you can tell me why it's so important that we have ill-supervised civilian contractors in a war zone doing jobs that are traditionally the military's. If I don't know fuck-all, please tell me about fuck-all: it sounds interesting, and something that an average American like me should hear. It looks to me, from my armchair, that the entire advent of military contractors in Iraq is just propping up a failed international policy that is costing more and more lives every day, both civilian and military. They're serving to make a few friends of the administration incredibly rich, while tarnishing an already bruised reputation overseas.
I apologise for refusing to be lectured on lack of discipline and 'shallowness' based on the fact I didn't dig the latrines or peel the potatoes in my FOB. I apologise for calling you - a 32-year old civvie who describes himself as a 'warrior-poet' and seems to think he understands soldiering from reading 'military books' and having a few mates as soldiers - a twat for saying so. But most of all, I'm sorry that you are such an ignorant cnut that you honestly don't count the years of training when soldiers do those menial tasks ad infinitum, and think a lack of soldiers peeling potatoes on operations is a flaw in your Army, especially when they have one or two other things occupying their time, such as, I don't know, operations.
See, if you had come in here and raised the question of contractors and privatisation in the military, I would have been most courtious. But what would you think of me if I wandered into, say, a Christian thread, and shouted "hey jesus is a tard n so r all u, thy didnt even burn his testicles only nails in hands n spears he was wuss i wuld have been much better even tho ive only ever had a papercut im well hard me...so ladies and gentlemen, may we discuss the finer points of Aquinas' musing on the dichotomous interaction of omniscience and omnipotence?"
Don't think we'd be talking much about Aquinas. You show wanton ignorance, you will get shit for it. Apologies.
Hysteria.
Thank you for reading my original post where I said I wasn't defending Blackwater. I know it was half a page up and this reading thing is hard for you.
I was attacking a specific idiotic thing he said, not refuting all his arguments on Blackwater. I can argue with you here without automatically intending to refute everything you've written in other threads, right?
D- Try Harder.
The silly thing is that I think there is definitely an issue there concerning the effect of contracting out and privatizing many Army branches & basic support services - this is more concerning the UK forces recently (the Ministry of Defence having gone as far as contracting out fucking military training in some areas), but I understand there are a few comparable things happening in the US. Stuff like contracting out catering to private companies has an obvious deleterious effect on the military, though on ops the UK still has Army chefs peeling potatoes. It's all a part of the same civilian defence / government department culture that uses Blackwater, and it isn't a good one.
But you know, Aquinas vs olol jesus tard. There was also a lot of speculative babbling and exaggeration at the start of this thread from people who clearly aren't very well informed, and as McDermott said, just because they accidentally hit on the right answer, doesn't mean you pat them on the back for it.
I think we're getting off the subject, and I apologize for any disrespect towards the military that my words have unintentionally caused. I was just thinking, though, that one of the things I always respected about the military was that they took care of their own shit. Who would I rather have peeling potatos in back? A) someone who is paid by Halliburton to do it, or
The authentic armed forces has been having such trouble recruiting (for a variety of reasons) that they rely on contractors. I understand why they have all non-combat jobs assigned to non-military personel: when your armed forces are spread so thin that you extend tours and have a large percentage of the National Guard deployed overseas, you can't afford to have soldiers doing anything but military actions. I disagree with this philosophy, personally. It's just one of many fucked up things about us being in Iraq. I have fundamental ethical views against the war and the way that it has been persecuted.
Please stop with the personal attacks and insincere apologies. Yeah, I worded things poorly because something that makes perfect sense in my head doesn't always come out clearly. If you take issue with what I say, enlighten me. I guarantee you that I'm willing to listen. Unlike many internet posters, I don't have a burning need to argue about how people are arguing.
Oh, and "Warrior-Poet" is a Stephen Colbert reference. I miss that show.
They fucking tried it. We didnt back down.
American Troops have tried it too. We didn't back down.
Basically, if you try disarm Australian troops on deployment, prepare for a fight.
Also, since Vietnam, where we received a lot of friendly fire from Americans, and not overly impressed with the training or level of professionalism displayed by the american military we tend to be highly suspicious of them. Don't get me wrong they generally are great guys, but far from being the smartest.
I've pointed a weapon, on instant, at a group of american troops and ordered them to disarm. They thought that being american made them immune to our rules.
Basically, from an outsiders perspective who has been there and seen it, there isnt much difference between blackwater and the us military.
Clearly bravado and macho pride are more important than acting sensibly and reasonably responding to a situation.
Rubbish.
I knew plenty of British officers and NCO's who would have reacted in exactly the same way, just saying "Look lads, we're not putting our weapons down, so you go ahead, shoot us, and cause the biggest inter-NATO scandal in its history. Or: fuck off and be on your way".
Ordering trusted, western allied soldiers to disarm is not acting sensibly and reasonably, treating & using them as, you know, allies is.
Nexus: the situation with 'friendly' Iraqi or Afghani forces is not even remotely similar, since there is good reason to assume they, or elements of them, may not actually be friendly. Case in point is the news headline today. There is not good reason for Americans to believe a British section is going to purposefully shoot them up.
I'm not saying that it's reasonable to request an allied unit to disarm without providing the reasoning for the order. I'm just saying that outright refusing the order without seeking out said reasoning is equally unreasonable, or nearly so.
I mean, I've never fought in Iraq, but if it's anything like Chechnya I can only presume that, being a warzone, circumstances vary wildly and you can never be certain of a situation, especially if you haven't attempted any inquiries into it.
If some obviously whacked out, drunk or whatever allied soldier with a gun was waving it around, then that's a situation in which you are flexible, but we're talking about what seem to be procedure & SOPs here.
So, no dice.
Though my stance on MrIamMe's post remains, given the fact that he was so quick to follow up by claiming to have disarmed American forces, inept or not.
Never had an issue with the brits, we advance one person without a weapon, credentials are checked, people counted and credentials checked.
Sorry to the patriotic americans but your troops are not considered great troops on the world stage, have a history of shooting allies, and so we tend to be a bit suss of you. Like I said, great guys, but not great soldiers.
Maybe I shouldnt have posted, however having seen both forces from an outside viewpoint on operations, I felt more qualified than most.
Really? Sorry, I was confused because your post says something different.
They ordered us, we ordered them, our SGT steps in, and situation is calmed down with no disarming on any side.
edit: Im following cat out of this thread now.
I'm curious how much of this is due to the increased use of reservists and national guard guys.
Edit: Perhaps also the sheer number of US troops compared to others. 150,000 vs 4,000 UK and 1,000 AUS.
A large portion of our reservists (like myself) are actually former regular soldiers. Just a note.
And yes, the sheer number has a lot to do with it. When you need to field an army of our size (which is a fuckload larger than the UK's or Australia's), you're obviously going to have to dig a bit deeper. This says nothing of the competence or professionalism of the average soldier, or even most soldiers. It only takes one idiot (or just one mistake) to lead to a friendly-fire incident.
And, as you noted, we simply have a fuckload more guys in Iraq, as well as pretty much every other UN or NATO operation, than any other individual nation. So of course we're going to have more friendly-fire incidents. That's just simple probability. Let's see the UK or Australia provide 130,000 soldiers and not have any fuckups.
Until then, I think a few people here ought to shut their cake-holes.
Right on about the Reservists, these people aren't real soldiers, they're civilians, and putting them in a hot zone isn't going to work out well.
EDIT: Just saw Mcdermott's last post, my bad.
There's also the fact that the US recruiting standards have plummeted because of the lack of recruits. We now welcome fucking felons into the service. The bottom of the barrel is now being scraped because georgie realized the public wouldn't want to sign up en masse for a war once they realized that it didn't need to be fought.
It all goes back to the Bush admin being obsessed with controlling the face of the war. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were incidences involving the US military doing something they shouldn't, and instead of making a very public affair of the court martial, they covered it the fuck up so the public didn't get pissed.
I think it was the Finns that had one of their soldiers tried for fucking war-crimes involving the torture of a POW. Of course you would never hear about that happening to a US serviceman or woman, because the Admin doesn't give a fuck, and these leeches are left alone and allowed to thrive.
Finally, given the absurd amount of deployments the Reservists and Regulars are being put on, and the obvious mental trauma shit like that inflicts it doesn't surprise me in the least that we're given a shitty image around the world- and it's all georgie's fault. The majority of the military are kick ass people, but when some assholes fuck it up, that blame gets shoved onto their backs too. The blame should be put on the fucking handlers who are supposed to be overseeing them- the same government that's supposed to be keeping an eye on Blackwater. But I won't hold my breathe unless some major scandal occurs and those fucks are impeached.
Also incorrect. They receive the exact same basic training, and all of their drills and annual training is also geared towards either force-on-force warfare or occupation (previously a la Bosnia, now a la Iraq/Afghanistan). Has been for quite some time. We actually don't train at all for riots/disasters, at least I've not spent one second training for such in my seven years in the Guard.
This isn't to say we have the same level of training as the regular forces. We don't. Though before deploying NG units to spend several months training up stateside, which is why my activation involved 18 months gone even though only 12 was spent in-country. And why some NG units have neared the 2-year mark. And again, there is a solid backbone in both the Guard and Reserves of prior-service soldiers who have spent time on active-duty. It's actually a huge recruiting channel for them.
Lastly, there are only two primary differences between National Guard and Reserves. One, Reserve units are often support units (shit like water purification or laundry services or whatever) that the active Army doesn't want to pay for full-time when not needed, whereas National Guard units tend to be actual combat units (infantry, cavalry, etc.). Two, NG units are (in theory) under state control. Their primary commander in chief is the state's governor, not the President; it's not until activated by the regular Army that they come under federal control. Aside from that, the training and equipment aren't really much different than the Reserves.
Seriously, anybody who doesn't know "for really real" what they're talking about should just stop.
EDIT: In short, we do and have for some time trained for "hot warzones." Both overseas, and for the remote possibility that the US itself might become one.
Oh, yeah, I meant no offense. My line of thought was more the lower morale a Marine or soldier recalled under the IRR would probably have, compared to active duty folks. That's got to make a difference in performance.
What a clusterfuck.
Oh yeah, IRR'd and stop-lossed soldiers are some bitter, angry motherfuckers more often than not.
Well, it's not a new opinion, or limited to the aussies. I'm sure a lot of it in Iraq currently has to do with large numbers of reservists & NG, but it was an issue in Gulf 1, Bosnia, and so on. I've always rather assumed that it is part the large number of US troops deployed, but also the sheer size of the US Army, which means standard training isn't quite at the level of smaller armies like the UK. It also means that where, with the UK, our 'elite' basic regiments (Para, RM, etc) are a large percentage of deployments (this is to do with combat brigade structures), in the US it is more spread out.
The best US units are very good, but most allied soldiers don't run into those units that much on deployment. Except occasionally your SF, who are fucking everywhere, but not the ones shooting at LandRovers from checkpoints.
EDIT: Or, in other words, I'd put our 100K best soldiers against the UK's (which is about their entire Army), or anybody else's, any day of the week.
EDIT: Or, in other words, I agree that saying AUS should have to provide 160,000 troops is unreasonable. So make that 12,000 or so. Maybe 15,000. Indefinitely.
The point is that it only takes one gung-ho idiot to start an incident, and your odds of a random hit are a lot higher when you're fielding a hundred times as many troops.
You might have a hope of a point if the US troops' reputation wasn't established a lot earlier and has persisted between wars. It was commented on in the book of Black Hawk Down, for instance, and in that case it was the army rangers bitching about what a pain the ass regular infantry were. I've no doubt that persistent high deployment exaggerates it, but its not the ultimate source. I also don't believe the frequency of stuffups can be explained by the bad-apple theory.
i lol'd
So if I'm following this:
They told you to disarm; you refused.
You told them to disarm; they refused.
They are the ill-trained soldiers in the scenario...why?
Seems like both sides did exactly the same thing.