Iraq
There is something I don't understand about the US troops in Iraq. They all appear to be reservists. Why are reserves in a battle zone? Does the US Army have any regulars over there? If not, why?
All the Australian troops in Iraq are Regs; Army, Navy and Airforce. Their job is full-time Armed Services. The Reservists are part-timers; two weeks training a year and they hold down jobs and support their families.They're called up when the Regs are in trouble, not INSTEAD of the Regs.
Can anyone explain this to me?
All the Australian troops in Iraq are Regs; Army, Navy and Airforce. Their job is full-time Armed Services. The Reservists are part-timers; two weeks training a year and they hold down jobs and support their families.They're called up when the Regs are in trouble, not INSTEAD of the Regs.
Can anyone explain this to me?
no subject
The short answer is that the regulars are overextended as it is. The Pentagon's had to dip into the inactive reserves in the past few months, which is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
no subject
So they were all arrested. Not only that, the men and women whose national guard contracts expired are being FORCED to renew them and continue under penalty of arrest. There's no choice to leave, they are forcing them to stay even though the contracts have expired.
As you mention, the NG don't have the training to be there and shouldn't be there. And yet they are. And yet they are being forced to continue, losing their jobs they previously held and families under financial crisis.
Pray that Bush is not reelected. Pray for us. Meditate, chant, whatever, we need all the help you can possibly send... :(
Michael Moore has put together a book with letters that soldiers have sent him, telling the truth of what is happening there. Something like 3000 letters, he just published them, some are on his website.
Its all bullshit. I hope Bush's soul burns forever in eternal damnation.
no subject
no subject
no subject
We're fighting a police action on two fronts whith minimal head count from European forces. A large chunk of the US forces are still in Korea for obvious reasons.
CYa!
mako
no subject
May be more problem though as the UK is pondering pulling it's troups out. We've done what we went to do, that's the call here now here. Pull our troops out completely.
no subject
Page for anyone who is interested in this thread...
no subject
no subject
no subject
There are reservists serving, as well as regular military. We have about twice the force deployed now as we did during the original conflict last year, as many are rebuilding infrastructure.
Fortunately, you cannot sue someone for being mistaken about sueing someone. And the draft business is a creation of the radical opposition party in the States, so that the could blame it on the other guys. A chuckle, really, except for how many have bought into this. Including, apparently, some on your list here. ];-)
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Of those, about 100-140,000 are in Iraq, something like 30,000 are in Korea, I think 10,000 are in Afghanistan, and there's significant deployments in Japan in the range of several thousand as well. Right there you've got something like 150,000 to 190-200,000 of the soldiers, most of those being regular army.
If we assume a higher figure for the total - say, 250-300K for the army, that still means there's plenty left over, right? Well, it does on paper. Most of that remainder is either out on smaller deployments - Balkans, token UN ops around the world in dribs and drabs, etc - or just having returned from those or larger deployments. After a major deployment, like a tour in Iraq or, in the past, something like WWII or Vietnam, usually the soldier does one or so tours abroad. (They can do more, but it's usually by choice or extraordinary things.) After that they're usually cycled back home, doing US Army stuff stateside - either internal security, helping to train the next batch of soldiers, or just being paid off since they're near the end of their active term.
If you keep using only the regular army for that sort of thing, sooner or later you're going to burn out your soldiers, and the quality overall is going to drop. Rather than running the regular army into the ground, folks have decided to start using the reservists. This preserves the regulars by taking some of the pressure off them, and lets the reservists get more experience - which is good in a military sense, after all.
I think they should've been careful about having deployments get so high that this needed to be considered, but the reasoning makes sense even if it's a result of bad planning.
no subject
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/IraqCoverage/story?id=163109&page=1
no subject
How about this for a hard example from over 70 years ago under a where Vet's were killed by their own government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
It's trivial to Google for similar screw the vets BS from WWII (Democratic president), Korea (Republican), Vietnam (Democratic) ad nauseum. Keep in mind that the current .mil laws, rules and bureaucrats are overwhelmingly Clinton era. Please put your lighting in the correct orifice - your Congressman and Senator's, not which ever weenie happens to be in the Oval Office at any given time.
CYa!
Mako
no subject
That goes for the prison fiasco, that goes for who he puts in charge, that goes for him following up, etc. You don't get to fly in and say 'mission accomplished' on an aircraft carrier, and then get to blame the fact that you're extending contracts with no legal rebuttle, that the military doesn't have the equipment to do their job, etc., on the congress.
Bush single handedly and knowingly took us into a war that didn't need to happen and shouldn't have happened. Period. He is therefore responsible, period. They/his admin wanted to 'get' iraq before 9/11 and they succeeded in lining their pockets at the expense of a lot of american and iraqi blood and accomplished their mission all right. The president knowingly provided poor and false intelligence about Iraq to the congress and should be held responsible for it. I hope someday he is.
We weren't in debt at the beginning of this fiasco. And now we're what, how many hundred BILLION in debt are we? I could go on. This is just my view, its pretty clear how Bush has 'steered' the ship here, right into a reef. :P
no subject
The actual body count is not all that tactically significant, however morally reprehensible it may be--we've had 6,000+ killed or wounded--but you just can't leave even healthy troops on the ground indefinitely. If we learned anything from Vietnam, it's that people who don't get a break go nuts. So they HAVE to rotate them out of combat eventually, and when most of your army is already in the field, who can you rotate in? They're going through reservists, they've instituted the backdoor draft to stop losses, but the simple fact is that we're runnin' out of guys.
I do think a draft is unlikely--it's such bad publicity, and it takes too long for a drafted soldier to become useful--but if it happens, I'm gonna gloat until the smugness centers of my brain overload, at the final sign of how badly Bush screwed up.