Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Iraq War - Chapter 5

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    Originally posted by Miulang View Post
    I'm just saying that until official DoD policies state that women Guardsmen who are single mothers (or single fathers, for that matter) have to go to a warfront (as opposed to doing less hazardous duty behind the lines), they should have to do their duty, but not in a position that puts them on the front lines.
    I see a logical flaw to that. First, I don't think this mother ever went to the "front lines" as defined by the military. So your desire as written would not have changed this story at all. What is different about this war is that the exposure the "back lines" got. As far as I can tell, she was back lines. She did communications on a airplane. If you change it to say they can't be sent to a war zone, then what the heck do we have a reserve for anyway?

    Secondly, I believe there are many assignments, not just going to a war zone, where one can't take their dependents. She could have been dispatched to back fill a deployed unit. In that case she could have had the same separation issue without ever going to Iraq (or Afghanistan).

    So bottom line, I don't think even if your wish was granted that it would fix the problem you are trying to solve.

    P.S. Just as a for instance of what single parents with dependent children who enlist in the National Guard could do to help this country, in this country: why not let them work for the TSA to secure our airports, borders and ports from terrorists? They would be providing a great service without being put into a wartime situation.
    Uhhhhhh. Why? First of all, the TSA is a low end civilian job. The whole purpose of the reserve is to have a reserve of people with specialized training to help fill in when the regular military runs short. It takes time to train volunteers who walk off the streets. Even if the TSA was a military job, there's no way the government would pay to train someone for that job on a "standby" basis.

    Now, I do see an element to this story that bothers me. Why did she have such a problem of bringing her children back when she returned? (Odd, I thought most returnees have a good chunk of cash seeing as how they earned, got room and board issued to them and had but few opportunities to spend. There's something more to this story, but I digress.) Seems like the military and their support services could have done a lot better. And seeing the child's actions so long after she has returned makes me think she's not getting family counseling that she needs. Now that's a cause I can support.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: A sad milestone

      Originally posted by Miulang View Post
      Our occupation in Iraq (3 years, almost 8 months as of tomorrow) has now surpassed the length of our involvement in WWII.
      It depends on how you define things. Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945. But it wasn't until April 28, 1952 that the occupying force ended and Japan was returned as a independent nation. It takes time to set up a new government, even when they aren't shooting at you.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

        Uhhhhhh. Why? First of all, the TSA is a low end civilian job. The whole purpose of the reserve is to have a reserve of people with specialized training to help fill in when the regular military runs short. It takes time to train volunteers who walk off the streets. Even if the TSA was a military job, there's no way the government would pay to train someone for that job on a "standby" basis.
        First of all, look at the requirements to be a TSA screener (annual salary: between $23k-35k, depending on experience and location). It may be low end in your eyes (but it is a federal position), but for lots of people, that's a living wage! And the salaries stated in the citation were from 2002, so my guess is the annual salary is more than that now, adjusted for inflation.

        Secondly, my guess is that a National Guard person assigned to doing screening at an airport for 2 years in this country would exceed the minimum education and experience requirements for DHS. And the pay isn't that bad, especially if you currently work 2 minimum wage jobs and signed up to be a National Guard member because you needed the additional income to support yourself and your kids. Plus, you wouldn't be more than 18 hours away from your young kids if something happened to them; at most, you'd be about 8 or 9 hours away, max. Worrying about the health and safety of your kids because they're so far away can be distracting; and the people out there on the front lines (and on the back lines) need to concentrate on their duty/jobs, because being distracted by things on the home front could mean the difference between accomplishing your mission or getting you and your teammates blown to smithereens.

        Third, that notion that the Guard are being trained during their monthly exercises to be prepared to go fight a war in the same way that active military go through training is ridiculous. One of the reasons why the Guard is doing so bad right now is because they aren't being trained on the kind of equipment nor are they being equipped properly to fight a war. Their chain of command knows this and has tried to say something to the DoD, but to no avail.

        Fourth, I'm sure many of them would be more than happy to go be airport screeners, knowing that in doing so, they are protecting their countrymen here at home from terrorist threats on our soil.

        Fifth, in the grand scheme of things, 16,000 soldiers out of a total force of over 140,000 is a drop in the bucket. The only reason they're even being put in this situation is because of a lack of regular active military. The only reason why there are so many "contractors" like Blackwater Consulting and KBR in Iraq is because we have outsourced our fighting.

        Sixth, the National Guard is directly under the command of the governor of each state, not the Federal government. Here is an excerpt of the duties and responsibilities of the Army National Guard:
        The State Area Command (STARC) is a mobilization entity in each state and territory. It organizes, trains, plans, and coordinates the mobilization of NG units and elements for state and federal missions. The STARC is responsible for emergency planning and response using all NG resources within its jurisdiction. It directs the deployment and employment of ARNG units and elements for domestic support operations, including military support to civil authorities. As with active duty forces, emergency response may be automatic or deliberate. When the NG is in a nonfederal status, the governor serves as commander-in-chief of the NG in his state or territory and exercises command through the state adjutant general (TAG). While serving in state status, the NG provides military support to civil authorities, including law enforcement, in accordance with state law. Federal equipment assigned to the NG may be used for emergency support on an incremental cost-reimbursement basis.

        Under a Presidential call-up, State Area Commands (STARCs) are not federalized, the National Guard Bureau and the Adjutants General of the several states remain responsible for ensuring the readiness of nonfederalized units.

        The ARNG is organized with each state having command and control over their state National Guard. State Governors and the TAGs direct all National Guard actions and accomplishment of training for the state. To accomplish the Total Army School System (TASS) missions within and across state boundaries, the NGB and the TAGs developed the Combat Arms Training Brigades (CATB), Leadership Training Brigades (LTB), and the Regional Training Institutes (RTI). Each Brigade or RTI contains functionally aligned TASS Training Battalions and General Studies Training Battalion. Under the Battalions are functionally aligned Combat Arms Training Companies, OCS Training Companies, and Leadership Training Companies. These organizations have coordinating authority to conduct regional TASS missions directed by the ARPRINT. Each state/territory is organized with either a CATB, LTB, or a RTI. The Brigade and RTI are equal, however they have different levels of responsibility.

        The two-star generals who command the National Guard in the states and territories report to the governors, not the Defense Department. All but two adjutants general are appointed by state governors [they are elected in Vermont and South Carolina]. The Adjutants General are not required to meet military service or education requirements of active duty generals, and governors can appoint junior officers as Adjutant General. ...
        Miulang
        Last edited by Miulang; November 25, 2006, 08:14 PM.
        "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: A sad milestone

          Originally posted by GeckoGeek View Post
          It depends on how you define things. Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945. But it wasn't until April 28, 1952 that the occupying force ended and Japan was returned as a independent nation. It takes time to set up a new government, even when they aren't shooting at you.
          I think the length of time was defined as actual "mano a mano" combat, in which we have been engaged this time around since we deposed Saddam and the White House said we needed to occupy Iraq because of WMDs.

          Miulang
          "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

            Originally posted by Miulang View Post
            First of all, look at the requirements to be a TSA screener (annual salary: between $23k-35k, depending on experience and location). It may be low end in your eyes (but it is a federal position), but for lots of people, that's a living wage! And the salaries stated in the citation were from 2002, so my guess is the annual salary is more than that now, adjusted for inflation.
            So, why didn't she apply to be a TSA screener rather then join the NG?


            Originally posted by Miulang View Post
            Secondly, my guess is that a National Guard person assigned to doing screening at an airport for 2 years in this country would exceed the minimum education and experience requirements for DHS. And the pay isn't that bad, especially if you currently work 2 minimum wage jobs and signed up to be a National Guard member because you needed the additional income to support yourself and your kids.
            Same answer as #1


            Originally posted by Miulang View Post
            Third, that notion that the Guard are being trained during their monthly exercises to be prepared to go fight a war in the same way that active military go through training is ridiculous. One of the reasons why the Guard is doing so bad right now is because they aren't being trained on the kind of equipment nor are they being equipped properly to fight a war. Their chain of command knows this and has tried to say something to the DoD, but to no avail.
            So, why was she trained to be communications on a airplane? Why is Hawaii's NG being trained on the new cargo jets? It ain't to back the governor in case of disaster. The intent is there, even if the execution isn't so hot. NG usually gets the regular military cast-offs. But they're still way ahead of a new recruit.


            Originally posted by Miulang View Post
            Fourth, I'm sure many of them would be more than happy to go be airport screeners, knowing that in doing so, they are protecting their countrymen here at home from terrorist threats on our soil.
            {Holds finger in air and makes "whoop-de-do" sign} I'm sure they'd love to go to Disneyland too.

            Originally posted by Miulang View Post
            Fifth, in the grand scheme of things, 16,000 soldiers out of a total force of over 140,000 is a drop in the bucket.
            So why on earth would they put them in civilian jobs (as TSA) rather then sending them off to assist? If your short on something, you use what you have, not send it off somewhere else. Besides, TSA is fully staffed.

            Originally posted by Miulang View Post
            Sixth, the National Guard is directly under the command of the governor of each state, not the Federal government.
            Using the same link:
            Both the state and the federal government control the Army National Guard, depending on the circumstance.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

              <sigh> Do you realize what federalizing your Hawaii NG is doing to your own health and safety in Hawai'i? The feds "took back" their helicopters that were on loan to the HING (for emergency airlifts) for use in Iraq. Therefore, unless the State comes up with a way to pay for an air transport (Medevac) service which you guys were getting for free from the NG, anybody critically injured in a highway accident on the North Shore better hope that ambulance is going to make it to the hospital in time through all the traffic congestion. If the HING troops who are still in Hawai'i have to help you during a natural disaster, would they have the heavy equipment that might be needed to help clear debris. Nope...all of that is going to Iraq.

              At one point, the NG comprised more than a fifth of all US personnel posted in Iraq; the numbers are now down to about 19% reserve. That's a whole lot of people carrying and wearing equipment left over from the Vietnam War! And that number might have to go back up again if we continue our current course or unless we reinstitute a draft.

              IF the NG is supposed to be sent to the front lines in those large numbers, then the government should train and equip these reservists the same way that they train and equip regular Army troops. These reservists also have lives away from the military---they have jobs they have to leave behind with no guarantee that they will be able to come back to their old jobs when they return, even though the government supposedly "guarantees" it. When the NG goes on active duty, they get way fewer benefits (health care insurance coverage, etc) than active duty personnel. They are treated as second class citizens in every way by the DoD.

              That particular NG case I cited is just one woman's story. I have no idea why she didn't choose to work directly for TSA (maybe she signed up for the NG in 2001, before we invaded Iraq, and felt she wanted to do her patriotic duty but didn't want to give up a job that she already had and she needed the extra income). That's not my point. My point is the Congress passed a $30 billion bill last session requiring us to build a fence to keep Mexican nationals from illegally entering our country. Whooptiidoo. That fence is never going to be built, and border states (like AZ and California) don't have enough border patrol agents to secure the border in the first place, and don't have the money to pay for hiring any more agents. Why can't the "citizen soldiers" be assigned to guard our own borders? There's a voluntary program in place now that sends some NG troops to augment border patrol agents in policing the AZ border. I think this would be a far better use of these soldiers than sending them off to a war zone, ill trained and equipped.

              Miulang
              "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

                Originally posted by Miulang View Post
                <sigh> Do you realize what federalizing your Hawaii NG is doing to your own health and safety in Hawai'i? The feds "took back" their helicopters that were on loan to the HING (for emergency airlifts) for use in Iraq.
                Hmmm. Question. Who pays the NG? Without looking it up, I'll bet dollars to donuts it's the Feds. And you know about the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules. If the Feds are paying, they are doing it for a reason - and that's to be able to call up the NG as needed.

                Maybe not to the front line, but into roles to assist. It's faster the bring up someone on new equipment, then to train them from scratch.

                Originally posted by Miulang View Post
                That's not my point. My point is the Congress passed a $30 billion bill last session requiring us to build a fence to keep Mexican nationals from illegally entering our country. .. Why can't the "citizen soldiers" be assigned to guard our own borders? ... I think this would be a far better use of these soldiers than sending them off to a war zone, ill trained and equipped.
                Hmmm. Took awhile to get to your point. Protecting our borders? Yeah, I can go for that. That's another hot button for a few people, but I'm fine with the idea.

                However, the military needs help. It's got to come from somewhere. It sounds to me like this woman was trained in a specialty that wouldn't likely be used domestically. So, that's why she ended up where she did. Not sure how much say she had in what she was trained for.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

                  Tnis whole NG thing gets curiouser and curiouser if you dig deeper (and can decipher ) what the rules are:
                  (c) Duties Relating to Defense Against Weapons of Mass
                  Destruction.--(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), a Reserve on active
                  duty as described in subsection (a), or a Reserve who is a member of the
                  National Guard serving on full-time National Guard duty under section
                  502(f) of title 32 in connection with functions referred to in
                  subsection (a), may, subject to paragraph (3), perform duties in support
                  of emergency preparedness programs to prepare for or to respond to any
                  emergency involving--
                  (A) the use of a weapon of mass destruction (as defined in
                  section 12304(i)(2) of this title); or
                  (B) a terrorist attack or threatened terrorist attack in the
                  United States that results, or could result, in catastrophic loss of
                  life or property.

                  (2) The costs of the pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence,
                  gratuities, travel, and related expenses for a Reserve performing duties
                  under the authority of paragraph (1) shall be paid from the
                  appropriation that is available to pay such costs for other members of
                  the reserve component of that Reserve who are performing duties as
                  described in subsection (a).
                  (3) A Reserve may perform duties described in paragraph (1) only
                  while assigned to a reserve component rapid assessment element team and
                  performing those duties within the geographical limits of the United
                  States, its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, and
                  the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
                  (4) Reserves on active duty who are performing duties described in
                  paragraph (1) shall be counted against the annual end strength
                  authorizations required by section 115(a)(1)(B) and 115(a)(2) of this
                  title. The justification material for the defense budget request for a
                  fiscal year shall identify the number and component of the Reserves
                  programmed to be performing duties described in paragraph (1) during
                  that fiscal year.
                  (5) A reserve component rapid assessment element team, and any
                  Reserve assigned to such a team, may not be used to respond to an
                  emergency described in paragraph (1) unless the Secretary of Defense has
                  certified to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
                  Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives that that
                  team, or that Reserve, possesses the requisite skills, training, and
                  equipment to be proficient in all mission requirements.
                  (6) If the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress any request for
                  the enactment of legislation to modify the requirements of paragraph
                  (3), the Secretary shall provide with the request--
                  (A) justification for each such requested modification; and
                  (B) the Secretary's plan for sustaining the qualifications of
                  the personnel and teams described in paragraph (3)(B).
                  (d) Training.--A Reserve on active duty as described in subsection
                  (a) may be provided training consistent with training provided to other
                  members on active duty, as the Secretary concerned sees fit.
                  I blame the whole NG being deployed to Iraq fiasco on Rumsfeld.

                  Miulang
                  Last edited by Miulang; November 26, 2006, 02:29 PM.
                  "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

                    Originally posted by Miulang View Post
                    I blame the whole NG being deployed to Iraq fiasco on Rumsfeld.
                    And what if Rumsfeld had correctly assessed the troops needed? Wouldn't the NG be going in even sooner?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

                      Originally posted by GeckoGeek View Post
                      And what if Rumsfeld had correctly assessed the troops needed? Wouldn't the NG be going in even sooner?
                      We would still have invaded Iraq but we would either probably not still be there (public outcry to our soldiers being massacred in large numbers would necessitate a hasty retreat)...or the war would be costing us a whole lot more because we'd have to hire more mercenaries and foreign soldiers to fight our war.

                      Miulang
                      Last edited by Miulang; November 27, 2006, 08:49 AM.
                      "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

                        Originally posted by GeckoGeek View Post
                        And what if Rumsfeld had correctly assessed the troops needed? Wouldn't the NG be going in even sooner?
                        The answer to your question is yes. We also probably wouldn’t still be there, and Rummy would still have a job as defense secretary.

                        We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.

                        — U.S. President Bill Clinton
                        USA TODAY, page 2A
                        11 March 1993

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          The Iraq Study Group report

                          The Iraq Study Group, headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, came to a consensus last night over its recommendations. Those were "leaked" by the NYT, and calls for a "pullback" but doesn't define what that means, nor does it recommend setting a specific timeline for anything to happen.

                          To some people, this is just a ploy to give the President his way ("hell no, we're not leaving until we achieve victory---whatever that means").

                          Under the recommendations of the commission, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), the emphasis of the U.S. military presence in Iraq would shift from fighting the insurgency and containing sectarian violence to backing up Iraqi security forces dealing with those problems.

                          This approach would place less emphasis on combat operations and more on logistics, intelligence and training and advising Iraqi units. Also, a large residual combat force would be required to protect all the personnel involved in those operations and to provide a security guarantee to the Iraqi government.

                          Thus, even if the combat forces were withdrawn, the person familiar with the group's thinking noted, the recommendation envisions keeping in Iraq a "substantial" U.S. military force.

                          Some people knowledgeable about the group's deliberations said it might be possible in a year or two to halve the U.S. military presence, to about 70,000 troops. Earlier reports that said that the group simply had decided to call for withdrawing combat forces from Iraq were "garbled," the source familiar with the panel's recommendations added. "It wasn't as specific as that, and it was a lot more conditional," he said. He declined to discuss those conditions.
                          I still think this is a "Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Long" strategy. And to keep the numbers of troops relatively stable without having to issue a draft, the Pentagon is planning on making the tours of duty of current active military troops and the National Guard longer and require additional rotations to Iraq.

                          Miulang
                          Last edited by Miulang; November 30, 2006, 10:01 AM.
                          "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            100,000 US contractors in Iraq

                            While we have 140,000+ military troops serving in Iraq, we also are paying some 100,000 US contractors to also be there, according to a military census of US contractors.

                            The survey finding, which includes Americans, Iraqis and third-party nationals hired by companies operating under U.S. government contracts, is significantly higher and wider in scope than the Pentagon's only previous estimate, which said there were 25,000 security contractors in the country.

                            It is also 10 times the estimated number of contractors that deployed during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, reflecting the Pentagon's growing post-Cold War reliance on contractors for such jobs as providing security, interrogating prisoners, cooking meals, fixing equipment and constructing bases that were once reserved for soldiers.

                            ...

                            In addition to about 140,000 U.S. troops, Iraq is now filled with a hodgepodge of contractors. DynCorp International has about 1,500 employees in Iraq, including about 700 helping train the police force. Blackwater USA has more than 1,000 employees in the country, most of them providing private security. Kellogg, Brown and Root, one of the largest contractors in Iraq, said it does not delineate its workforce by country but that it has more than 50,000 employees and subcontractors working in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. MPRI, a unit of L-3 Communications, has about 500 employees working on 12 contracts, including providing mentors to the Iraqi Defense Ministry for strategic planning, budgeting and establishing its public affairs office. Titan, another L-3 division, has 6,500 linguists in the country.

                            The Pentagon's latest estimate "further demonstrates the need for Congress to finally engage in responsible, serious and aggressive oversight over the questionable and growing U.S. practice of private military contracting," said Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who has been critical of the military's reliance on contractors.

                            About 650 contractors have died in Iraq since 2003, according to Labor Department statistics.
                            Just like they have with many jobs in this country, the Administration has decided that the best way to fight wars is to outsource them. Contractors get paid way more than the average soldier, too, which totally devalues the skill and patriotism of those who volunteer to be in the military.

                            If the Pentagon can't find the volunteers to get the job done, then they either had better request that the draft be reinstated, or make plans to get our troops home as soon as possible.

                            Miulang
                            "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              The Iraq Study Group Report

                              Here is the complete text of the ISG report. The news is pretty grim, but I think this is the first time that a bipartisan group of officials has actually worked together to come up with something this comprehensive. Everyone who wants to understand the history and the players on the Iraqi side should read the first part of this report.

                              The United States has made a massive commitment to the future of Iraq in both blood and treasure. As of December 2006, nearly 2,900 Americans have lost their lives serving in Iraq. Another 21,000 Americans have been wounded, many severely.

                              To date, the United States has spent roughly $400 billion on the Iraq War, and costs are running about $8 billion per month. In addition, the United States must expect significant “tail costs” to come. Caring for veterans and replacing lost equipment will run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Estimates run as high as $2 trillion for the final cost of the U.S. involvement in Iraq.

                              Despite a massive effort, stability in Iraq remains elusive and the situation is deteriorating. The Iraqi government cannot now govern, sustain, and defend itself without the support of the United States. Iraqis have not been convinced that they must take responsibility for their own future. Iraq’s neighbors and much of the international community have not been persuaded to play an active and constructive role in supporting Iraq. The ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out.
                              While I agree with most of the recommendations, the one I disagree with strongly is allowing non-Iraqi interests ("international energy companies") to buy into the Iraqi oil industry. We should be offering technical assistance, but we should not allow the Exxons of the world to control that oil (the control of oil is what got us into this mess in the first place).

                              RECOMMENDATION 63:
                              • The United States should encourage investment in Iraq’s oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies.
                              • The United States should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise, in order to enhance efficiency, transparency, and accountability.
                              • To combat corruption, the U.S. government should urge the Iraqi government to post all oil contracts, volumes, and prices on the Web so that Iraqis and outside observers can track exports and export revenues.
                              • The United States should support the World Bank’s efforts to ensure that best practices are used in contracting. This support involves providing Iraqi officials with contracting templates and training them in contracting, auditing, and reviewing audits. [RED FLAG: We'd better not let companies like Halliburton be the ones to teach Iraqis what best practices are ]
                              • The United States should provide technical assistance to the Ministry of Oil for enhancing maintenance, improving the payments process, managing cash flows, contracting and auditing, and updating professional training programs for management and technical
                              personnel.
                              Miulang
                              "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                $17 billion backlog in refurbing equipment

                                With the continued heavy usage and extreme conditions that the equipment our troops are using in Iraq and Afghanistan causing problems, and the unwillingness of Congress to allocate more funds to pay for repairing or replacing the equipment, the DoD finds itself with a $17 billion backlog of equipment that needs to be repaired before it can be sent back to be safely used by our troops.

                                To make up for equipment shortages in the field, much of the equipment used to train troops prior to deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan is being shipped over there, which means that troops gearing up to go to Iraq cannot be adequately trained prior to their deployment.

                                The Army and Marine Corps have sunk more than 40 percent of their ground combat equipment into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to government data. More than an estimated $17 billion worth of military equipment is destroyed or worn out each year, blasted by bombs, ground down by desert sand and used up to nine times the rate as in times of peace. The gear is piling up at depots such as Anniston, waiting to be repaired.

                                The depletion of major equipment such as tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, and especially helicopters and armored humvees has left many military units in the United States without adequate training gear, officials say. Partly as a result of the shortages, many U.S. units are rated "unready" to deploy, officials say, raising alarm in Congress and concern among military leaders at a time when Iraq strategy is under review by the White House and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
                                ...Across the military, scarce equipment is being shifted from unit to unit for training. For example, a brigade of 3,800 soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division that will deploy to Iraq next month has been passing around a single training set of 44 humvees, none of which has the added armor of the humvees they will drive in Iraq.
                                We shouldn't be sending our troops into harm's way without preparing them adequately or equipping them with enough good gear to keep them safe.

                                Miulang
                                "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X