Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 392

Thread: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,928

    Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    Quote Originally Posted by TuNnL View Post
    Well, Mānoa, I agree with your Army Times article. And sadly, it doesn’t matter... because GwB has already said he’s keeping Rummy for the rest of his term. So what’s your point?
    He maybe Keepy but that doesn't mean Rummy cant Runny.

  2. #27

    Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    Ding dong, Rummy's gone! That's the BEST news coming out of yesterday's election. The people have spoken and the Emperor must concede. Our allies are smiling.

    Now we'll just wait for the other shoe (the Baker Report) to drop and then watch to see how "staying the course" becomes "changing the course".

    Miulang

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Mō‘ili‘ili
    Posts
    2,456

    Question Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    Now that Rummy has resigned under pressure, the real question is: what do we know about this new guy that Dubya has nominated to replace him?

  4. #29

    Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    Quote Originally Posted by TuNnL View Post
    Now that Rummy has resigned under pressure, the real question is: what do we know about this new guy that Dubya has nominated to replace him?
    He's a Dubya family friend, for one thing. But his appointment also has to be confirmed by Congress, which because of the shift in power, I think will do a lot more due diligence at his confirmation hearings. I don't expect that Gates will have an easy time being confirmed, especially if the responses to questions he gets asked about Iraq are aligned more with the President's views than what the polls and the Baker Report say.

    Miulang

  5. #30

    Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    I don't know about Gates, but I do know that Bush was insulting to the incoming Speaker of the House in his speech earlier today - just shows you that he can't even be a decent person at a point when he truly needs to reach out in a spirit of cooperation:
    "And in my first act of bipartisan outreach since the election, I shared with (Congresswoman Pelosi) the names of some Republican interior decorators who can help her pick out the new drapes in her new offices." Sexist dickwad.

    Oh, sorry...I'm sure it was just "a botched joke" --- just another piece of "a botched administration."

  6. #31

    Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    From today's issue of the "Bars and Gripes" (Stars & Stripes, the military newspaper) comes this analysis of what the changes in Congress will mean to the troops.

    It's an interesting article because it says what has been said many times, that the Congress can scream and object all it wants, but as long as the President is in power, HE is the commander in chief and sets the policy for the military. The most productive thing Congress can do is act in its oversight capacity (i.e., making sure companies like Halliburton are kept in line or that the rebuilding funds in Iraq are used for the right purposes).

    Miulang

  7. #32

    Default Pentagon studying ways to overhaul strategy

    The pace of this self-examination could only have happened with the departure of Donald Rumsfeld. And while I wish his demise had come sooner, I am nontheless ecstatic that he's been deposed and eagerly await the findings of the Baker Commission and the final conclusions of the generals in charge of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The Pentagon is conducting a major review of the military's Iraq strategy to determine "what's going wrong and should be changed" to attain U.S. objectives in the war-torn country, the nation's top general said yesterday.

    The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, initiated the review this fall after starkly deteriorating security in Baghdad led commanders there to rule out any significant cut in the level of U.S. troops in Iraq -- now at about 145,000 -- according to senior defense officials and sources.
    Source

    Miulang

  8. #33

    Default Kangaroo courts

    While Lt. Ehren Watada ponders his possible 7 years' confinement for refusing to deploy to Iraq, we have military personnel who have been found guilty of murdering innocent Iraqi civilians being allowed to cut deals with the miltary courts so that instead of facing death penalties, they are copping pleas that get them incarcerated for very minimal amounts of time? What the hecuba is going on?

    Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Melson J. Bacos, sentenced to 10 years confinement, will serve only one year because of a pretrial agreement. Pfc. John J. Jodka III, recommended for five years confinement and a dishonorable discharge will serve only 18 months and may get a non-punitive discharge under the plea agreement.

    Lance Cpl. Tyler Jackson, was sentenced to nine years in prison but his pretrial agreement limits the time he will serve to 21 months. His discharge also will be non-punitive. All three men’s sentences include credit for the six months they’ve already served. Proceedings for another Marine who has made a deal are scheduled in the coming week.

    David Glazier, a professor at Loyola University Law School who teaches the law of war, said that with such a large number of defendants, prosecutors may be weighing who may be most at fault.

    “They may feel that two or three were the ringleaders and others went along because of peer pressure,” he said.


    Miulang

  9. #34

    Default What the hell does it mean?

    The media is buzzing over the fact that the White House and our military leaders are pondering what "change of course" should occur next. Three options are being bandied about: "Go Big" (increasing by large numbers the troops in Iraq to try to stablize the situation), "Go Home" (immediate phased withdrawal of troops), or a hybrid "Go Long" (cutting the number of troops but remaining in Iraq for a long time).

    I would like to present the "Crazylegs Hersch" award for shucking and jiving across the playing field to the anonymous general who coined the term "Go Big But Go Short While Transitioning to Go Long" for one hybrid alternative Iraqi plan. Unfortunately, this plan could backfire, as the general noted, if Iraqis suspected that the plan really is a way to advance while actually retreating. HUH???? Would't smoke and mirrors work better?

    Maybe the Seahawks should have tried this play this past Sunday against the Niners!

    Miulang

  10. #35

    Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    If the White House chooses the "Go Long" option, where our troops remain in Iraq for an extended period of time for the purposes of training the Iraqi security forces, we're going to have to try to find more interpreters (or at least keep the ones we have from being killed), give the troops more training on how to teach and give them adequate training materials.

    In dozens of official interviews compiled by the Army for its oral history archives, officers who had been involved in training and advising Iraqis bluntly criticized almost every aspect of the effort. Some officers thought that team members were often selected poorly. Others fretted that the soldiers who prepared them had never served in Iraq and lacked understanding of the tasks of training and advising. Many said they felt insufficiently supported by the Army while in Iraq, with intermittent shipments of supplies and interpreters who often did not seem to understand English.

    The Iraqi officers interviewed by an Army team also had complaints; the top one was that they were being advised by officers far junior to them who had never seen combat.

    Some of the American officers even faulted their own lack of understanding of the task. "If I had to do it again, I know I'd do it completely different," reported Maj. Mike Sullivan, who advised an Iraqi army battalion in 2004. "I went there with the wrong attitude and I thought I understood Iraq and the history because I had seen PowerPoint slides, but I really didn't."

    Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top US military commander for the Middle East, told Congress last week that he plans to shift increasing numbers of troops from combat roles to training and advisory duties. Insiders familiar with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group say that next month the panel will probably recommend further boosts to the training effort. Pentagon officials are considering whether the number of Iraqi security forces needs to be far larger than the current target of about 325,000, which would require thousands more US trainers.

    Most recently, a closely guarded military review being done for the Joint Chiefs of Staff laid out three options for Iraq. It appears to be favoring a version of one option called "Go Long" that would temporarily boost the US troop level - currently about 140,000 - but over time would cut combat presence in favor of training and advising. The training effort could take five to 10 years.

    Despite its central role in Iraq, the training and advisory program is not well understood outside narrow military circles. Congress has hardly examined it, and training efforts lie outside the purview of the special inspector general on Iraq reconstruction. The Army has done some studies but has not released them. Even basic information, such as how many of the 5,000 US military personnel involved are from the National Guard and Reserves, is unusually difficult to obtain.


    Miulang

  11. #36

    Default Behind the scenes maneuverings over Iraq

    Something is happening on the diplomatic front that may mean that our involvement in Iraq is in the process of dramatic changes.

    A series of events have already taken place and may culminate with two things: the official publication of the Baker Report and Bush 43's meeting in Saudia Arabia in a few weeks with Iraqi Prime Minister al Maliki.

    Miulang

  12. #37

    Default 16,000 single moms serving in Iraq

    Here is a story that is so heartwrenching on the one hand and infuriating on the other: there are at least 16,000 single moms (and a smaller number of single dads) serving in Iraq today.

    Thousands of young children are being deprived of their mothers during the most formative period of their lives. Yes, it is noble and honorable that the women are following orders by putting their lives in danger for their country, but the people who mean the most to them and who need them the most---their children---are motherless for periods ranging up to a year, with the possibility of losing their mother again within a few months due to redeployment. How much does a young child grow developmentally and emotionally in that year?

    And this story has a Hawai'i connection: the soldier, who lives in MD, had to send her kids to their grandmother in Honolulu while she was gone. Then it took her several more months after she returned from Iraq to actually get her kids back.

    I hate what's happening in Iraq, because of the innocent civilians who are dying in a civil war, because our troops are being blown up by IEDs and because of the psychological harm that's being done to some of the next generation of Americans.

    Miulang

  13. #38

    Default Re: 16,000 single moms serving in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Miulang View Post
    I hate what's happening in Iraq, because of the innocent civilians who are dying in a civil war, because our troops are being blown up by IEDs and because of the psychological harm that's being done to some of the next generation of Americans.
    Well, to don my Capt Obvious hat, that's what's going to happen when you have single parents in the military. Not that I have a solution, but it's something they knew could happen. I don't particularly like that being brought up as a point against the war. It's kinda like what's his name that's in the military but refuses to deploy to the war zone. It comes with the territory.

  14. #39

    Default Re: 16,000 single moms serving in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by GeckoGeek View Post
    Well, to don my Capt Obvious hat, that's what's going to happen when you have single parents in the military. Not that I have a solution, but it's something they knew could happen. I don't particularly like that being brought up as a point against the war. It's kinda like what's his name that's in the military but refuses to deploy to the war zone. It comes with the territory.
    Well, Captain Obvious, I beg to differ with that analogy between the single mom warriors and Lt. Watada.

    Most of those women are in the National Guard. Yes, they realized they could be called up to serve, but even today, the Pentagon has no official rules that say women have to serve on the front lines, as many of them are today de facto, driving in convoys, acting as security guards for those convoys, etc. The reason they are there, in harm's way, is because the freakin DoD (and Dummy Rummy) grossly underestimated the number of able bodied REGULAR volunteers it would take and the length of the occupation. The women have NOT refused to serve as Lt. Watada did; they sacrificed their children for the duty of serving their country, and since you are not a woman, you probably wouldn't understand the sacrifice that takes.


    The difference between Lt. Watada and the women Guardsmen is that Lt. Watada is single and has no dependents. He was regular Army, most of the women serving in Iraq are in the National Guard.

    Gecko, did you actually read that story I cited? Put yourself in the shoes of that women's young children. Would you still say their Mom deserved all the hardships she endured because she enlisted in the National Guard? Hell no. When you're a kid, your world revolves around your needs first and to hell with patriotism.

    Miulang

  15. #40

    Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    Sounds like she needs to take a parenting class about instilling confidence and pride in her children about her job.

    Are you suggesting that single mothers and divorced mothers with custody of children not be allowed to join the military? Many will recall the old days when women with children were restricted to certain jobs if they were in the military and even the long ago time when only single women without children were allowed to enlist. Are you suggesting we should return to this time or are you merely kevetching about the war in general and this was a convenient story to tug at heartstrings?

  16. #41

    Default Re: 16,000 single moms serving in Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Miulang View Post
    I beg to differ with that analogy between the single mom warriors and Lt. Watada.
    A order of magnitude of difference, but in the same direction.


    Quote Originally Posted by Miulang View Post
    Yes, they realized they could be called up to serve, but ....
    Bingo! They gambled and lost. Thank you for playing.
    And yes, I did read the story. Please see glossyp's question at the end of his/her post. It's really pointless to have a military and can't deploy them. So what should have been done? Prevent her from joining? To only deploy for wars with popular support is ludicrous.

  17. #42

    Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    Quote Originally Posted by glossyp View Post
    Sounds like she needs to take a parenting class about instilling confidence and pride in her children about her job.

    Are you suggesting that single mothers and divorced mothers with custody of children not be allowed to join the military? Many will recall the old days when women with children were restricted to certain jobs if they were in the military and even the long ago time when only single women without children were allowed to enlist. Are you suggesting we should return to this time or are you merely kevetching about the war in general and this was a convenient story to tug at heartstrings?
    Nope. I'm not saying that single women with dependent children shouldn't be allowed to enlist. 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 have less sympathy, I guess, for single parents who enlist in the regular military because they KNOW they will get sent to the front in time of war. I'm sure most of the single moms in the National Guard signed up because they could use the extra money, and if they were mobilized, thought they would be helping out in a natural disaster in this country, and not be separated from their kids who are thousands of miles away. Also notice that they have not refused to deploy and that they put honor and duty above their role of parenting.

    So is it the woman's fault that she doesn't have a father for her kids who can take care of them while she's off fighting a war? That's what you make it sound like.

    The Army admits that many of the Guardsmen have been forced to go to the front lines because this war is very different from all others we have engaged in: there's no way to know who is an enemy and who is a friend, and there's no telling when or where you might run over an IED. And because nobody listened to people like Gen. Shinsaki, who said at the outset of the occupation that we could not expect to stabilize the situation without a force that was 2 or 3 times greater than what Dummy Rummy proposed, we have possibly jeopardized our own national security in this country if another Hurricane Katrina or other natural disaster occurred, because the National Guard is off fighting in another country. And all the equipment that the National Guard shipped over to Iraq that is now useless...what happens if we needed those things in this country today?

    Young kids, being as self-centered as they are, have no real concept of what it means to be patriotic: all they know is that the main focus of their lives outside themselves isn't there to tuck them into bed or read stories to them (I think older kids would adjust better to the separation).

    It would be an interesting exercise to follow the emotional development of these kids and maybe in 8 or 9 years (when they are teenagers), go back to them and ask them how they feel now about being deprived of their mothers for a year or two when they were younger.

    Miulang

    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.

  18. #43

    Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    Quote Originally Posted by Miulang View Post
    So is it the woman's fault that she doesn't have a father for her kids who can take care of them while she's off fighting a war? That's what you make it sound like.
    Where did you get that idea? I asked you the question of whether you advocate returning to a time when women's roles in the military were limited. Your follow up seems to support the idea of denying women who are single or divorced parents full participation. I would imagine that there are women in the military, active duty and guard alike, who would be more than a little unhappy if they were told that they have to fly a desk, do admin work or go clean up natural disasters because they have children. So, I'll ask a more specific question, are you advocating limiting women's choices if they are in the guard and are single or divorced parents? You can just answer yes or no - I won't mind.

  19. #44

    Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    Quote Originally Posted by glossyp View Post
    Where did you get that idea? I asked you the question of whether you advocate returning to a time when women's roles in the military were limited. Your follow up seems to support the idea of denying women who are single or divorced parents full participation. I would imagine that there are women in the military, active duty and guard alike, who would be more than a little unhappy if they were told that they have to fly a desk, do admin work or go clean up natural disasters because they have children. So, I'll ask a more specific question, are you advocating limiting women's choices if they are in the guard and are single or divorced parents? You can just answer yes or no - I won't mind.
    Yes, for the National Guard only, though, not the regular volunteer active duty military, and only if they are single parents with sole custody of dependent children below the age of 12. And if they are honor bound, they will serve gladly wherever they are told to go.

    Miulang
    Last edited by Miulang; November 25th, 2006 at 02:30 PM.

  20. #45

    Unhappy A sad milestone

    Our occupation in Iraq (3 years, almost 8 months as of tomorrow) has now surpassed the length of our involvement in WWII. The US engagement that lasted longest in the entire history of this country was Vietnam (eight years, 5 months). I hope we don't break that record.

    As of Sunday, the conflict in Iraq has raged for three years and just over eight months.

    Only the Vietnam War (eight years, five months), the Revolutionary War (six years, nine months), and the Civil War (four years), have engaged America longer.

    Fighting in Afghanistan, which may or may not be a full-fledged war depending on who is keeping track, has gone on for five years, one month. It continues as the ousted Taliban resurges and the central government is challenged
    Miulang
    Last edited by Miulang; November 25th, 2006 at 05:28 PM.

  21. #46

    Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    Quote 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.

  22. #47

    Default Re: A sad milestone

    Quote 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.

  23. #48

    Default 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 25th, 2006 at 08:14 PM.

  24. #49

    Default Re: A sad milestone

    Quote 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

  25. #50

    Default Re: The Iraq War - Chapter 5

    Quote 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?


    Quote 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


    Quote 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.


    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •