Posted on 05/06/2005 8:13:09 AM PDT by Dubya
A commander with the Iowa Army National Guard says training problems at a Texas Army base left his unit ill-prepared for duty in Iraq, according to a copyrighted story in The Des Moines Register.
Capt. Aaron Baugher of Ankeny, Iowa, was the commander of the first Iowa infantry division trained at Fort Hood. In a report obtained by the Register, he said the 2004 training "was of very little value and poorly instructed" by soldiers who typically had never served in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Baugher's unit of 58 soldiers, the 194th Long-Range Surveillance Detachment of Johnston, returned to Iowa in late February after nearly a year in Iraq.
"Having been in Iraq ... conducting combat operations on a wide spectrum, we can confidently say we did not learn a thing at Fort Hood," Baugher wrote.
Col. Luke Green, chief of staff of the Fifth U.S. Army, said Baugher's complaint emphasizes the short training schedule part-time and reserve units have to become combat-ready.
"This is like getting your football team on the first of August and you have a game on the first of September, and you are working ... hard to get people ready, except in this situation people can die," Green said.
About 40 percent of all U.S. forces in Iraq are Guard or Reserve members.
Baugher's report said that in some situations, veteran Iowa soldiers had to correct instructors at Fort Hood.
No soldiers in Baugher's unit were killed, but one was seriously injured when he was shot by a sniper.
Col. Al Dochnal, a regular Army officer who commanded the brigade that trained the Iowa unit, disagreed with Baugher and said the Iowa soldiers received excellent training.
Brig. Gen. Mark Zirkelbach, deputy adjutant general of the Iowa Army National Guard, said he traveled to Fort Hood last year to personally address Baugher's complaints. He said he met with the commander of a garrison support unit and was told that corrective actions were being taken.
Zirkelbach said his primary concern was to ensure that 700 soldiers from the Iowa National Guard Task Force 168, which arrived soon after Baugher's unit, didn't have the same problems. The result, he said, was that the Task Force 168 soldiers had a better experience than the 194th infantry detachment.
"We owe it to our soldiers to give them the best chance of survival that we can. That was really the message that we took to Fort Hood," Zirkelbach said.
Baugher's report also detailed problems in his unit getting the equipment it needed before it was deployed.
If you actually served in OIF/OEF I think you'd have to revise your statment. I came away with a much better impression of Guard and Reservists and a much worse impression of one particular service who has a great PR machine.
"No soldiers in Baugher's unit were killed, but one was seriously injured when he was shot by a sniper.
Col. Al Dochnal, a regular Army officer who commanded the brigade that trained the Iowa unit, disagreed with Baugher and said the Iowa soldiers received excellent training."
Hmmmmmmmm who to believe...
IP on AP.
From my experience. guard/reserve soilders are more apt to speak out than active duty guys...its not a bad thing..
We don't need the draft?
The active Army fell short by 6000 in recruiting for April. That makes four months in a row that numbers have not been met and April was the worst so far. The Marines are not hitting their numbers either and the Guard and Reserve recruiting numbers are going into the toilet even faster. How do you propose we man the force?
Baugher's report said that in some situations, veteran Iowa soldiers had to correct instructors at Fort Hood.
Not by the draft
Drafted army=Fraggs its officers
That's an answer to my question?
10,000,000+ draftees are part of what some refer to as "The Greatest Generation."
That's your argument? A very small percentage were misfits during Vietnam means we should not have a draft?
Do you suppose that the leadership of LBJ and McNamara may have had something to do with what happened 30 years ago?
If the cause is right and the leadership (civilian and military) is honest, the "draft" is not a dirty word.
I just believe that a drafted army would not be as effective as an all volunteer army (army being armed forces)
When one os drafted for service their hearts are not in it and they will not do the dutys that are required of them and will never go above and beyond the drafting of thier duties. A drafted soilder never has a call to duty but they are forced into what they are supposed to do.
Its just my opinion lp I could be wrong. Ok?
Bottom line: you don't know what you're talking about.
I did. I am now watching the reserve units return and disintegrate. "I think you'd have to revise your statment."
No, I wouldn't. Using the current hostilities as a benchmark for future wars is a mistake. Look up the performance of the 45th Infantry Division in Korea. We don't need a repeat performance if and when a war that measures casualties in thousands per month begins.
To be used as what? Certainly not soldiers. We have never drafted people into the Navy or Air Force and would not need to because the draft would encourage enlistments into alternatives to the Army, just as it did in the 1950's.
As it stands now the average white female doesn't make it to the end of the enlistment. Why draft an element of the population that we know has 40% less upper body strength than their male counterparts into a job which potentially requires maximum upper body strength? Anecdotally, I've never seen a barracks that I'd want my sister or neice to be living in...and I would not want to impose that atmosphere on any woman. Aside from producing abortions and bastard children that burden the military budget, there is not much to be said for it. BTW, try getting the out of wedlock birth statistics from the Army. It is not something the institution wants to talk about.
Resuming the draft is a good tool to fairly and efficiently staff our army. Using it to create some national socialist "national worker" program is not necessary, and also creates an equivalence in service that is not beneficial to the military. We could end up with a situation as the Germans are facing now, where most men opt for civilian service to avoid the rigors of military life.
One thing we can agree on is that the time is long overdue to eliminate the AGR system. Just rotate active duty folks into the positions in the same manner that the Marine Corps does. I was through the NH State HQ the other day and I got the distinct impression the guys would have benefitted from a tour with the 2d ID followed by three or four years at Bragg or Hood, prior to settling into the Manchester suburbs. Of course, eliminating the AGR would also give the active folks the opportunity to get back to areas that they's otherwise get no chance to be stationed near. I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
To be used as what?
To be used in what ever capacity women are serving in now - the needs of the service. But, that's about a draft. I'm talking about registration.
The registration of 18-year-old men is a contingency. The registration of 18-year-old women would be the same thing.
I was at my first duty station. When I heard that an IG was coming I said "Great!" I was told by another guy "Be careful. About six months after the IG leaves, bad things wil start happening to people who say negative things." That's what transpired. If it ain't a felony, and you have proof...
No I'm not. Females were in the military from when the Draft was resumed prior to World War II through 1973. Nobody made the claim women did not belong in the military. Conversely, very few argued women should register for the Draft. That is because the memory of a real war was fresh in the memories of those who fought in World War II, Korea and Vietnam.
As for anything being settled regarding women serving, all I am seeing is the services saying one thing and doing another.
Let me get this straight.
You favor a military that encourages women to serve voluntarily in almost every MOS there is, but, when conscription is required, only men should be required to serve in those same MOSs against their will?
As for "nearly every MOS", depends in what unit. They cannont be clerks in an infantry battalion, nor medics, nor signalmen. So the fact that the MOS may be open is misleading.
Thanks for not answering the question. You lose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.