SC Ping
Click Here if you want to be added to or removed from this list.
Posted on 09/18/2004 11:17:47 PM PDT by neverdem
"The trouble began Labor Day weekend, when 13 members of the 1st Battalion of the 178th Field Artillery Regiment went AWOL, mainly to see their families again before shipping out. Then there was an ugly confrontation between members of the battalion's Alpha and Charlie batteries -- the term artillery units use instead of "companies" -- that threatened to turn into a brawl involving three dozen soldiers, and required the base police to intervene."
My old unit had some scrapes with Alpha battery of our battalion.
We also had some trouble with Charlie battery too.
There's a bit of sometimes not so friendly competition between the batteries within an artillery unit.
Artilleryman are, I will admit, an odd breed.
They love loud noises and propellant smoke.
The worst punishment one can give them is to order them to sit still and do nothing.
Artillery lives to fire rounds down range.
If they aren't doing that, they feel out of place.
Now, whatever happened with this unit, I cannot say.
But the brawl could've been the interbattery rivalry thing.
Seen those a few times myself.
Twice at Fort Drum during anuual training.
Once down at Camp Blanding in Florida in early 2000 when my unit went down there via C-5.
A Rhode Island unit was there and they started a brawl at the club, got their butts greased too.
Admittedly, I do miss the powder smoke.
It's rumored to be addictive.
An operative from dirty underwear land.
Anyone who claims to be a buff on Churchill, and who also spouts the sewage she does, is either lying about an interest in Churchill or is not intelligent enough to learn from him. "Chamberlainbuff" is much more accurate.
That would be more accurate, yes!
They remind me, in a way, of Burkeman1 and JohnGalt.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's a nagging weird feeling that I've heard that tripe before.
Precisely.
Wonder if they'll post an opus on the dark underworld site and claim they aren't coming back here...and then come back and pretend they never said they weren't coming back.
(One of Galt's buddies did that and tried to claim he didn't.)
#62 - excellent post
I am in the NC ANG. I go on active duty in 11 days. I don't have a problem with this. We are at war. What is your point?
Warning: Long Post follows.
1. Length of Deployments. Reality is, by the time you mobilize a unit (2 weeks at home station to complete/certify training requirements), then get to the mobilization station on an active duty post (MUIC), and get through that.. that's another 2 to 3 weeks minimum. Then if you are tasked w/ a job that isn't your normal duty (such as artillery units that have been converted into shake-and-bake convoy escorts), you're looking at a couple of months training (first as individuals, then as teams/squads, then as full units). You then have travel time of at least a week or so (more if you're taking specialized equipment with you). Two weeks to migrate out the old unit/integrate your unit in. Then, at the tail end, you've got to account for a week travel time, two weeks for out processing, and 2.5 days leave per month...so for each 11 months on duty, the troops get one off (typically taken as terminal leave at the end of the deployment).
What this means is that on a typical 12 month deployment of a unit, the troops are only available for about 9 months, best case. If they're doing something non-standard, you see how long it takes to get them ready and on the ground...
2. The unit listed in the Wash Post article is a worst possible case. The unit has been pulled together from diverse grouping of units, new folks have been added to the units to fill holes, and the units are tasked to do something completely outside what they've trained to do. Artillery units are great at shooting, moving, and communicating with their assigned equipment; becoming Military Police is a pretty far stretch from what they've always trained to do.
3. Currently, we're running under a limited presidential mobilization. What this means is that per the DOD, we can't grab folks from the reserve/national guard for more than 24 months in a 6 year period. Current standards dictate a stabilization period of 36 months after each mobilization, but this can be waved either with a volunteer statement from individual soldiers, or if the soldier has a critical skill set.
4. After spending one year mobilized on active duty since 9/11 (so far), my experience was very good. The active folks initially were very skeptical of reserve folks, then discovered that we were older, experienced, knowledgeable, flexible and so on... and used us in leadership positions that we never expected to get. My group was used to back fill an active unit, and we fell in on the unit (we were used as organ donors). Other reserve units that I've worked with who were mobilized and deployed as a full unit had much worse experiences. Treated as second class troops, denied supplies due to different funding, etc. and were not happy with the experience.
5. The future? Retention is NOT a problem in most units that I'm aware of. Folks are focused on what needs to be done, and working through the tasks necessary to get anything done. I'd guess that shorter rotations may be possible if troops/units have been deployed successfully within the previous XX months (?). Units have new training standards that may assist in shorter, more frequent deployments possible.
6. Employers: Yes, this is a problem. I've personally had folks ask if I was still in the reserve, and had interviews effectivly ended at that point. There have been lots of folks who have had careers damaged by their reserve/national guard service. Fixing this will require the ESGR folks to get out and do something (legal action) rather than the usual glad-handing crap. The training required to keep folks mobilization ready will cost more $$$. Finally, because of the time/energy commitment that reservists/national guard folks make, it's going to take the 'reserve pay at 55' deal to pass in the near future to maintain the force.
We're in nothing less than WW IV; the most frustrating part is the lack of attention that the media pays (unless it meets their pre-conceived story-line), and the minimal mind-space that the public has for the troops who are either downrange, on the way back, or getting ready to go... which is all of us.
Sorry, I warned you that it'd be a long one! ;-)
Actually I did post one of the 'draft' things. My purpose was to get good counter agruments to the 'information' in that letter that was circulating. I also concidered posting on my thread the articul used to counter mine. (many thanks to those who posted the article and other facts for me to use). the argument countering mine was pretty much what I read here, only a different article. This seems to be the new 'talking point's' for the oposition.
What I see from those who regard this a scare tactics being spead by the uninformed is while you may be right regarding the issue, your solution is to ignor the articles etc. in hopes that they'll go away? Personally I decided to take a more pro active way of dealing with it and 'try' to get more factual information out there.
We don't all have the knowledge to do the searches, (look at the number of dups. here)I think many like me can search for hours and never seem to come up with the right word to get to what they want the information on. ( and that's not just on this topic, believe me, search engines and myself just don't seem to get along very well, sigh)
That leaves me looking through threads like these (or even posting the offending article) trying to find a good, verifiable argument against the 'we cannot fight this war with our NG units complaining about having to be gone for deployments all the time, so a draft is inevitable' (and it's all the administrations fault...etc) Sorry if that bugs you.
And thanks for you service to our country.
Intellectual honesty -- whether or not you and I come from the same perspective, I respect your inquiry after the facts. Unfortunately, you won't get the kinds of information you seek from cwojackson or his handful of cohorts who either aren't capable of, or interested in, offering "good verifiable argument" to support their views - instead they spout the equivalent of "your mame wears army boots," like kids on a playground. Since you're a genuine truth-seeker, I see that their rants are frustrating to you. They were frustrating to me, too, till I finally woke up and realized I was wasting my time taking them seriously - they're clowns who are good for a laugh, nothing more.
Click Here if you want to be added to or removed from this list.
Isn't that how George Costanza quit his job?
I think so.
Not sure though.
*chuckle*
"They were frustrating to me, too, till I finally woke up and realized I was wasting my time taking them seriously - they're clowns who are good for a laugh, nothing more."
Those words were spoken before, by a now banned enemy sympathiser named JohnGalt.
Sob.
churchillbuff couldn't I.D. truth if it was in a police line-up with the three little pigs.
bump
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.