Guardsmen Say They're Facing Iraq Ill-Trained

Los Angeles Times ^ | Nov 25, 2004 | Scott Gold

[Non-Sequitur]

What is your "acceptable" number of KIAs in this operation?

No more than necessary. Can I assume that your definition of an "acceptable" number would be somewhere along the lines of "as many as it takes?" Sending troops into a hostile environment without the tools and training they need is wasteful in terms of lives and equipment. What have you got against give the troops the greatest chance of returning home in one piece?

[Barlowmaker]

What have you got against give the troops the greatest chance of returning home in one piece?

Nothing. You made the comment that too many fine Americans have died there. What did YOU mean by too many? Are you inferring that soldiers and Marines dying in vain or through some negligence?

[mystery-ak]

Every soldier is issued a weapon....Mike1sg

[June Cleaver]

What equipment are you talking about that the soldiers have been buying themselves?

[centurion316]

If these troops are at the NTC Fort Irwin

Right now, they are at their mobilization station, Ft. Bliss. But they will go to either Ft. Irwin (NTC) or Ft. Polk (JRTC). Every combat brigade that deploys to Iraq/Afghanistan must go to a Combat Training Center at NTC and JRTC are known, and must be certified as combat ready before deployment.

[ASA Vet]

now watch them squeal when their drill sergeants take away their comic books!

It's Kalifornia, the DI's are more likely to remove Cosmo and Playgirl.

[centurion316]

Unfortunately there isn't much new in this article or on this thread about shortages of ammo, armor, goggles, personnel, fossilized procurement, lack of money, fund diversions and so on.

You make some very good points in this comment, we are paying a price for the "peace dividend" that helped balance the budget - it left our forces, especially ground forces vulnerable. However, don't believe all of the equipment stories that you hear. Many units are reorganizing before deployment in order to perform new missions that require different equipment. This creates an instant shortage. Most of these shortages will not be satisfied until the unit arrives in Iraq. Departing units turn this equipment over to the incoming unit. A good example is uparmored wheeled vehicles. No uparmored vehicles are allowed to leave Iraq. They stay in place in order to be used by incoming units.

I, too, have encountered too many senior officers, NCO's, and DoD civilians who have a peacetime attitude. They view the war as a threat to their rice bowl and funding stream. They are carrying on business as usual. Fortunately there are many more who are busting their humps, but it still sticks in your craw.

[mystery-ak]

I know....I spent 15mos in Iraq...Mike1sg

[af_vet_rr]

Fortunately there are many more who are busting their humps

It's unfortunate that those are the ones who have to pay the highest price - not only do they have to be treated like they are just aching to hop over the wire, but they have to pick up that slack. You seldom see it mentioned, but that unit that refused to drive the convoy in Iraq - another unit had to pick up the slack for them and do it in addition to their own duties.

I'm not familiar with the makeup of Army Reserve/NG units, but I've heard people mention that many were just in there for college money, that some states have deals worked out for certain schools, etc. If true, if they are intelligent enough to get into college, they should be intelligent enough to understand that sometimes you have to actually follow through on agreements you made. I'd love to know the makeup of those going AWOL.

I do think the whole situation sucks in regards to the reorganization that went on in the 1980s and 1990s where some duties that weren't needed in peacetime were moved to Reserve/NG components. I see the logic from a business/budget point of view, but war doesn't care about budgets and logic.

I'm not thinking of the people in those units, so much as I am thinking of the people in active-duty units that might find themselves in trouble because somebody decided that they only signed up for a few days a month.

[Max Combined]

"Too bad some of the armchair Alexanders and Barcalounger Hannibals on this thread aren't with them to share their military wisdom."

My sentiments, exactly.

[Max Combined]

"I think that the lives of our soldiers is too important to just poo-poo this. I think it needs to be investigated by someone. If it's exaggerated or false, then no harm done. But if any of it is true at all, then someone's head needs to roll. We've lost far too many good men and women in this war already. It's the duty of the administration and the Pentagon to ensure that nobody is sent there without the tools and training that they need to do the job properly, with the highest probability of returning home safely."

Blah, blah, blah.

[centurion316]

First, The Army Guard is very different than the Air Guard, even though they both operate on the same Constitutional basis. The Army Guard often hides behind its State status and uses it to avoid meeting Army standards. They do this most often in the selection of officers and senior NCO's. While some are as good as I've ever seen, some are clearly not up to snuff and that's the problem. Hard to run a unit when you have a few bad apples in leadership positions. The Air Guard does not have this problem because the Guard is more than willing to submit to Air Force oversight and standards as the price to be paid to get to fly around in federal aircraft.

The soldiers in the Guard are just as good as any in the Active Army or the Marines for that matter. As you point out, many are college students serving in the Guard in exchange for college tuition. These are good kids, some just don't have the leadership that they deserve.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"It's the duty of the administration and the Pentagon to ensure that nobody is sent there without the tools and training that they need to do the job properly, with the highest probability of returning home safely."

Before any tools or training to do the job properly can purchased, there first needs to be money to obtain the tools and training. That is not an issue of the Administration or the Pentagon, that is an issue that Congress needs to address.

[Lady In Blue]

LA Times? Enough said.

EXACTLY!!

[Lady In Blue]

Rumsfeld relied on the commanders in the field,including Tommy Franks. They did not want more troops than necessary.Why put more troops in there so that they'll be more targets for the terrorists? They also wanted to put an Iraqi face on the multi-national force.

[Lady In Blue]

Thank you! To hear this poster, you'd think that the Bush administration has not increased armaments,pay and housing to the military at all.

[Lady In Blue]

You sure are quick to jump on GWB,aren't you? It almost sounds like you expect the President to personally review every bit of military equipment,etc. The President,as well as Rumsfeld relies on the commanders in the field to let them know what they need.

[af_vet_rr]

The Air Guard does not have this problem because the Guard is more than willing to submit to Air Force oversight and standards as the price to be paid to get to fly around in federal aircraft.

Like I said, I'm not that familiar with the Army Guard/Reserves, but your brought up something I am familiar with - many in the ANG/AFR hold positions in their "regular" life that mirror their military positions when they are called up. It's not always the case, but many of the pilots, flight crews, mechanics, etc. in the ANG/AFR work for airlines, airports, various aviation companies, etc. and so when they are called up it's not a culture shock and they aren't out of their element. I remember hearing that among the jobs held by those guards/MPs that were doing all of the weird sexual stuff with the Iraqi prisoners, that some delivered pizzas, some worked behind fast food counters, etc. - basically jobs and responsibilities that were in stark contrast with what they faced in Iraq (but that's no excuse for the weird stuff they were doing).

These are good kids, some just don't have the leadership that they deserve.

That's probably a very big part of it - if you don't have leadership that your confident in, it's hard to do your job.

I'm not blaming it all on Clinton, because some of it was taking place before he came in, but I think we'll be feeling the impact of the changes made in the '90s in regards to structure of the military and how units deploy for at least another decade.

I'm going off on a tangent, but it sort of relates to the leadership comment - the one good thing to come out of Iraq from a command point of view, is that we are going to have a well-experienced group of officers and NCOs who have seen some of the worst situations and who have operated under some of the worst conditions faced by US troops in decades. That's IF we can retain them.

[jaykay]

I don't remember any freepers warning about this possible outcome.......I imagine that Rumsfeld, et al are just as surprised and chagrined as I am.....

I don't know about freepers warning about this possible outcome, but Pat Buchanan warned that Iraq would be "our west bank" on the Sean Hannity show before the war. His point was that democratizing Iraq would be a threat to neighboring countries who would do everything in their power to thwart us. Short of war against all of the region's tyrannical regimes, there is no way to turn Iraq without interference from Syria and Iran. He sounded reasonable and turned out to be right.

[Ranger]

Every single shortage listed here has been well documented and known for over a year to a year and a half. Most go back over 3 years. Yes I hold Rumsfeld and GWB responsible for doing their jobs. I suppose you could blame Clinton and Lord he deserves blame, but you know Bush is heading into his second term. In 3 years we fought most of WWII. A few thousand armored vehicles, ammo in sufficient quantity and goggles are not a lot to ask from GWB the infallable.