Posted on 04/01/2002 11:06:47 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Every week, fewer American flags are flying from cars and homes. And it becomes easier to rationalize Sept. 11 as a terrible tragedy that happened to the folks in some other town rather than the ongoing threat to our way of life that this century's Day of Infamy really represents.
But out there in the global trenches, the war against international terrorism grows bloodier by the day, and as a consequence, more coffins draped with American flags will be turning up at Dover Air Force Base.
The first round in Afghanistan is still far from over, and then there are rounds two through 30: the running sore in the Middle East, and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction; ex-Yugoslavia, where we have thousands of soldiers keeping that fragile peace; and dozens of other Bad Lands either on fire or waiting to ignite.
This complicated conflict won't be won by the smartness of munitions or the sagacity of diplomats, but by the grunt on the ground digging out the terrorist and either nailing him or jailing him. There's no way we'll prevail and protect Main Street USA without tough, well-trained soldiers.
Having led infantry squads, platoons, companies and battalions in combat for a bunch of years, I know that to make it on the battlefield, grunts must be granite-hard both in body and mind, have the discipline of a Spartan warrior, know the basics of the fighting trade as well as what's on their dog tags, always sleep with one eye open and be able to shoot as straight and as fast as a Delta Force sniper.
But during the first serious fight involving U.S. conventional troops in Afghanistan, our soldiers were far from up for the game. They fought well but were just not strong enough for the rugged mountains of Afghanistan.
The commander of the operation, Gen. Tommy Franks, pulled our boys out of the battle early so they could catch their breath and brought in 1,700 fighting-fit British Marines. The British media recently reported that Franks said, "The British troops may be more accomplished at some aspects of infantry warfare than their U.S. counterparts." The report added, "They know how to walk up mountains. ... They don't expect to be given a ride in a helicopter every time they want to get somewhere."
The poor physical condition of so many of our soldiers was no big surprise to me. When I eyeballed our kids going through initial training last year in a warm-and-fuzzy basic course that's been made shockingly softer than the one I took 56 years ago, I concluded from my visits and the comments of scores of Army small-unit leaders that many of these boys and girls – some of whom could barely do two push-ups when they first reported to the Army Reception Station – wouldn't make it in battle.
Last week, 50 highly motivated recent graduates of Fort Benning's basic and advanced training programs and the storied Parachute School reported to Fort Bragg to prepare for further training that would allow them to join our elite Special Forces units.
"On Monday they took the PT test," a trainer there told me, "and over half of them failed to meet the standard."
So after eight weeks of basic, five weeks of infantry advanced training and three weeks of parachute training, more than 50 percent of this group of young soldiers couldn't pass the push-ups, sit-ups and two-mile run.
"We aren't talking about some way-out SF standard, but the bare minimum required for any soldier to graduate basic training," reports another Special Forces sergeant. "If this is representative of what's happened to infantry basic training, I'm afraid to even ask what the hell is going on at the co-ed basic programs of Fort Jackson and Fort Leonard Wood."
Our generals must bite the bullet and insist that the kinder, gentler standards that have castrated the conventional Army during the past decade be rooted out. Training must be returned to the reality-based standard that used to prepare our grunts to make it through the crucible of combat – or we'll continue to fail when and where it counts.
The Brits won't always be around to pull us up the hill.
The CIC is going to have to do some full scale shake ups first in the Pentagon from the top down. This is the same General Franks I believe who gave us the explanation for the COLE bombing. The bungled communications fiasco? Battle readiness and fitness of the troops is a leadership problem from the Generals down to the Sgts who are now scared stiff to offend anyone due to persicution and prosicution. It's the military not a social club for political correctness. More tradition methods of training must be brought back or we are going to be in deep trouble. We can't afford wasting time for a study on the matter either as it's common sense.
The work horse foot soldier trained in basic combat skills is a must. It's been nearly 7 months since 9/11. Even recruits coming in from that time should be about ready and seasoned troops should be training in the western mountains at high altitudes.
What we are seeing is the negliance of military readiness for the past 13 years coming home to roost. The military either must be standing ready and battle conditioned or it is useless. We should be going through a military strenght build up in equipment and troops. We have yet to see that happen either. We should not be falling back on our National Guard and Reserves as Battle Ready Units. This has been the case since the Gulf War. It is not a workable solution to continue in this manner. Troops and equipment are over extended, over worked, and over deployed which accounts also for lack of training time and down time for repairs. The cost in lives and money will be great if the current problems are not quickly resolved.
My sentiments exactly.
Serious food for thought. In my 1970's Navy Boot Camp I saw a weapon for 6 hours in boot camp. That was sufficent for my job. Afterward for some extra money I joined the guards. I held my first M-16 at that time. No formal combat training. I was assigned as an ammo driver. They held a class on map reading and I was offered forward observer because I could read a grid map and shoot an azmuith. Though I only stayed in the unit a year I realize the danger I would impose on others in an active combat unit. That was when National Guards were kept home for the governors use. The Reagan years.
After Reagan left office we started a dangerous and downward precedent in military deployments. Reserve unit deployments were the norm rather than the exception to the rule. The origional intent of most reserves was filling in state side billets not reliefs for comabt missions. In a World War yes I can see sending all you have that can walk. But to continue this charade that this somehow equals the military strenght to operate as we have been the past 12 plus years is insane. Look at the carrier that just came home. 150 days at sea without a port. No days off away from it. Folks thats dangerous. Bad hours, bad tempatures, and bad tempers typical of a 6 month deployment under good conditions compounded by a battle ready material condition.
A steaming carrier is a 24 hour a day operation 7 days a week. Keeping one at battle stations for that long equals in time worked by the crew over 2 years in a normal work enviroment. It's not good to work a crew or equipment like this. Look for it to be re-deployed by this time next year instead of 18 months home.
A worse symptom look at the KENNEDY. Some brass in the Pentagon should have been ripped of stars for that one. KENNEDY is the newest conventional powered carrier we have. Our ships are literally either being neglected {underfunded and under maintained} or ran to early graves to cover these extended deployments.
We and our government ask those who fight the enemy their very best in preformance. We owe them the means to do so in the safest and most reliable manner possible. I've read another horror story about readiness along the lines of the KENNEDY it occured in mid 1993.
For those of us in here who are Navy vets we have to wonder why a ship like the COLE was 2 days out from fleet alone? We have to wonder why it could not refuel at sea. Why are we taking our most valued Naval assets through the Suez as a common means to cover the Indian Ocean? I'm still asking the same questions I was over 2 years ago and see no answers to these problems coming. We had a 911 wake up call that we are indeed a nation subject to attack on our very soil.
Pearl Harbor brought a sleeping military to full force in days and rapid build up. We slacked between WW1 & WW2 Japan saw us as weak. We did enjoy two hemisphere readiness capacites up till about 1992. Since then it has been a mad race to see who can reduce and cut our military the quickest. That actually started in 1989. Sure there was pork then. Now we are scrounging for used parts. Answers are not going to be cheap and neither is a standing ready military. It's past time for a reality check in Washington, DC and start addressing these issues as serious matter and not short term problems.
And the stories I hear from ex-drill sergeants about today's training are quite pathetic.
I have one flag, and I'm too afraid to fly it. One, it's a family heirloom, and two, is it appropriate to fly a 48-star flag? And then the Army security people here tell me not to fly it in the name of safety from terrorists (anyone who's been overseas military knows the drill).
But then on the afternoon of September 11th (time difference), there was my German neighbor, putting a big American flag out front of the house to show his support.
Under the US Code, any flag that was at one time the official flag of the US, can be flown today as the flag of the US. You can even fly a replica of the Star-Spangled Banner itself, with its 15 stars and 15 stripes. (It is the only US flag to have more than 13 stripes.)
I particularly encourage people to fly the Star-Spangled Banner because I grew up in Baltimore, and know well the history of the land and sea battle there in September, 1814, on which the fate of the nation hinged. Seeing that great battle flag still flying after 24 hours of bombardment by the British let Francis Scott Key know that our nation had survived, and caused him to write our national anthem.
The larger flag manufacturers still make (normal-sized) copies of the Star-Spangled Banner.
Congressman Billybob
Click here to fight Shays-Meehan.
Click here for latest column: "When Billie Comes Marching Home Again"
Another development that is harming the military is the concentration on reserve and national guard deployment. National guards and reserves are backups to relieve the armed forces of non-combat duties, not to be sent out on peacekeeping ventures all over the world. These men have families and jobs and civilian responsibilities requiring their attention. Their use should only be required in the most extreme emergencies.
A point not covered by Hackworth is the emphasis on the spectacular deployment of guided bombs, cruise missiles, and recon drones. This just thrills hell out of the TV audience but is terribly expensive as a means of waging war and lacks the human intelligence on the ground. They still require the special forces on the ground to observe and fulfill the duties of directing fire. Why spend thousand of dollars per explosion via air when an artillery piece could deliver on target for a small fraction of the cost?
We have as a Defense Secretary, Chairman of Joint chiefs, air force men. They have the best intentions, but the reality is we are up against an enemy that requires the grunt on the ground to dig out the guerillas. Yet, most of the emphasis is on acquiring more tech, instead of improving the ground components of our defense or offensive forces. When we see as in Anaconda, 1200 sorties flown and most of the opposing force slipping away, it should tell us that we are pretty innefectual. We have a bad habit in the military fighting the last war while fighting a new war. The circumstances now demand a whole new emphasis on counteracting the present enemy.
Cool. Thanks!
I must take exception on the general principle:
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.