Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Troops on the Way To Iraq

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More Troops on the Way To Iraq

    17,000 national guardsmen from Washington and 3,000 Marine Corps regulars.

    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    This has been in the works for some time now. The US needed a full division of troops. They hoped these would come from our allies. That didn't happen, so Bush had no choice, but to call up the reserves.

    The allies are playing it safe. The '04 Presidential Elections are coming up. Bush would like to see international support increase to bring some of our troops home, which would benefit him. The Bush Administration did try (well not really try) to have a clause added to the recent UN Resolution that would faciliate a major withdrawal once power changes. It was rejected outright.

    At the same rate, I'm certain some countries would like Bush to loose power. Iraq could influence the election resulting in a new government in the US that would hopefully be less threatening. Democrats are traditionally internationalist. Clinton spent eight years building that.

    If this is an objective, I'm not sure it will succeed. I don't think the Democrats are prepared to retake the highest office. Despite the deteriorating situation in Iraq, Republicans did quite well this past election day. One of the Democrats few successes only came after a very mean-spirited campaign.

    I'm not sure "regime change" will return America to a more favorable position in respect to internationalism. The campaign by the French and Germans, among others, to prevent war with Iraq was just as bad as Bush's effort to convince the world to support it. Alot of people feel betrayed by Europe for a number of reasons.

    I think the allies are taking the logical step to stay out of Iraq. Committing combat troops would be an enormous risk. The US did say we could go it alone. However, the same reasons that dictated opposition could come back. Yet, if I were in another government, I would probably not commit, and hope those pesty Americans are forgetful.
    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

    Comment


    • #3
      Aren't marines supposed to be rapid reaciton and not used for this sort of thing?

      I'm not too familiar with the US military force structure, but are there just not enough reserves or something that's resulting in the marine deployment?
      "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

      – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MikeJ
        Aren't marines supposed to be rapid reaciton and not used for this sort of thing?

        I'm not too familiar with the US military force structure, but are there just not enough reserves or something that's resulting in the marine deployment?
        The Marine deployment likely means three things:

        1. The US military continues to evolve total force doctrine. The military is moving toward a point where troops can perform an assortment of missions. Traditionally, the role of the USMC has been directed to combat intensive operations as well as limited Operations Other Than War. However, as commanders have to do more with less, doctrine has evolved to allow more flexibility.

        Operation Iraqi Freedom showed the Marines still have alot to learn about peacekeeping operations. They were quickly withdrawn after President Bush declared an end to Combat Operations in May, if memory serves me correctly.

        2. There is a change in the mission in Iraq. The US has decided to fight fire with fire. Operation IRON HAMMER falls under the category of counter-insurgency. This is a mission Marines can perform better, as they did in Vietnam. I don't believe they have been deployed in this role for such a long period as is likely in Iraq since the Vietnam War.

        3. America is at her limit's militarily. The US is suppose to be able to fight a two front war. We're basically fighting a three front war now. The first is our commitments to peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. The second front is the war on Terrorism, which includes Afghanistan and West Africa. The third is Iraq. Before the war on terrorism, the US conducted litterly thousands of missions per year all around the world. Many dealt with training, but peacekeeping and other stability operations sucked up alot of manpower. I know Bush wanted to pull back from all that, but it's not that simple. (Although we have made considerable cutbacks.) The war on terrorism likely doubled, if not tripled the yearly average of missions. Now there's Iraq, which I doubt Bush thought he would have go so far alone.

        Calling up the Reserves and National Guard can devastate a politician. While opinions have soften to the concept, I don't believe Bush really wanted to call up the reserves. In September, the Pentagon made it clear it would need another division in Iraq. The hope was that allies would fulfill this role. They waited as long as they could. Bush likely delayed the final decision until after the elections, which wrapped up 10-12 days ago.

        There was talk about cutting back troop commitments elsewhere. However, given the geopolitical situation (paranoia) the US needs to be everywhere. I don't think these call-ups, particularly if there are more, will do the President any good come election time. If Bush has any wishes left, he'd better ask for a brighter day or a new job.
        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          Did you guys see those national guards soldiers at the CNN website? They look like my 13-year old niece. So young. Are they up to the task?

          "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
          --Frederick II, King of Prussia

          Comment


          • #6
            Seems like the US is entering a period similar to the Vietnam War era; when the US only
            had 1 combat ready div. left in CONUS(82nd Abn).
            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

            Comment


            • #7
              iron hammer was only for propaganda, just to show the US forces where doing something to stop insurgents in iraq. putting an F18 vs a donkey cart is madness.

              oh dont worry we are bringing in 70Army commandos as reenforcements [our current troop strenght is 1636men i beleve]
              French Soldier: You don't frighten us, English pig dogs. Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called "Arthur King," you and all your silly English K-nig-hts.

              Comment


              • #8
                Whats sad is the news just seem to be playing up how underequiped some of these troops are. A friend of mine in the AZ ArmyNG got called up, No body armor, or desert Camo were avialable yet last time I talked with him....If he doesn't tget the body armor before he leaves I'll probally have to send him my vest.
                "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Tim McBride
                  Whats sad is the news just seem to be playing up how underequiped some of these troops are. A friend of mine in the AZ ArmyNG got called up, No body armor, or desert Camo were avialable yet last time I talked with him....If he doesn't tget the body armor before he leaves I'll probally have to send him my vest.
                  You have a vest? Just how expensive it is to buy or did you serve in US Army or what?

                  Dan
                  Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                  "Aim small, miss small."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    IRT Cheetah

                    You can purchase military issue kevlar vests from most army surplus shops. Fairly steep costwise though, the few I've seen have ranged in price from $400 to $600.
                    -----------------------------------
                    Sings we a song of wolves.
                    Who smells fear and slays the coward.
                    Sings we a song of man.
                    Who smells gold and slays his brother
                    .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yeah, but the cost is worth it. During the war, only 9% of our fatalities were the result of injuries to the torso region. Kelvar saved many lives. There is no excuse for a single soldier walking around Baghdad without life-saving body armor.

                      This has been a problem for months. One ANG MP wrote her mom and said, "if you want to find me, we'll be the soldiers patrolling Baghdad without Kelvar."
                      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The situations is fairly simmilar right now to what our army's going through in Afghanistan. Most of our troops have had to purchase their own GPS navigation, kevlar vests and other equipment prior to departing for that region or have had loved ones purchase the equipment for them. Somewhat expected I suppose given the small amount of funding our military recieves but I have to admit I am somewhat surprised that the US army is having simmilar problems also.
                        -----------------------------------
                        Sings we a song of wolves.
                        Who smells fear and slays the coward.
                        Sings we a song of man.
                        Who smells gold and slays his brother
                        .

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Deltapooh
                          Yeah, but the cost is worth it. During the war, only 9% of our fatalities were the result of injuries to the torso region. Kelvar saved many lives. There is no excuse for a single soldier walking around Baghdad without life-saving body armor.

                          This has been a problem for months. One ANG MP wrote her mom and said, "if you want to find me, we'll be the soldiers patrolling Baghdad without Kelvar."
                          Yes, the kevlar and the helmet can save you life, but that doesn't help to seem friendly to the civilian. You don't do peacekeeping and things like that with your kevlar and your helmet. It is maybe one the US Army's mistakes in post war Iraq.

                          LaPalice.
                          Monsieur de La Palice est mort
                          Mort devant Pavie.
                          Un quart d'heure avant sa mort
                          Il était encore en vie...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by LaPalice
                            Yes, the kevlar and the helmet can save you life, but that doesn't help to seem friendly to the civilian. You don't do peacekeeping and things like that with your kevlar and your helmet. It is maybe one the US Army's mistakes in post war Iraq.

                            LaPalice.
                            Most peacekeeping missions now undertaken by the UN require the peacekeepers to wear their body armor. As displayed in Bosnia, peacekeepers can still make a strong effort at interacting with the local population when wearing body armor.

                            It's when peacekeepers stay in their AFVs that the locals resent the peacekeeping presence.

                            Of course, Iraq is not really a peacekeeping mission though, is it ?
                            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cheetah772
                              You have a vest? Just how expensive it is to buy or did you serve in US Army or what?

                              Dan
                              It cost about $500 for the vest and 2 trama plates.

                              As to why I have a vest well, that is my business, but no I was never in the service.

                              _Tim
                              "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X