Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/9/2004 2:41:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 3:15:13 PM EST by MillerSHO]
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 2:44:14 PM EST
With the draw-downs in the 90s, it was decided to keep as many trigger-pullers on active duty as possible. As a consequence, jobs such as civil affairs were moved to the reserves and National Guard. What is needed in Iraq right now is alot of those "non-combatant" jobs, such as civil affairs.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 2:45:02 PM EST
Clinton cut back the military too much, and bush started 2 wars when the military wasn't prepared.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 2:50:07 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 2:55:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 8:54:25 PM EST by warlord]
I read once that it took like 7-10 people just to field one trigger puller. It's the logistics needed to support the trigger pullers.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 2:58:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By MillerSHO:
So out of the 1.5 mil, we don't have many trigger pullers?

I would think a at least 15% would be Combative type troops.



You have not considered the fact that the units need to be rotated in and out of theater. There are also many other global commitments that are not HOT zones. Simple fact is that when the Soviet Union collapsed in 91, the politicians decided we needed a peace dividend so they made HUGE cuts in DoD and CIA manpower levels with the understanding that the Reserves and NG would HAVE to become major contributors in any future conflicts.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 2:59:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By MillerSHO:
So out of the 1.5 mil, we don't have many trigger pullers?

I would think a at least 15% would be Combative type troops.



I didn't say that. There are plenty of active duty troops over there too. The reason for the large number of reservists is their specialties are needed over there. And those specialties were assigned to the reserves to keep more combat troops on active duty during the 90s draw-downs. Does that make sense?
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:00:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:05:36 PM EST
Because that's where the war is.

And you would be surprised at how many reservist REQUESTED to go over there.

Sgatr15
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:07:59 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:09:10 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:15:42 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:20:05 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:26:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By MillerSHO:

Yes.

So is W making the correct changes to get the balance back?
Or is the reservists and NG's part in all of this going to stay the same.
I would think if it stayed the same, there wouldn't be much incentive to be a reservists or NG.



Part of Sec Def Rumsfields concept of transformation is to rebalance the forces to include more MPs and Civil Affair Groups in the active component.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:29:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 3:29:52 PM EST by MillerSHO]
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:29:11 PM EST

Because that's where the war is.

And you would be surprised at how many reservist REQUESTED to go over there.

Sgatr15




I can confirm this quote as spot on. My wife is in the Army Guard and there are a bunch of folks who when told last year that there was going to be acall up voluntered to go. I can also tell you that this summer for her summer camp they had a cook out at the end of their training I was very surprised at the conversations I was hearing. Most of these guys are what you would consider in NM to be leaning democrats as they are latino/mexican and not a single one said anything bad about Bush and not a single one complained about the fact that they might get called up. My wife was pointing out serveral guys who had recently voluntered to go and were waiting for the call.


It is my personal belief that when you see guardsman complaining on TV or in the press, the press had to search these guys out and they do not represent the true feelings of the part time soldier. I think you should point out that guardsman were being called up to Kuwait & SW Asia long before the war ever started. We have had guardsman in Kuwait for many years, my wife voluntered to go several times but did not make it over their. This was if memory serves me correct two full years before the Iraq war started. The Air Guard has was also providing support of the no fly zones for a very long time.

This is a little off your starter topic but something I think is worth sharing.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:32:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 3:33:37 PM EST by MillerSHO]
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:39:52 PM EST
As it's said in the military, one awww shit kills 1,000 atta boy's.



Originally Posted By spm681:
It is my personal belief that when you see guardsman complaining on TV or in the press, the press had to search these guys out and they do not represent the true feelings of the part time soldier. I think you should point out that guardsman were being called up to Kuwait & SW Asia long before the war ever started.

Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:44:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By spm681:


And you would be surprised at how many reservist REQUESTED to go over there.

Sgatr15




I agree many have been in the guard for a long while without getting much action, and now want there shot. They are getting it in a big way now by volunteering and my hat is off to them.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 3:56:43 PM EST
MillerSHO, You can use that Reserve and NG members have volunteered to go over to Iraq as ammo. I know many from my old NG unit that has and is over there. Most that had to come back from being over there a year want to go back again but they can't yet. My brother's Infantry unit, my old one, hasn't been called up but a couple did in WI and thay asked for volenteers and filled most the ranks. He did not volanteer but they needed good NCOs so him being sent is mandatory. He didn't want to go but he didn't fight it either because he knows it is his duty. When they show soldiers complaining it is usually support units that thought they would never see the other end of the barrel. Pussys (not all of them) Thats what the differance in infanrty units they know where thier duty is. We trained as if we were going to get called up the next day. We had are share of fun too hug.gif

Its funny how Dems blames Bush for having reserve and NG units spread out thin. Thats what they're for since Clinton killed the funding to the military as much as he could.

Its a crazy world we live in, RnR
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 4:11:01 PM EST
I think there is too much seperation between NG/reserve units and the regular units. For christ sake, they swore the same oath! Sure they dont get the exact same training but they train never the less. Those people volunteered to serve, whatever the call of duty required. I think sending these units is the right thing and shows the ability to use many resources to achieve a given goal. I dont think its about not being prepared. If we were not then all of our units would be deployed. These units are PART OF THE ARMED FORCES! Using them shows only that we can, not theat we are not ready.

IMHO,
CH
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 4:12:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By MillerSHO:
Got into a discussion with the wife's liberal parents



BTW, given were we live, thats no surprise!
CH
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 4:13:54 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 4:18:32 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 4:21:37 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 4:45:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By MillerSHO:
We have 1.5 million active duty, why are so many reservists used?



Because we want part of the action too by god!

Dg84
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 4:53:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 4:53:31 PM EST by MillerSHO]
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:06:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Because that's where the war is.

And you would be surprised at how many reservist REQUESTED to go over there.

Sgatr15


That is no kidding.
There is no difficulty fielding 110% guard and reserve units to go to Iraq.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:08:03 PM EST
I got the answer for your liberal friends…

When the Democrats in Congress reorganized the US Military structure after Vietnam they did so with the intent to cripple the US’s ability to fight future foreign wars. They made the National Guard a primary part of the standing US Military giving the NG primary and support duties the Army cannot fight large scale actions without.

The intent was to disrupt any future presidents ability to make war... John Kerry helped in this.

It is that simple.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:12:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lightning_P38:

Originally Posted By Cape_hunter:
I think there is too much seperation between NG/reserve units and the regular units. For christ sake, they swore the same oath! Sure they dont get the exact same training but they train never the less. Those people volunteered to serve, whatever the call of duty required. I think sending these units is the right thing and shows the ability to use many resources to achieve a given goal. I dont think its about not being prepared. If we were not then all of our units would be deployed. These units are PART OF THE ARMED FORCES! Using them shows only that we can, not theat we are not ready.

IMHO,
CH



I can't speak for all of thier training, but when I went to basic, AIT and jumpschool there were both NG and Reserve guys there, my entire AIT call was active duty rectuits, but we had other classes on the day shift who had plenty of part timers. I imagine that during the year the reserve component units don't get the training that we did on the 50th, but they didn't stay as burnt out as us either, we lived in the field, probably spent 25 days a month sleeping in the dirt.



When I went it was the same, mixed regular and res/ng units.

The simple truth is, that is what the reserve units are for, to use when needed. If right now they are, then so be it.

Miller, the next time its brought up, ask her why they shouldnt be sent?
CH
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:21:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By MillerSHO:

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Because that's where the war is.

And you would be surprised at how many reservist REQUESTED to go over there.

Sgatr15



I would love to use that as ammo, but it just isn't going to happen.
I liked the study that found 3 out of 4 soldiers prefer Bush over Kerry, that one hits home.



I'm a reservist now I asked to go 18 months ago and just got an IRR call up. No veteran or active duty service member wants a president that might turn on them like he turned on the goverment/military after coming back from Vietnam.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:23:26 PM EST
Nother thing that Bush has started that will really help us out is bringing back most of the troops from Europe.

There is no longer a credible threat in Europe and no need for the large field formations we have there. It costs oodles of money to keep them and their families there. It amounts to a dole for the towns they are stationed in, we pay for the land the bases are on, we pay for food, we pay for the training areas, we pay for gas, and American soldiers are a massive increase to the economy.

We need to bring these guys back, Bush has started it. Kerry complained about it (to keep his friends in Europe I guess). Instead he "wants to add 2 active divisions." Talk about fiscal and military irresponsibility.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:26:09 PM EST

Originally Posted By mike45acp:
Clinton cut back the military too much, and bush started 2 wars when the military wasn't prepared.



Oh, Bush started the war on terror??? (which is just one war, btw).
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:29:31 PM EST
Before BushI/Clinton we had 18 real Army divisions (more than 75% proper TO manning)

After BushI/Clinton we had 10 fake Army divisions (more like 8 if called on to fill out a real divisional TO)

BushII and his favorite old and stupid defense secretary absolutely refuse to increase the size of the military, going so far as to force out and disgrace any general officer who recommends otherwise. As icing on that cake they like to start fights all around the world.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:30:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By mike45acp:
Clinton cut back the military too much, and bush started 2 wars when the military wasn't prepared.



First it's not two wars, it's two fronts to the same war

second WE did not start it, it's been going on since the 60's now we are on the way to winning it
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:40:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 5:42:49 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By MillerSHO:
Got into a discussion with the wife's liberal parents and they expressed concern about the amount of reservists in Iraq? They weren't actually saying that as proof of how we're stretched thin, just concern.

I didn't have an answer for them and I thought I'd ask you guys why.

We have 1.5 million active duty, why are so many reservists used?




1) We only have about 1.5 million troops period. The active duty force is about 700,000. The force in Iraq is somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000, the force in Afganhistan is probably around 50,000.

2) The reason for having reserves is to reduce the cost of maintaining them in peacetime. By semi-deactivating over half the military (2 weekends a month, etc) you reduce the cost of maintaining a large force, but have them trained & ready for action in case they are needed. The way the system is designed, any prolonged operation WILL draw reserve troops as needed.

3) There are alot more specialties needed in Iraq besides trigger pullers. Alot of these specialties do not exist in the active duty force, as they are only needed for specialized missions. This way the military can pay them when they are needed, and not pay them when they would be sitting around playing poker... In the Air Force, most of the tanker & transport pilots are reservists, in the Army you will find alot of civil affairs & 'support' specialties in the reserves as well... They aren't needed for peacetime & 'small' operations, but if you invade a country they will be...

4) Prior to the 70's, we didn't rely so much on the reserves because we had a draft. So instead of calling up volunteer reservists, we drafted people & made them into whatever kind of troops we needed. Then, when the war was over, the military was reduced to a skeleton force, ready to be 'filled out' by draftees if needed...

With the abolition of the draft, the 'skeleton force' is the active military, and the reservists replace draftees. The difference is that everyone in the Reserves ASKED to join the reserves... The PROBLEM is that some of them forgot WHY we have Reserves, and joined for 'extra money' thinking they'd 'never have to fight', ergo, whiners...


P.S. According to the Army, the current highest rate of re-enlistment by location (eg the place where soldiers are stationed that has the largest number volunteering to stay in, and stay there) is... IN IRAQ

The current lowest rate of re-enlistment by location is STATESIDE
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:45:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 5:51:59 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Happyshooter:
Before BushI/Clinton we had 18 real Army divisions (more than 75% proper TO manning)

After BushI/Clinton we had 10 fake Army divisions (more like 8 if called on to fill out a real divisional TO)

BushII and his favorite old and stupid defense secretary absolutely refuse to increase the size of the military, going so far as to force out and disgrace any general officer who recommends otherwise. As icing on that cake they like to start fights all around the world.



We've never been a mass-numbers military...

That's what the Soviets were... It's too expensive, too inefficient, and our 'folks back home' can't stomach the casualties that win-by-numbers would entail...

So instead, we have less troops with better weapons, armor, and training...

In a perfect world, we could pay for more troops and keep or improve the present level of weapons, technology & training. But if the choice is between a SMALLER, BETTER military, and a HUGE, INEPT military, smaller & better wins every time...

MORE TROOPS will not help anything, anywhere we are right now... Afghanistan is a light infantry war, we are winning because we have a small, professional force in place... More troops would just make a mess of the place....

And in Iraq, we have planty of troops as well, we're chasing insurgents out of one city at a time... Once again, what would you do with the extra troops? We allready outnumber the enemy several times over... Wars take time & blood to win, the problem is that alot of people have forgotten this....

Kerry is talking out his ass about '40,000 more troops & doubling the size of special forces'... Thanks to Clinton & Kerry's senate buddies, we had to play catch-up WRT equipment for the troops we have... Immagine equipping 40,000 more under an administration who's members have voted against every single weapons system of any significance...

And 'Double the size of Special Forces'??? Hello... We can't fill all the slots we have today because, well, the nature of SF means that 'plenty of volunteers' does not equate to 'plenty of qualified candidates'... We have LOTS of people who want to be SF, but only a few are good enough to pull it off... That's why they're called 'Special' forces, Kerry, and you can't just turn them out like shoes from a Chinese prison factory....
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:57:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:

1) We only have about 1.5 million troops period. The active duty force is about 700,000. The force in Iraq is somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000, the force in Afganhistan is probably around 50,000.



I am pretty sure that is the size of the active component, since the army is around 400,000, the Marines 170,000 and the other 2 around 400,000-500,000 each.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 8:44:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 9:10:20 PM EST
Hey, their just giving all Americans an opportunity to go & kill some raghead terrorists.
Wish I was young enough to go & get me some.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 10:07:32 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 10:20:13 PM EST by PennvilleBill]

Originally Posted By warlord:
I read once that it took like 7-10 people just to field one trigger puller. It's the logistics needed to support the trigger pullers.



+1
I heard the same thing. It was Klintoon's decimation of the military on his watch that has caused a shortage of necessary skills neeeded in our standing armed forces of today. Just one more reason to despise that sorry bastard.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 10:36:09 PM EST
The 81st Bde (The crowd I'm with) is a full on combat arms brigade, and every man jack of us is here. As a tanker, I think I'm a trigger-puller...

I should also add that only one or two people in my company were particularly interested in coming here. Most of the rest intend to ETS as soon as possible, even those who would only have two years left to do their twenty. Admittedly, I think this is more a factor of the way they're being treated than the whole concept of deployment, though that's another issue.

NTM
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 10:41:12 PM EST
If someone has 18 years in and is going to get out because of the way they are "treated" then fuck them, they don't deserve any retirement benifits. More for the people who will do their time without being a whining cunt.






Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
I should also add that only one or two people in my company were particularly interested in coming here. Most of the rest intend to ETS as soon as possible, even those who would only have two years left to do their twenty. Admittedly, I think this is more a factor of the way they're being treated than the whole concept of deployment, though that's another issue.
NTM

Link Posted: 10/9/2004 11:28:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 10:49:15 PM EST by R-32]

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
The 81st Bde (The crowd I'm with) is a full on combat arms brigade, and every man jack of us is here. As a tanker, I think I'm a trigger-puller...

I should also add that only one or two people in my company were particularly interested in coming here. Most of the rest intend to ETS as soon as possible, even those who would only have two years left to do their twenty. Admittedly, I think this is more a factor of the way they're being treated than the whole concept of deployment, though that's another issue.

NTM




I was a medic in 1/185 Cal Guard (THUNDERBOLTS!), and then became Medic in the 303rd Wa Guard ( all apart of the 81st Bde) I think the motivation was good in the Cal Guard but was Outstanding in the Wa Guard. I know they are both " Boots on the Ground" at this time and I will never judge the thinking of the troops at this point. I know of No Soldier that is 110% "Particularly interested" in leaving family and friends behind to go into a unknown situation, But I will guanrantee that when everyone gets home the feelings will settle down and those guys that you think are so willing to get out now, will rethink their personal position...

At this point I will thank each and everyone of you for your service, I will pray for your safety each and every night and I will say a special prayor for each of my long time friends that are doing the job now both from Cali and Washington.

Manic_Moran, I hope you feel better about your situation, and If you have been around the Cal Guard for any length of time you already have had a idea of how the troops were treated. ( Yes I have just as many stories to tell about how myself and my soldiers were treated as anyone else, but in the big picture it was no better or no worse than anyone else.)

Hang in there and Good Speed to our Soldiers!
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 7:52:26 AM EST
Many of our Civil Affaird and MP units are Guard/Reserve because we only need them when TSHTF. So it doesn't make sense to keep them active duty for a task which is only necessary every 20-30 years.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 11:16:19 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 11:46:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Hoplite:

CA is the most actively deployed reserve job out there. They have been very active doing missions for the last 15 years that I am aware of and probably way back to its formation.



They aren't supposed to be though right? In the 1990s there was a great deal of nation-building going on and so the CA units were in demand. But were they used so much in the 70s and 80s?

It has got to be tough to keep a really qualified CA unit on active duty since they require lots of high-skill people like lawyers, engineers, bankers, etc. who have lots of private sector opportunities.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 10/10/2004 11:54:32 AM EST
A friend of mine who is a mechanic in the Michigan National Guard is going soon. I doubt he ever expected to go to Iraq. his unit still issues the m16A1 but he has been tood they are not deploying with their rifles, that there will be M16A2's waiting for them in iraq. (Hopefully good ranges to BZO and testfire too?)


They are epected to be wrench turners only, and provide for their own basic security. On post Guard Duty type stuff. No compat patrols, food convoys ect.
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 6:01:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2004 6:01:52 AM EST by Hoplite]
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 7:40:24 PM EST
Its not just support jobs being deployed, lots of trgger pullers on the ground over there are ARNG/USAR. 30th INF Brigade from NC is there now.

Look at the patches when you see picks.h
Link Posted: 10/11/2004 8:07:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By mike45acp:
Clinton cut back the military too much, and bush started 2 wars when the military wasn't prepared.

'Started' is a poor choice of word.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top