Active Military members speaking out against Iraq war.

[AXEAM]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Couple of thoughts about this thread in general and one point about this quote in particular.
First, No one expects the military to be overjoyed by all of their assignments. Some of them can be downright unpleasant and some pretty heartbreaking. Further, the Military is not expected to be ardent philosophical supporters of any war. What the military is expected to do is to carry out the foreign policy of the United States and not to undermine it by public dissent. From time immemorial it has been a soldier's right to "grouse" about his/her job, his/her sergeant, his/her CO, the war he/she is in, or just about anything else that ticks him/her off. What that soldier cannot do is publicly do anything to undermine the mission. Our Army is built on the principle of civilian control. That is an absolute. If the Army starts second guessing what it wants to do or not do then we can expect to follow the model of countries where military coups are the normal way of advancing the political process. In the USA the military is the instrument of the government, not the other way around. If one does not like the way the government is doing its job then one must exercise his/her vote to change things. All military personnel can vote and all are encouraged to do so.
God help us if the Army starts changing our foreign policy on its own.

Second, as to the quoted comment, one does not accept a commission to the Academy. One accepts an appointment to the Academy and earns that commission if one is successful in completing a rigorous four year program. Its not an exercise in semantics, its a very crucial difference.

I respect your post but active military having a voice doesn't have to mean changing U.S foreign policy.....it could mean just giving the troops a good chance @ winning a war (however I don't agree w/ the Iraq war) ie..proper troop level & having enough body armour.

[teena]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Second, as to the quoted comment, one does not accept a commission to the Academy. One accepts an appointment to the Academy and earns that commission if one is successful in completing a rigorous four year program. Its not an exercise in semantics, its a very crucial difference.

It really is an exercise in semantics.

[teena]

Originally Posted by AXEAM

I think when the troops are not provided w/ body armour this counts as scandalous...how can the troops succeed if they are not given the proper equipment. Also they were sold a bill of false goods, it's hard to put your life on the line for B.S.

got ya

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Second, as to the quoted comment, one does not accept a commission to the Academy. One accepts an appointment to the Academy and earns that commission if one is successful in completing a rigorous four year program. Its not an exercise in semantics, its a very crucial difference.

I stand corrected on usage of terminology.

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by AXEAM

I think when the troops are not provided w/ body armour this counts as scandalous...how can the troops succeed if they are not given the proper equipment. Also they were sold a bill of false goods, it's hard to put your life on the line for B.S.

Couple of thoughts here:
Body armor is not a cure-all to the dangers of combat. Training, alertness, agility, and concentration are far more valuable. Body armor is a nice to have extra under some circumstances, it is not a crucial requirement. If you have done a tour in-country you know what I mean. If not, ask some soldiers who have. They will tell you that training and alertness to surroundings beat hell out of all the heavy gear that protects part but not all of you. When the IED goes off, your head, arms, and legs are not covered. In most cases your gut is not protected. If you are using ceramic plate insert armor it weighs a ton and slows you down way too much. If you are using layered kevlar its good but it still slows down your agility and puts you at risk. If you are in the blast radius of a serious package it really doesn't matter what you are wearing, you are history, if you are lucky. You are mangled ground meat if not. A soldier who can "smell" an ambush comes home more or less in one piece. One who relies on protective armor had better have a lot of good luck. Rely on training and knowing how to anticipate trouble and counter it and you will be OK, unless its just that your number is up.
The basic equipment furnished to the American Soldier is the best ever fielded in history. The extras can often come with a price in human vulnerability that no soldier wants to pay. A new kid may desperately want all the extras he has heard about. As that soldier gains experience he will learn to pick and choose the gear that really suits the particular mission in which he is engaged at that time.
How can troops succeed? When they are well trained, equiped with really REQUIRED gear, and led by good NCOs and good Officers they are truly an awesome force that can do just about anything required of it.
As to their being sold a false bill of goods, the Army is not sold its missions, it receives its missions from the National Command Authority and carries out those missions. Its not a matter of having to be sold on anything. As I have said before, in the American tradition the Army is the instrument of the Government, the Government is not the instrument of the Army. We are founded on the absolute principle of civilian control. We don't pick and choose the fights we feel like accepting, and there are plenty of times when the Army sure as hell is not overjoyed by its job. If you don't like the policy the Army has to carry out then vote to change the policy makers, but don't ask the Army to meddle in National Policy. This country doesn't do Juntas and Military take-overs. Soldiers vote and will do so, but we don't choose the jobs we are willing to accept. We just get on with the job we are assigned.
In an all-volunteer military the choice is whether or not to take the Oath and commit to service. Once that choice is made we are good for our word. Its hard to put your life on the line for anything, but that is what Soldiers do. It comes with the territory.

[AXEAM]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Couple of thoughts here:
Body armor is not a cure-all to the dangers of combat. Training, alertness, agility, and concentration are far more valuable. Body armor is a nice to have extra under some circumstances, it is not a crucial requirement. If you have done a tour in-country you know what I mean. If not, ask some soldiers who have. They will tell you that training and alertness to surroundings beat hell out of all the heavy gear that protects part but not all of you. When the IED goes off, your head, arms, and legs are not covered. In most cases your gut is not protected. If you are using ceramic plate insert armor it weighs a ton and slows you down way too much. If you are using layered kevlar its good but it still slows down your agility and puts you at risk. If you are in the blast radius of a serious package it really doesn't matter what you are wearing, you are history, if you are lucky. You are mangled ground meat if not. A soldier who can "smell" an ambush comes home more or less in one piece. One who relies on protective armor had better have a lot of good luck. Rely on training and knowing how to anticipate trouble and counter it and you will be OK, unless its just that your number is up.
The basic equipment furnished to the American Soldier is the best ever fielded in history. The extras can often come with a price in human vulnerability that no soldier wants to pay. A new kid may desperately want all the extras he has heard about. As that soldier gains experience he will learn to pick and choose the gear that really suits the particular mission in which he is engaged at that time.
How can troops succeed? When they are well trained, equiped with really REQUIRED gear, and led by good NCOs and good Officers they are truly an awesome force that can do just about anything required of it.
As to their being sold a false bill of goods, the Army is not sold its missions, it receives its missions from the National Command Authority and carries out those missions. Its not a matter of having to be sold on anything. As I have said before, in the American tradition the Army is the instrument of the Government, the Government is not the instrument of the Army. We are founded on the absolute principle of civilian control. We don't pick and choose the fights we feel like accepting, and there are plenty of times when the Army sure as hell is not overjoyed by its job. If you don't like the policy the Army has to carry out then vote to change the policy makers, but don't ask the Army to meddle in National Policy. This country doesn't do Juntas and Military take-overs. Soldiers vote and will do so, but we don't choose the jobs we are willing to accept. We just get on with the job we are assigned.
In an all-volunteer military the choice is whether or not to take the Oath and commit to service. Once that choice is made we are good for our word. Its hard to put your life on the line for anything, but that is what Soldiers do. It comes with the territory.

No offense but your post sounds like an Army info-commercial, not to say that you aren't making valid points b/c you are.. I spoke w/several active military members (when I worked @ the V.A hospital as a mental health therapist) who returned back from Iraq,the main concerns were not enough body armour, no metal under plates for their humvees or jeeps and not enough troops to do the job. Getting back to under plates for vehicles I've heard stories of units searching for scrap metal to jimmy rig it under the vehicles as a way of protection against IEDs. The arm forces of the United States of America should not have resort to such B.S as that. Another Big complaint was longer deployments then planned for...I know you and others will say thats the way it goes in war but I can understand the troops frustrations.

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by AXEAM

No offense but your post sounds like an Army info-commercial, not to say that you aren't making valid points b/c you are.. I spoke w/several active military members (when I worked @ the V.A hospital as a mental health therapist) who returned back from Iraq,the main concerns were not enough body armour, no metal under plates for their humvees or jeeps and not enough troops to do the job. Getting back to under plates for vehicals I've heard stories of units searching for scrap metal to jimmy rig it under the vehicals as a way of protection against IEDs. The arm forces of the United States of America should not have resort to such B.S as that. Another Big complaint was longer deployments then planned for...I know you and others will say thats the way it goes in war but I can understand the troops frustrations.

Inconvenience and frustration are valid points, and we all have read stories regarding unplanned and/or longer than expected deployments (please see thread titled "AVE ATQUE VALE") but my chief concern is that we understand that as in most things there are no simple answers. Improvised armor applied to vehicles not designed to carry the extra weight most often creates death traps for those who ride in them. One is usually better off using speed and agility along with street smarts to avoid/survive IEDs than to lumber sluggishly along in a grossly overloaded vehicle whose improvised armor not only fails to protect but actually adds to the shrapnel effect.
Our combat vehicles are very very good and can absorb a hell of a lot and still stay mission effective. Our logistics vehicles are also very good for the role they were designed to carry out. Unfortunately, they were not designed to carry armor as well as their payload of supplies, equipment, etc. When you add armor or under plating the suspension is over burdened and the cargo bed settles down low where it can cancel out the suspension, crimp the brake lines, and short out the electrical harness in addition to making the vehicle sluggish and hard to control. The troops in the Transportation Corps are always pointing this out.
Sorry if I sound like I am preaching, but this is a matter of terribly great importance to me. I got all my guys home alive and more or less in one piece, and I get wrapped around the axel when I see discussions about solutions or "improvements" that if followed or applied could actually get soldiers a ride home in a rubber bag. Its a knee jerk protective response for the troops that I saw in my Dad when he talks about Viet Nam (Company Commander on his first tour and Battalion Commander on his second) and now I find in myself (one tour, CO of Armored Cavalry Troop) when the subject of deployment comes up.
dekeguy
Captain, USAR
Been there, done that, hope I don't have to do it again, but ready if needed.

[AXEAM]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Inconvenience and frustration are valid points, and we all have read stories regarding unplanned and/or longer than expected deployments (please see thread titled "AVE ATQUE VALE") but my chief concern is that we understand that as in most things there are no simple answers. Improvised armor applied to vehicles not designed to carry the extra weight most often creates death traps for those who ride in them. One is usually better off using speed and agility along with street smarts to avoid/survive IEDs than to lumber sluggishly along in a grossly overloaded vehicle whose improvised armor not only fails to protect but actually adds to the shrapnel effect.
Our combat vehicles are very very good and can absorb a hell of a lot and still stay mission effective. Our logistics vehicles are also very good for the role they were designed to carry out. Unfortunately, they were not designed to carry armor as well as their payload of supplies, equipment, etc. When you add armor or under plating the suspension is over burdened and the cargo bed settles down low where it can cancel out the suspension, crimp the brake lines, and short out the electrical harness in addition to making the vehicle sluggish and hard to control. The troops in the Transportation Corps are always pointing this out.
Sorry if I sound like I am preaching, but this is a matter of terribly great importance to me. I got all my guys home alive and more or less in one piece, and I get wrapped around the axel when I see discussions about solutions or "improvements" that if followed or applied could actually get soldiers a ride home in a rubber bag. Its a knee jerk protective response for the troops that I saw in my Dad when he talks about Viet Nam (Company Commander on his first tour and Battalion Commander on his second) and now I find in myself (one tour, CO of Armored Cavalry Troop) when the subject of deployment comes up.
dekeguy
Captain, USAR
Been there, done that, hope I don't have to do it again, but ready if needed.

No you're not preaching. Your posts are both educational and interesting it's always good to have an opinion from someone who has actually served in Iraq.

[teena]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Couple of thoughts here:
Body armor is not a cure-all to the dangers of combat. Training, alertness, agility, and concentration are far more valuable. Body armor is a nice to have extra under some circumstances, it is not a crucial requirement. If you have done a tour in-country you know what I mean. If not, ask some soldiers who have. They will tell you that training and alertness to surroundings beat hell out of all the heavy gear that protects part but not all of you.

I was wondering about that. I was thinking that they must have made some type of changes to the Flak(sp) vest that I didnt know about that had people in uproar.

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by teena

I was wondering about that. I was thinking that they must have made some type of changes to the Flak(sp) vest that I didnt know about that had people in uproar.

From what I hear from the guys coming back most recently they say that there have been some good improvements to flak vests, but that still leaves your arms, legs, gut, and butt, not to mention your head (helmets do a good job but don't cover everything) pretty much hanging out in the breeze.
I gather you have been there? Did you find the same or similar reactions to improvised armor being more dangerous than it was worth and flak vests being very useful sometimes, but not all the time?
The thing that amazes me is that so many people can't quite grasp that war is loud, dirty, dangerous, and not really much fun. There are no easy fixes and no cure-alls. In my outfit we pushed training, training, and more training. I inspected gear again and again to make sure it was in good working order and not liable to malfunction when you needed it. I'm sure my guys thought I was a real pain in the butt about all that, but I got them all home alive. We got quite a few "scratches" but no KIAs. I firmly believe that good and continuing training and maintenance of your gear really load the odds up in your favor.
I never wanted to write a NOK notification letter and, thank God, I never had to. Please God, that I never will have to.

[teena]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

From what I hear from the guys coming back most recently they say that there have been some good improvements to flak vests, but that still leaves your arms, legs, gut, and butt, not to mention your head (helmets do a good job but don't cover everything) pretty much hanging out in the breeze.
I gather you have been there?

Naw.

Originally Posted by dekeguy

The thing that amazes me is that so many people can't quite grasp that war is loud, dirty, dangerous, and not really much fun. There are no easy fixes and no cure-alls. In my outfit we pushed training, training, and more training. I inspected gear again and again to make sure it was in good working order and not liable to malfunction when you needed it. I'm sure my guys thought I was a real pain in the butt about all that, but I got them all home alive. We got quite a few "scratches" but no KIAs. I firmly believe that good and continuing training and maintenance of your gear really load the odds up in your favor.
I never wanted to write a NOK notification letter and, thank God, I never had to. Please God, that I never will have to.

I think that, generally, Americans will go along with a war-as long as it over quickly and there will be some tangible benefit to us. But the number of casualties, the monetay cost AND we arent getting much out of the deal- is wearing on the American public.

[AXEAM]

Originally Posted by teena

Naw.
I think that, generally, Americans will go along with a war-as long as it over quickly and there will be some tangible benefit to us. But the number of casualties, the monetay cost AND we arent getting much out of the deal- is wearing on the American public.

You have to remember Iraq is a different type of war, this war was one man's personal grudge it wasn't necessary....in the context of the so called war on terrorism. Also the military is now shipping in some new armour vehicles into Iraq (name coyotes & other name I can't remember.) this is directly related to troops speaking up against the lack of under plating on the current vehicles.

[06pilot]

For most combat troops in the war, its not about politics or the President or anything. Its about survival. Plain and simple. I just returned from Iraq in May and I can tell you we go out on a mission and our only goal in life is comming back with all our people with all our limbs. Thats it. What you guys se on TV and debate about we arent thinking about. Troopss that stay in the rear at the base, well , they dont really understand either. Life for them is totally different than for a combat Troop.

[AXEAM]

Originally Posted by 06pilot

For most combat troops in the war, its not about politics or the President or anything. Its about survival. Plain and simple. I just returned from Iraq in May and I can tell you we go out on a mission and our only goal in life is comming back with all our people with all our limbs. Thats it. What you guys se on TV and debate about we arent thinking about. Troopss that stay in the rear at the base, well , they dont really understand either. Life for them is totally different than for a combat Troop.

Some troops may feel the way you stated, however in talking to active duty military members many do blame Bush and his silly puffed up Cowboy ways for the Iraq mess.

[TheGeneral]

Originally Posted by teena

Military personnel are not 'authorized' to have a vocal political opinion. I am very divided on if it is fair or not. I am more inclined toward believing that military personnel should shoot, communicate and move out-keeping their opinions inside their head. Our military system is deigned in a fashion that is contrary to democracy-to minimize dissention within units. Each member is well aware of the rules prior to enlisting. Violators can can incur judcial action.

Unless they are telling us something we dont already know, i think the media should not encourage them to possibly ruin their careers.

We are "authorized" to have a vocal political opinion. Just not in uniform or while conducting official military duties!!