# MPs caught mud wrestling



## mdh (7 Feb 2005)

From CNN..

Female soldier demoted for mud wrestling
Monday, February 7, 2005 Posted: 7:50 AM EST (1250 GMT) 

RALEIGH, North Carolina (AP) -- A female member of a National Guard military police unit was demoted for indecent exposure after a mud-wrestling party at the Army-run Camp Bucca detention center in Iraq, a military spokesman said Sunday.

The party occurred October 30, as the 160th Military Police Battalion, an Army Reserve Unit from Tallahassee, Florida, prepared to turn over its duties to the Asheville-based 105th Military Police Battalion, said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, spokesman for detainee operations at Camp Bucca.

In the course of the transfer of duties, "some individuals in their exuberance decided to put together a mud-wrestling thing," Johnson said Sunday by telephone. "There were females involved, and some members of the 105th also became involved, one female soldier in particular."

Following an inquiry, that soldier was demoted and placed on restriction for participating in the event, specifically for indecent exposure, he said.

Four or five other members of the 105th who were spectators received counseling, Johnson said.

Johnson did not release the name of the demoted soldier. However, she was identified by the Daily News as Deanna Allen, 19, and the New York newspaper's identification was confirmed by her mother, Ladyna Waldrop of Black Mountain.

Allen was demoted from specialist to private first class. She is still a guard at the camp, the newspaper said.

The Daily News said it was given 30 of the party photos, and it printed several in Sunday's editions.

Waldrop said her daughter is devastated by the events.

"It was just a thing where she was coerced by a bunch of people, and with all the excitement, she lost her sanity for a moment and that's all it took," she said.

"It seems like they're just singling her out," Waldrop said. "She's the one getting all the publicity and punishment, and that's not right."

The 105th took over Camp Bucca on November 1, and photos of the party were found after the 160th had left Iraq, Johnson said, adding that he understood a soldier had turned over the photos to commanders.

Results of the inquiry were sent to the commander of the 160th, he said. "It appears from the commander's inquiry that this was primarily put on by troops of the 160th, who are no longer under our command," Johnson said.

It wasn't immediately clear Sunday if any members of the 160th had been disciplined.

The party was isolated, Johnson said. "Detainees were nowhere in the vicinity," he said. "They had no possible way of seeing what occurred."

A scandal involving the separate Abu Ghraib prison erupted last spring when photographs were made public showing soldiers taunting naked Iraqi prisoners.

Waldrop said she communicates with her daughter almost every day via Internet instant messaging, and they also see each other by means of a Web camera. "She's very tearful, very upset," Waldrop said.

Waldrop said she was proud of her daughter for joining the National Guard. "But I hate that this happened, and so does she," she said. The party "just got way out of hand, and before you know it, pictures were taken, and she didn't have time to react.

"My mom and I have both had talks with her that she's supposed to be an example for her country."


----------



## dutchie (7 Feb 2005)

Is it just me, or do US Reserve MPs get themselves in a lot of shiite?

If I was them, I wouldn't go near an Iraqi prison!


----------



## Infanteer (7 Feb 2005)

Are you just trying to stir the shit-pot?

If you equate one's self-reflection on their combat experience with indecent exposure while on operations (and having pictures taken of it), then you've got a problem with perspective.

So, you've posted a stupid article with no commentary and an inflammatory title, now what's your point?


----------



## RCA (7 Feb 2005)

Stupid is as Stupid does

You would have figured that nothing is secret and eventually most indiscretions come to light (especially idiots with cameras). After all the other bullshit, you would think people would learn. 

 However it seems to me the the lower ranks are getting the shaft, and the Chain of Command (Coy/Bn) isn't being held accountable for the troops under them. Although details are sketchy, one more incident that starting to seem "something is rotten in Denmark" (at least in the ANG MP world anyway).

As for the General, he maybe indiscreet at times, but I don't put him in the stupid category.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Feb 2005)

RCA said:
			
		

> As for the General, he maybe indiscreet at times, but I don't put him in the stupid category.



Thank you.


----------



## mdh (7 Feb 2005)

Not saying that the General was stupid but it is interesting that an NCO can have their career negatively affected but the General gets a reprimand for saying something far more controversial (at least in my view.) But no, I'm not trying to stir the crap-pot - if you like I'll change the title, mdh


----------



## Infanteer (7 Feb 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> Not saying that the General was stupid but it is interesting that an NCO can have their career negatively affected but the General gets a reprimand for saying something far more controversial (at least in my view.)



http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/278075p-238272c.html

It appears that the soldier who was disciplined has had her tits all over the news.   Again, you're comparing apples to oranges.

The General, true to his character, was a little more open about his experience then some of the "arm-chair generals" would like.   Is he unprofessional?   Ask the thousands of Marines who've faced fire under him.

The Specialist (not an NCO) was breaking any number of regulations (Article 15 is a good start) by having nudie pics taken of her in a suggestive situation by wrestling around in her underwear for her fellow soldiers - the problem with this case is most likely due to the fact that this is while she was on operations in Iraq (re: Army time).   Sure, we may all like to blow off steam when we are in private (Zulu warrior.... >), but you have to be discreet about this (I know this from personal experience).  She broke the rules and got caught for it.

I don't know about you, but I fail to see the connection of "controversies" and the comparison of the two with regards to professionalism (what rules did the General break).


----------



## mdh (7 Feb 2005)

I don't know about you, but I fail to see the connection of "controversies" and the comparison of the two with regards to professionalism.

No you're absolutely right on that score - and I'm not trying to compare them on any professional level. The linkage is weak, but for some reason - I'm in the mood to be the barrack room socialist today.  By the way what's Zulu Warrior? - sounds like something I'd be interested in.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Feb 2005)

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/278075p-238272c.html

I thank God that I will never have you as one of my leaders.   Did you go to RMC and if so what did they teach you?


----------



## mdh (7 Feb 2005)

Did you go to RMC and if so what did they teach you?

RMC? NO! No need to get that insulting,  ;D

cheers, mdh


----------



## Infanteer (7 Feb 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> No you're absolutely right on that score - and I'm not trying to compare them on any professional level.





> Not saying that the General was stupid but it is interesting that an NCO can have their career negatively affected but the General gets a reprimand for saying something far more controversial



How else is this to be construed.



> The linkage is weak, but for some reason - I'm in the mood to be the barrack room socialist today.



Well, I don't see how dragging the Gen Mattis issue down to this level is a very good effort of doing so.




> By the way what's Zulu Warrior? - sounds like something I'd be interested in.



Now you're betraying your inexperience.  If and when you learn, you'll understand why you're not going to get the answer here.


----------



## mdh (7 Feb 2005)

Now you're betraying your inexperience.   If and when you learn, you'll understand why you're not going to get the answer here.


----------



## CBH99 (8 Feb 2005)

Not to add to much of a meaningless post...but now that I'm out here in the civy-world, I'd find a lawnchair, crack a beer - and enjoy the show.        8)

Does anybody else feel as if perhaps they are making it a bigger deal than it needs to be?  That perhaps the media is just adding fuel to the fire?  If it was an isolated party, on their off-time, away from any sort of detainees - does anybody else feel that caution should be in order?

Don't stick your bayonettes through my throat just yet guys.  Back when I was in, we had the occassional "party in the field".  Not a real party, obviously - but we had our times when we went a little overboard and were pretty casual.  I can only imagine that after spending a year in Iraq, and being on your way home - some of the troops, who have been through hell every single day for an entire year, might feel a bit joyous and celebrate together.  Its not fair that this one female is getting all the flak, while the others and her seniors are getting off rather easily.

Meh, I'm rambling.  Call me casual, but I don't think it needs to be a big deal.  Some soldiers got a little rowdy, and had their own little "incident" while being replaced with another battalion, and are on their way home.  Sure, they could have been smarter about it - especially since ANG MP's and cameras seem to be a bad mix these days.  But in the grand picture of things, is it really that big of a deal?  Or is it just the media making it bigger than it needs to be?


----------



## mdh (8 Feb 2005)

Who would have guessed that being an American MP was that much fun!


----------



## Slim (8 Feb 2005)

If I ever wind up in the CF again and see a guy with a camera anyplace near me I'm going to give him one warning to get rid of it, then if he/she doesn't comply I'm going to break it!

MDH- the press will say any and everything to get themselves and their slimy journalistic careers noticed. If they have to do it on the back of soldiers you can bet that they won't think twice about it. Posting an article like that only helps their cause.

Think on it...

Slim


----------



## pbi (8 Feb 2005)

Boobs are news to the US-look at the endless silly fixation about JJ's exposure on TV-probably due to the Puritan heritage ;D.  As well, naughty ARNG MPs are the flavour of the month for the US media. Yawn.

If you put young(and US soldiers are generally much younger than ours) and incurably horny men and women toether at close quarters under lots of stress (LOTS more than what the average Canadian is facing on any mission right now, due partly to operational conditions, partly to US Army personnel policies that we would probably consider draconian), and add to that the fact that as ARNG they may not be as "career-oriented" as Active Army would be, WTF do you expect? We are wrong to compare our older Regular Army, with its very comfy deployed lifestyle and strictly limited and predictable six-month tours, with low levels of danger for most people (most, I said....) to what US soldiers in Iraq face. Any comparisons are IMHO spurious.

If anybody thinks that stuff like this isn't going to happen under the conditions I described, you must have joined after coffee break this morning. To me the real questions that need to be asked are not what Ptes and Specs did, but those questions concerning the immediate leadership: the senior NCOs who reportedly organized this. Did they sexually exploit subordinates? Did they encourage female soldiers to act in a sexual manner? What were they thinking of? That is what they need to examine, not worry if some silly young troop dropped her kit and flashed her stuff in the heat of the moment.

I would be very VERY surprised that anybody at the battalion level knew about this. The US Army, from what I can make out, is extremely strict and intolerant of this sort of thing , and I would think that if the CO or Bn CSM knew they would have squashed it and taken action. If there is anybody out there who thinks that the CO (or even the OC) knows what the troops are up to 100% of the time, then I suggest you also must have drawn your kit this morning. Troops can be quite skilled at doing things on their own, believe me. I've been on both sides of the fence on that one

Cheers


----------



## Armageddon (8 Feb 2005)

This is definitely one of the times I have to agree with PBI.  Where is all the leadership in this scandal.  Why haven't we heard anything about the organizers getting charged.  I mean, I do agree that it was poor judgement on her part to be flashing the crowd (especially when there were those stupid enough to bring a camera to it) but what about those that helped facilitate this obviously very sexual escapade.
  I mean I personally don't see the biggest issue with the actual fact that this girl flashed anyone.  I am sure that pretty much everyone that is reading this forum has seen random breasts at some point in their life.  That being said if this girl is getting charged for acting unprofessionally even in their off time then I really have to question why the organizers and others who went and watched aren't getting charged.  I know the whole scape goat theory but I don't agree with it.  These girls were the last in a chain of events...if those who organized it don't get in some form of trouble then they can/will always go find other girls to participate and so what if the girls get charged it is no skin off their nose.  It doesn't stop the action if that is what the US is trying for.  Anyways, that is my rant for now.  :flame:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Feb 2005)

Worse has gone on at smokers I've been at.


----------



## Gunnar (8 Feb 2005)

The US fascination with breasts is downright unhealthy...not that they're fascinated, but that it's seen as such a big deal.  I thought the Puritans died out...


Here's an example of how that article could have been written:

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4104


----------



## pbi (8 Feb 2005)

Now--_that's _ funny!

Cheers


----------



## RCA (8 Feb 2005)

And when shit hits the fan at smokers, the CO wears it.

 Granted, the CO/OC might have no direct knowledge, but certain SNCO would at least heard, and might have suggested a better way to let off steam. And regardless of circumstances, it is known as maintaining good order and discipline and not been prudish about bare breasts. Iraq is not Mardi Gras, and yes, female soldiers are expected to keep a higher standard then their female college sisters. 

 If this was an singularly isolated incident, ha ha and move on. But as we all know, as with the situation with the Airborne, these thinks take a life of its own, and no good can come from it.


----------



## Paul Gagnon (8 Feb 2005)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> The US fascination with breasts is downright unhealthy...not that they're fascinated, but that it's seen as such a big deal.  I thought the Puritans died out...



So many things that are inconcequential make the front page in the 'States. That Puritan heritage seems to have shaped many Amerrican mores. It is doubtfful that their influence will ever be removed and they will continually get all worked up about nothing.


----------



## mdh (8 Feb 2005)

If I ever wind up in the CF again and see a guy with a camera anyplace near me I'm going to give him one warning to get rid of it, then if he/she doesn't comply I'm going to break it!

MDH- the press will say any and everything to get themselves and their slimy journalistic careers noticed. If they have to do it on the back of soldiers you can bet that they won't think twice about it. Posting an article like that only helps their cause.

Think on it...

Slim

I did think on it which is why I changed the post.   The original intent was hasty and ill-conceived - and I was called on it - which is the way it should be on this fine forum.

However, I don't regret posting a legitimate news item.   Not all journalists are "slimy" and I've dealt with a lot of them over the years.   It seems to me that in instances like this we're better off shooting someone in the chain of command - not the messenger, cheers, mdh


----------



## Ammogod (8 Feb 2005)

Come guy's most of us have been on tour or on Ex, and would have loved to see a few 19 yr old hard bodies mud wrestling in the mud, For me that would be a memory I would charse, As for camera's There is nothing worse then being at a Smoker and some A$$ brings out a camera, to show the folks back home what a great time we are having, Next thing you know all the wife's on the base your at think your overseas having a great time. 

Been there

It has cost some great family men a lot of unnecessary stress.


----------



## Franko (8 Feb 2005)

Ammogod said:
			
		

> Come guy's most of us have been on tour or on Ex, and would have loved to see a few 19 yr old hard bodies mud wrestling in the mud.........It has cost some great family men a lot of unnecessary stress.



That's what R&R is for.....at least for the majority of the troops who think before they do anything that may bite them in the arse when they get home.

Regards


----------



## dutchie (8 Feb 2005)

Ammogod said:
			
		

> Come guy's most of us have been on tour or on Ex, and would have loved to see a few 19 yr old hard bodies mud wrestling in the mudIt has cost some great family men a lot of unnecessary stress.



Never dip your pen in company ink.


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (8 Feb 2005)

> partly to US Army personnel policies that we would probably consider draconian



Just out of curiosity which policies are you referring to?  The word "draconian" automatically piques my interest  ;D


----------



## Thompson_JM (8 Feb 2005)

Inapropriate, but the media coverage is definatly over the top.... i say deal with it, and move on... sadly as has already been stated the US seems to be Breast Obsessed.


Cheers
  Josh


----------



## mdh (8 Feb 2005)

Breasts? Did you say breasts on this site? Where?


----------



## Bert (8 Feb 2005)

Alot of this is perspective and security ROs.

While on base or on deployment, there are areas and situations where cameras are
not allowed.   This is controllable or should be by the chain of command.   In situations
or areas where cameras may be allowed, sometimes a well timed buddy photo of a towel 
falling off or pic of a practical joke can be taken out of context or seen beyond the scope
of the unit.   The internet provides an easy way to distribute anything and everyone has
an opinion.

I'm not in the US military and won't judge if any rules were broken by the participants or
the guy with the camera.    Taht may be another issue.   However, I understand completely 
Slim's fear of a buddy taking pics with a camera and then distributing the pics.   Anything 
anyone does can come under scrutiny whether its fair or not.   Without having an context 
of the situation other than the article, the guy who submitted the pics sounds like a 
simple "platoon fu**er".


----------



## pbi (8 Feb 2005)

I_Drive_Planes said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity which policies are you referring to?   The word "draconian" automatically piques my interest   ;D



IMHO the most important phrase in my sentence is "..._that we would consider_...".  Therefore the word "draconian" is a relative one depending on who you are. Three policies that I have observed here at first hand include US Army (Active and Res) doing one year tours as a minimum; extensions of several months with very little warning; and re-touring with less than a year's interlude (we do that do but it is a heavily waivered process-here it seems to be done with no questions asked). These policies are not universal: USMC here do 6-7 months, while Airforce do 3-4. Army Reserve Doctors do 90 days.

As well, I have also observed that the US system appears to do considerably less for its most junior people than we would be used to. Two examples are: leave travel while deployed: their leave allowance on an operation is considerably less generous than ours, and they do not get the "turnkey" leave travel planning service we get: most of it is apparently left to the individual to sort out on their own; second, I have noted that there does not seem to be the effort made to rotate people to keep them fresh: soldiers doing 12-hour shifts on tower duty for  a year, and duty officers doing twelve on/twelve off, for a year, with no days off except leave.

Be careful not to interpret my comments as a slight on the US Army: they are struggling with manpower, retention and operational issues at the same time that they are trying to undergo a Transformation considerably more radical than ours. They are in general far more mission focused than we are, because they have very little choice.

Cheers.


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (9 Feb 2005)

I'd be really interested to know the psychological effect of working people that hard, under that kind of stress, for those periods of time.  It can't be good, and they wonder why they have a retention problem.


----------



## Slim (9 Feb 2005)

Although I have never attended university or college I have many friends that have...

And I have to say that the stuff THEY do is ten times worse than anything the CF has ever done (including the CAR stuff!!) yet no one ever seems to take them to task over it?!

I think that the press knows that filthy stuff involving female members of the armed forces (theirs or ours...) will sell papers, where as everyone expects college kids (who are roughly the same age as this lot) to do silly things.

MDH

Sorry...I didn't realize that you already had teethmarks in your...post ;D or I wouldn't have spoken.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## pbi (9 Feb 2005)

I_Drive_Planes said:
			
		

> I'd be really interested to know the psychological effect of working people that hard, under that kind of stress, for those periods of time.   It can't be good, and they wonder why they have a retention problem.



Well, as I tried to point out, it is all relative. If we treated soldiers in 2005 as we treated them in 1955, we would have some issues too (not suggesting that the US Army pers policies are outdated-do not misunderstand me...). Expectations are totally different now, although the soldiers in 1955 likely thought themselves far better treated than soldiers in 1915.  

Our Canadian expectations of how the military will treat us are very high: I daresay the highest in the world, all things considered. And that is important: the global situation in a military force. US Army soldiers are, in my opinion, more accepting of hardship and deprivation than we would be, because the GWOT gives them a very clear mission focus. As well, IMHO their junior people do not expect as much as ours do, so they are generally OK with stuff that we would bitch about like crazy.

All that said, my conversations here have led me to believe that the US Army in particular, and especially the ARNG and USAR, is experiencing (or will shortly experience...) serious recruiting and retention issues that do not seem to be as critical in the other US services. I stress that this is not a scientfic study but more of a survey of opinion from a number of different ranks and components over six months. I stand ready to be corrected by any of our US friend on this site.

Cheers.


----------



## childs56 (10 Feb 2005)

For all of you that say cameras are bad, I will say i think you are wrong, to blame an individual for taking pictures is wrong> if you do the crime you do the time, to say. we seem to place our blame on everyone else, except our selves. When i was in Bosnia i video taped some local police officers dealing drugs, After the local IPTF seen the tape they said well if you hadnt taken the tape their would be no evidnce of this happening, so dont so it agian. I got alittle un even tempered at this comment. needless to say i said a few words and was told to shut it by the Sgt Major. I was then ordered by my chain of command to cease using my camera on patrols. Well lets see, what if you do a search and want to tape the contents of a car or a house, a great way to make note of the stuff inside. Well a couple weeks later i was asked to use my camera to tape a local gathering of some  VIP's, you knwo the ones no one like, any ways i did this and got 8 hrs of not much to gawk at.  another example was when we had charge bags ignite on the Gun line during an excercise, caused a huge scare and some damage to the gun, well i pulled out my trusty camera and took some pics of which a few were handed in to the higher ups for initial review. These pics were the first and formost of that accident, they had real time accuracy of nothing being disturbed, so they were good pics. 
At the end of the day we all have to use our heads as to what and how we do things. if we think it is wrong then dont do it. The people with the cameras have provided us with some real good pictures of actual combat and other great things liek smiles on the locals faces, so lets not be hasty in out decsions here,.. 
One last thing the last person who kicked, and broke a piece of my personalle equipent payed dearly for it. think twice before destroying a persons camera or other property, it may come back to haunt you. 

Guys take care and remember smile  your on camera


----------



## COBRA-6 (10 Feb 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Although I have never attended university or college I have many friends that have...
> 
> And I have to say that the stuff THEY do is ten times worse than anything the CF has ever done (including the CAR stuff!!) yet no one ever seems to take them to task over it?!
> 
> I think that the press knows that filthy stuff involving female members of the armed forces (theirs or ours...) will sell papers, where as everyone expects college kids (who are roughly the same age as this lot) to do silly things.



I spent three years in residence at university, and all I can say is that you got that right! lol... never underestimate the ability of college age kids to find/make trouble... or the ability of the media to sensationalize the smallest story into the next nipplegate... you see more boobs at a hip concert for god's sake...

Also, every time I hear "reserve military police _battalion_" or "civil affairs _brigade_" it blows my mind...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Feb 2005)

CTD you'll make a great reporter one day.  Its not the fact that people are taking pictures or video.  Its when those pictures or video or used in part but not as a hole therefore creating the possiblity of misconcerptions ie Rodney King.


----------



## pbi (10 Feb 2005)

> After the local IPTF seen the tape they said well if you hadnt taken the tape their would be no evidnce of this happening, so dont so it agian. I got alittle un even tempered at this comment. needless to say i said a few words and was told to shut it by the Sgt Major. I was then ordered by my chain of command to cease using my camera on patrols.



Really? Are you saying that the chain of command conspired with IPTF to hide local police wrongdoing?

Cheers


----------



## mdh (10 Feb 2005)

Well, as I tried to point out, it is all relative. If we treated soldiers in 2005 as we treated them in 1955, we would have some issues too (not suggesting that the US Army pers policies are outdated-do not misunderstand me...). Expectations are totally different now, although the soldiers in 1955 likely thought themselves far better treated than soldiers in 1915.   

Our Canadian expectations of how the military will treat us are very high: I daresay the highest in the world, all things considered. And that is important: the global situation in a military force. US Army soldiers are, in my opinion, more accepting of hardship and deprivation than we would be, because the GWOT gives them a very clear mission focus. As well, IMHO their junior people do not expect as much as ours do, so they are generally OK with stuff that we would ***** about like crazy.

All that said, my conversations here have led me to believe that the US Army in particular, and especially the ARNG and USAR, is experiencing (or will shortly experience...) serious recruiting and retention issues that do not seem to be as critical in the other US services. I stress that this is not a scientfic study but more of a survey of opinion from a number of different ranks and components over six months. I stand ready to be corrected by any of our US friend on this site.


PBI,

Your post sparked something I've been thinking about.   I remember reading a book by the journalist David Frum, a history of the 1970s, in which he noted that the US military became increasingly detached and isolated from mainstream society in the wake of the Vietnam War.   The   US Army in particular suffered severe recruiting problems after the draft was lifted.   It seemed that military culture became more and more isolated - if not utterly inimical to the pop culture mores of the era. (Having lived through the 70s as a cadet and vry young reservist I can remember the almost relentless hostility to all things military, having short hair was an invitation to confrontation).

I'm wondering from your rather unique vantage point if you think the US Army is too conservative as an institution (given current social trends in America) and that given factors such as Hollywood's nearly unanimous opposition (and the impact pop culture inevitably has on young people) to the war in Iraq whether or not we're seeing a possible reaction against the military brewing - a kind of broad swing back to the cynicism and skepticism of those times?

I know these are very different times, a very different war, but any war has a tendency to exhaust a society and engender profound reaction - (think of post- WWI and the pacifism it inspired, think of WW2 and the angry young men of the 1950s.)

When I think about the incident with Rumsfeld where an outspoken soldier managed to embarrass a Secretary of Defense, the Ward Churchill incident, falling recruitment, the mounting casualties, etc, I do wonder if we're seeing a sea change.   Not very scientific or even systematic but still....

Cheers, mdh


----------



## pbi (10 Feb 2005)

I don't think the US Army is isolated from its society. Rather, quite the opposite. I think the US Army to a great extent reflects "real" mainstream America much more than the opinons of the Rodeo Drive set. America has aways had (IMHO) great wellsprings of social conservatism, and from time to time these become the driving force in society: I would offer the US in the 1950's as an example. I believe they are holding sway in the US now. There is little doubt in my mind that the same conservative social trends that are so powerful in the US are reflected in the make up of the Army, particularly when I see so many ARNG and USAR soldiers, "citizen soldiers" whom we normally consider to be even more reliable indicators of society than Regular soldiers. 

Organized religion, for example, plays a much bigger role in US society and politics than it does in Canada. Likewise in the US Army. For example, we start each working day here with a scriptural quote read by the CJTF Chaplain, as part of the morning shift change brief procedure. Now, as Canadians, with our almost ingrained belief in the separation of religion from government and its agencies, this would seem odd (some might even find it threatening...) but to the US folks here it is SOP. I do not say this to mock or fault the US: merely to make an observation.

I think we need to be careful not to overdo the attrition/retention thing. Yes, it is (or is rumoured to be) signifcant. Is the US Army falling apart. No. Is it combat incapable? No. 

Does it mean that the US Army is cut off from society, or becoming irrelevant to mainstream thought? No, I don't think so. My feeling is that the US Army (especially its Reserve component) had an inept and ill-focused recruiting program that produced a disproportionate number of "job-seekers". When "the bell" went, these people realized that they were going to have to ante up and I think that a number of them don't like it. And, BTW, IMHO in the past we have had similar stupid recruiting with similar unhappy results (see other threads on this site...)



> When I think about the incident with Rumsfeld where an outspoken soldier managed to embarrass a Secretary of Defense



I would say that the jury is out in the US Army as to whether or not he actually embarassed the SecDef. I have heard widely expressed opinions that the soldier was a "plant", an attention-seeker, or a sh*t disturbing Reservist who was trying to highlight the cracks in the Active-Res relationship in the US Army, in order to further the Res agenda.

If anything, I think we will see US society become more conservative than many of the people serving in its military who are actually out in the world, working side by side in foreign countries with Coalition allies, NGOs, local nationals etc and may have a much more balanced view of them than some of the folks back home.

Cheers.


----------



## childs56 (10 Feb 2005)

pbi yes i beleive that the chain of command on advice from the crooked IPTF conspired to hide the wrong doing of the local thugs (police). The politics of that country and more leave something to be desired. We have to think when we have memebers doing a job whos country is as bad as the country we are in, how are we suppose to rely on them to do a good and impartial job. This is not to say they do not have very professional people, all i am saying is if the rewards show they turn a blind eye to things (if they are crooked). I regret that the chain of command handeld the situation as they did, we were their to ensure these local thugs were doing their job and not doing as they pleased. We failed that one miserbly, and i regret that fact. But as they say their are bigger fish to fry. 
As for making a good reporter one day well we will see, maybe maybe not i have a thing about having peopel pose for action shots, while pretending to work. That is unless they are for a real funny pic.  I am off to work, take care


----------



## pbi (10 Feb 2005)

> pbi yes i beleive that the chain of command on advice from the crooked IPTF conspired to hide the wrong doing of the local thugs (police). The politics of that country and more leave something to be desired. We have to think when we have memebers doing a job whos country is as bad as the country we are in, how are we suppose to rely on them to do a good and impartial job



This is not at all surprising. Particularly on UN missions I have noticed that a number of the international police contingents were useless corrupt rubbish. I recall when on the UN mission in Mozambique, UNCIVPOL brought in the Brazilian police to "_professionalize_" the Mozambican Police. As far as I know the main claim to fame of the Brazilian police is murdering street kids. Exactly as you say, there needs to be some selectivity as to what nations will do what job, where. The idea that bringing some of these ratbags on an international mission will somehow "improve" them is IMHO a farce: it merely presents them with new fields for criminal activties.

Cheers.


----------



## FastEddy (11 Feb 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> CTD you'll make a great reporter one day.   Its not the fact that people are taking pictures or video.   Its when those pictures or video or used in part but not as a hole therefore creating the possiblity of misconcerptions ie Rodney King.




CFL, maybe your right about CTD or maybe not, but lets face it, every-body loves a whistle blower,

They kind of give you a nice warm feeling that they are watching your six (with camera in hand).

But back on topic, this U.S. Female seems to be getting the short end of the stick. I hope the clever SOB
who brought forward those pictures, feels real good about Him/herself. They've really served their Comrades In Arms a Great Service.


----------

