# Exploding myths about the US military



## a_majoor (20 Jun 2006)

We all see it in the press, redneck soldiers, minorities used as cannon fodder, inability to meet recruiting targets and uneducated soldiers. (come to think of it, we hear it about ourselves as well)

Of course, when you shine the cold, hard light of truth on the matter....

http://combatjumpstar.blogspot.com/2006/06/myths-about-us-military.html



> *Myths about the US Military *
> 
> Over the last few years, I've read and had repeated to me by anti war, anti military elements, many myths about today's Military. Predictably, I've also seen plenty of these myths advanced by the MSM as well. I thought I'd share a few that I'm sure we've all seen and heard numerous times, and then give you the actual facts that contradict these myths. The next time you have someone come up and start spitting any of these at you, hopefully you'll remember this post, and be able to hit them with real facts.
> 
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Jun 2006)

Sounds like a solid guy.  Think you can recruit CJS to pop over here from time to time?


----------



## tamouh (24 Jun 2006)

Anyone with a site and computer can make up numbers and statements, I didn't see any sources listed there , where did he come up with these "facts" ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jun 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Anyone with a site and computer can make up numbers and statements, I didn't see any sources listed there , where did he come up with these "facts" ?



Just interested, or are you disputing them?


----------



## tamouh (24 Jun 2006)

I'd claim them uncredible due to the fact they lack any verifiable references. Obviously i'm not for nor against, but i'd request some references from the article poster.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Jun 2006)

So present sources and data refuting them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jun 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> I'd claim them uncredible due to the fact they lack any verifiable references. Obviously i'm not for nor against, but i'd request some references from the article poster.



and if you think we need to request clarification from a_majoor, you obviously haven't bothered to research the person your questioning.


----------



## couchcommander (24 Jun 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Anyone with a site and computer can make up numbers and statements, I didn't see any sources listed there , where did he come up with these "facts" ?



From one crazy revolutionary to another  - believe it or not those are true. 

*edit* And I'll take it:

Re: Recruiting - http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060609-13224.html
Re: Demographics - http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/demographics.htm
Re: Cannon Fodder - go read Michael Yon - http://www.michaelyon-online.com/


----------



## tamouh (24 Jun 2006)

> recceguy:
> and if you think we need to request clarification from a_majoor, you obviously haven't bothered to research the person your questioning.



I think u may want to read my posts again to know whom i'm referring to.


I'm glad you asked!

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/stmil.html   (An excellent and balanced reference btw)

First link. there are some facts in his post correct especially regarding High School education, but others incorrect regarding states recruitment numbers.

couchcommander: not entirely, but there are basis for it for sure. 

Note: The whole purpose here is to add credible source, I don't believe anyone with a blog should really claim a fact is 100% true or not without providing sources. I'm not siding with anyone here, just wanted to add credibility to the blog post.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jun 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> I think u may want to read my posts again to know whom i'm referring to.
> 
> 
> I'm glad you asked!
> ...



Then do so by posting supporting references. Sounds more like you want to discredit the blog at this point.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Jun 2006)

Nice brutal-to-navigate site linkage.   
How about the link to the specific information you found on recruiting targets.  I just burned 15 minutes looking and couldn't find any.  Lots of stuff on existing military, though.  
Tamouh, if you aren't refuting the facts, then why do you bring it up?
Arguing for the sake of arguing.  Don't we have a term for that?


----------



## Korus (24 Jun 2006)

> I'd claim them uncredible due to the fact they lack any verifiable references. Obviously i'm not for nor against, but i'd request some references from the article poster.




Click the link supplied in the original post, scroll half-way down the page into the comments, and you'll see an anonymous poster has called him for sources on there. He then happily provides 6 links as sources for his info.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jun 2006)

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> Click the link supplied in the original post, scroll half-way down the page into the comments, and you'll see an anonymous poster has called him for sources on there. He then happily provides 6 links as sources for his info.



...and that, I think, takes care of that.


----------



## paracowboy (24 Jun 2006)

tamouh,

you are rapidly wearing out even MY patience with your blatant trolling. And, as is well-known and documented, I am the most patient of men. I've gone to bat for you, before, but you pretty much stabbed me in the back.


----------



## tamouh (24 Jun 2006)

> you are rapidly wearing out even MY patience with your blatant trolling. And, as is well-known and documented, I am the most patient of men. I've gone to bat for you, before, but you pretty much stabbed me in the back



Sorry that you're feeling this way. I'm attempting my best to walk a very fine line in this forum while speaking my opinion of several of the items you've brought up.

In a balanced view, there is nothing improper about my post above. Somebody made a claim that was taken for granted with no proper investigation of any references or sources. I brought that matter to the attention of the person who quoted the original blog.

Prior to my first post here and prior to any investigations on my part on this subject, I didn't know the blog post was accurate or not and I had no preference to neither sides the blog post was referring to. But thought in the best interest of this forum and everyone to provide credible references. Additionally, the reference i've provided is full with wealthy information and statistics on many US military subjects.

I don't know how you reach the conclusion this is trolling. Trolling is putting information with no credible support for the only purpose of ignitig an argument. Everything i've mentioned in this post and others backed by credible sources or personal experiences.


----------



## Britney Spears (24 Jun 2006)

Sorry I'm late to the party, the computer ate my post when I tried to put it up. 



> Actually, it's not. In four of the last 5 years, the Army, which usually struggles a little more in recruiting, has met and exceeded it's goal for active duty recruits. For 2004, the Army's active duty goal was 77,00. They exceeded that by nearly 600. During the same 5 year period, The Navy, Airforce, and Marine Corps met or exceeded their recruiting goal. Oh, by the way, they've all done that every year since the terrorist attacks of September 11th. As for the numbers for this year. The Army made 104% of it's goal for March. The Air Force and Navy, 100%. The Marines, 102%.



Recruiting goals are not a meaningful measure of anything, despite it being thrown around all the time. Recruitment goals for the various services are not static, they are revised throughout the year in response to market conditions and whether the goals for the last months were being met. I exceed my standards for PT every month, which isn't hard since I'm the one who sets the standard. It is misleading to present them as evidence for increased enthusiasm and interest in the armed forces.

A look at active duty strength levels for all branches:

Oct 2001 - 1,157,947
Oct 2002 - 1,180,747
Oct 2003 - 1,195,652
Oct 2004 - 1,183,075
Oct 2005 - 1,145,951
Apr 2006 - 1,141,234

Note that strength levels have dropped 4.5% from the period Oct 2003-April 2006, while it had risen by a similar number from 2001-2003. I was not able to find similar numbers for reserve force, but from 2003 to 2004, the numbers for selected reserve( I gather this excludes IRR and standby reserve)  dropped from 875,072 to 851,395. The US armed forces has gotten smaller since starting the Iraq war. Is this because the situation in Iraq has stabilized to an extent that the armed forces can scale back their man power requirements? I doubt it. Considering that there are new programs in place in the US to attract and train air force and navy pers. for the combat arms trades, I'm going to guess that the recruitment numbers for combat arms trades are probably lower than ideal. If anyone has any numbers to prove or disprove that, I'm curious.  

The budget estimate  for advertising, recruiting, and examining in FY 2006 is $1433.1Mil, while it $1343.2 mil  in FY 2003 and $1238.2 mil in FY 2001, which, after adjusting for inflation, results in a negligible increase, but I would like to see a breakdown of recruiting cost per recruit, considering that the size of the armed forces has shrunk. Also, there is a common perception that recruiters are becoming more aggressive and proactive in their efforts. Of course, none of this factors in any monetary incentives brought in for the recruits themselves. If anyone wants to start an audit for that, I’ll be grateful. 
Source: DOD comptroller

All the above seems to indicate that the Iraq war is having some negative effect on recruiting numbers. I can't say how much, but it's defintely not the rosy picture that the author is trying to convey. 





> and if you think we need to request clarification from a_majoor, you obviously haven't bothered to research the person your questioning.



I believe the term for that is _"ipse dixits"_. Research never hurts.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Jun 2006)

tamouh, you didn't simply "bring it to the attention of the person quoting the original blog", you openly inferred that it might all be fabrication:



			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> Anyone with a site and computer can make up numbers and statements, I didn't see any sources listed there , where did he come up with these "facts" ?


----------



## tamouh (24 Jun 2006)

Britney: Interesting numbers, thanks for sharing your findings. There were also another post on this forum talking about recruiting numbers which at the end everyone seems to have agreed even though the number of new recruits is good, many drop off the service after few months due to either lack of interest, medical or other conditions.

Michael:

I'll quote a_major initial post:


> We all see it in the press, redneck soldiers, minorities used as cannon fodder, inability to meet recruiting targets and uneducated soldiers. (come to think of it, we hear it about ourselves as well)
> 
> Of course, when you shine the cold, hard light of truth on the matter....



The link was presented as a truthful fact though it lacked proper references. In addition, the link quoted was for a blog post, a far fetch from being anything official or credible. If the link was for a national media outlet or a non-profit organization, I'd not have bothered to comment on the initial post. But since the blog present itself as a fact, I'd to research the net to either support or debuff the blog itself.

As we are all aware the Internet has brought new meaning to credible sources. I'm finding the internet more as a source for people opinions than an actual source of valid information.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Jun 2006)

I am just curious of tamouhs credentials.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jun 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> If the link was for a national media outlet or a non-profit organization, I'd not have bothered to comment on the initial post.



Given the inaccuracies that have been rebutted by the Ruxted Group, I would say that the national media and npo's would be amongst the highest of suspect groups.


----------



## tamouh (24 Jun 2006)

> Given the inaccuracies that have been rebutted by the Ruxted Group, I would say that the national media and npo's would be amongst the highest of suspect groups.



I swear I wanted to add a comment beside my post saying "though I'd not trust anything the media says" , but I've decided to keep it simple and to the point. Nevertheless, I agree on your statement. For actual research i'd entrust university research papers, government research, credible non-profit organizations and private research group that has not conducted the research on behalf of any individual or commercial entity.


----------



## paracowboy (24 Jun 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Trolling is putting information with no credible support for the only purpose of ignitig an argument. Everything i've mentioned in this post and others backed by credible sources or personal experiences.


thanks for the clarification.

Smart-mouth me again, and you start up the ladder.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Jun 2006)

I agree lets explode the myth that the Army is not able to man the force. We are ahead of this years goal.Re-enlistments are above goal which means we are not losing experienced troops.The max age for enlisting has just been increased to 42, this is primarily intended to help reserve and guard recruiting. But dont take my word for it,read it in the army times [owned by Gannet Newspapers].

$540 million paid to keep soldiers
Outlay is $50M more than last year, in 3 fewer months 

By Gina Cavallaro
Times staff writer

Soldiers are re-enlisting at goal-busting rates — and they’re cashing in — but the pot of money is not like that bottomless cup of coffee at the highway diner.

With the war in Iraq entering its fourth year and signs showing that it will continue for many more, tough times are on the horizon, according to the Army’s G-1.

Personnel officials said there is no guarantee that the funding for re-up bonuses will continue to be so generous.  


The Army has spent more than $540 million on cash re-enlistment bonuses so far in fiscal 2006, of which 60 percent has been paid in tax-free dollars to troops in the combat zones.

“We will continue to spend some more,” said Col. Debbra Head, chief of the Army’s Enlisted Career Systems Division at the Pentagon. “However, we know there are some resource constraints, so quite frankly, we are concerned about funding for the rest of the year. 

“Leadership has been very supportive in giving us additional funds when we’ve realized that we needed them,” but “there won’t be an endless source of resources here in terms of bonuses, and so we are concerned about that.”

Both the active Army and National Guard are ahead of their retention missions for the first nine months of fiscal 2006, although the reserve component is trailing.

The $540 million in retention bonuses the Army had paid out between Oct. 1 and June 12 — less than three quarters of the fiscal year — exceeds the $491 million it spent the previous fiscal year. 

Between fiscal 2001 and 2005, the Army distributed $1.06 billion in cash bonuses to 105,625 soldiers, an average of $10,000 per soldier who re-enlisted and got paid for it. The soldiers who received bonuses those fiscal years represented about one-third of the 306,892 who re-enlisted.

One of the incentives that almost doubled re-up numbers between fiscal 2004 and 2005 was the deployed bonus, which was offered to soldiers of any military occupational specialty as a way of retaining combat veterans.

“The deployed bonus was critical because any soldier who was in the desert, regardless of their MOS, could re-enlist and get a bonus,” Head said. “As a result, we have seen a lot more takers and, obviously, a lot more money spent.”

As of the end of May, 52,190 active-duty soldiers had re-enlisted this fiscal year. That means the Army is ahead of goal. The mission for the year that ends Sept. 30 is to retain 64,200 soldiers.

As of May 31, the National Guard had re-enlisted 26,331 soldiers, which is 117 percent of its year-to-date goal of 22,478. The Guard’s overall retention goal for fiscal 2006 is 34,875.

The Army Reserve had re-enlisted 11,434 soldiers by the end of May, 95 percent of that component’s goal of 17,712.

Almost 90,000 soldiers in all three components re-enlisted in the first seven months of the year. 

Re-upping in harm’s way

The 4th Infantry Division doled out more than $32 million to more than 2,500 soldiers, whose bonuses were higher and tax-free because they re-upped in the war zone.

Under the Army’s Selective Re-enlistment Bonus Fiscal Year Expiration-of-Term-of-Service program, soldiers in any MOS with a contractual ETS date of Jan. 6 through Sept. 30 could re-enlist before April 30 and receive an additional $7,500 on top of other re-enlistment bonuses.

The bonus payments started in December, when the 4th ID landed in Kuwait, according to Sgt. Maj. Arlene Horne, who said in a news release that the division had to set up a 24-hour operation for three weeks to handle the requests. 

Strong re-enlistment numbers have continued since the unit got to Baghdad. “The division is so successful in retention because the soldiers want to be part of a great team and because of the dedicated leadership across the board,” said Command Sgt. Maj. Ronald T. Riling, in an e-mail to Army Times. “The soldiers believe in our mission. They believe in our division and our Army.”

“The bonus money gives these soldiers a chance to make investments, put away money for their children’s college funds or buy a new car,” Riling said in a division news release.

The 101st Airborne Division, whose headquarters are in Tikrit, has also topped its retention goals for fiscal 2006. As of June 8, the division had re-enlisted 3,426 soldiers, surpassing its target number of 3,352 for a retention rate of 102 percent.

The division’s 101st Aviation Brigade has led the way, signing up 599 soldiers — a 144 percent retention rate. Its goal was 417 re-enlistments.

“The Army came up with great incentives for soldiers to consider when they started looking at their options, and the division’s retention staff is working hard with soldiers to explore those options,” 101st spokesman Lt. Col. Edward Loomis wrote in an e-mail. But, he said, those incentives are only part of the reason soldiers have decided to stay with the Screaming Eagles, based at Fort Campbell, Ky.

“This is a very proud division with a great history, a history every new soldier arriving at Fort Campbell learns when they in-process the division and go through their initial orientation,” Loomis wrote. “The division re-enlisted 117 percent of its objective in FY 2004, and 100 percent of a higher objective in FY 2005 in the run-up to this deployment. In other words, Soldiers who knew the division was about to go in harm’s way again.”


----------



## zipperhead_cop (25 Jun 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> If the link was for a national media outlet or a non-profit organization, I'd not have bothered to comment on the initial post.
> As we are all aware the Internet has brought new meaning to credible sources.





			
				tamouh said:
			
		

> For actual research i'd entrust university research papers



 :rofl:

Ah, dude, you are just havin' one on us, right?


----------



## Trooper Hale (25 Jun 2006)

I think we'r getting away from the subject which was that we all love a bit of friendly American bashing and Yanks want to prove they'r not as silly as we think they are. They caqnt and they'r missing the point, it doesnt matter how clever they are, hell, every bloke in the Marines or Army could be qualified Lawyers, doctors and dentist, we'r still going to joke around and shake our heads at them. 
We non American simply LOVE just slagging off Yanks and in Canada i've noticed that behind the nation conversation topic (The weather), complaining about "Those damn Americans" is almost the national pastime. It unites us in disdain and without it which society could we happily hate? Try this, "Those damn Saudi Arabians are fundamentalist idiots". You cant say that! Its racist and before you know it everyone around you will turn on you. But now try this, "Those damn Americans are fundamentalist idiots". Whos going to complain about that? Even doctors and lawyers will shake their heads and chuckle "Yeah, those damn Americans". 
Everything that our politically correct society stops us from saying is can be bypassed by chucking as "American" in front of it. "I hate those damn Swedes, they'r so annoying"...NO cries the PC watchers, you cant say that! But you can say this, "I hate those damn Americans, they'r so annoying". See what i mean?

So in conclusion, it doesnt matter whether these facts have backing or whether they are just made up, who here is going to stop next time as theyr about to say something about yanks and think, 'hey wait a second, that isnt strictly true'? No one! Your going to keep barreling on and say something stupid (eg look up at the dripple i'm spitting!) while everyone nods and smile at it. Like the Fergusons say in their guide book "How to be a Canadian", American bashing is what unites people and the fact that Canadian are not Americans is a source of great pride for them. So whatever facts you can supply can easily be pushed to the side next time your around the water filter and need a topic to chat about...
"You see that thing on the news about that thing the Yanks did? haha, those crazy Americans, what will they think of next?"
Feel free to ignore this post if your looking for something serious, i'm in a crazy hungover state.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jun 2006)

Fortunately, not all Canadians think of our American brethren the same way. Many of us support what they do and how they do it. It also takes nothing more than to be an ignorant, smug dumbass, to believe that your better than someone else because of geographic boundries. Take me to any large Canadian city and I'll show you thousands living in those glass houses and throwing stones. They're no better, actually worse, just to stupid to know it.


----------



## Trinity (25 Jun 2006)

Trooper Hale said:
			
		

> we all love a bit of friendly American bashing and Yanks want to prove they'r not as silly as we think they are.
> 
> We non American simply LOVE just slagging off Yanks and in Canada i've noticed that behind the nation conversation topic




WE statements... are very dangerous to make.  I don't share the same view and I'm a "non American"
Please speak for yourself.. Try I statements.  



> I'm in a crazy hungover state.



That doesn't excuse you for your post.  Either
a) sober up
or
b) smarten up

Your post really was an insult to our US friend (in MY opinion)


----------



## paracowboy (25 Jun 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Your post really was an insult to our US friend


and not your first. Not your first today, in fact. But, it should certainly be your last.


----------



## JackD (25 Jun 2006)

One thing about this enlistment figures - that more are staying in and more are joining up - is this out of desire and patriotism or - at the other end of the spectrum - no jobs or no possibility of getting a decent job in the civilian world? This is not a slag by the way.. simple curiosity - as, as you know, people join the forces for different reasons. If the latter is true - no jobs, or Macjobs, then these figures are worrisome as  the USA is the economic engine of the world.


----------



## paracowboy (25 Jun 2006)

well, if someone were joining up for a job, not out of a sense of Duty, they're hardly the type of person to stick around when they know beyond any doubt that they would soon be in a situation dangerous to their existance, don'tcha think?

People who enlist for their own interests are not the type to stick around in a war. They'd rather a McJob than a chance to get blowed up.


----------



## JackD (25 Jun 2006)

Actually i don't know to be honest - met lots of gung-ho types as a sapper in the 70's but... when the shit hit the fan... these guys disappeared fast...posers and grunters they were called. It's  same I think throughout time. I'm thinking back to the 70's again. Lots of Newfies joined then for want of better jobs. and lots of these guys became darned good soldiers. Many times it is the system that makes the soldier - think back to the Airborne Regiment - Good bosses, good comrades make good soldiers. In other words, a good recruit system and good unit camaraderie makes for a sense of duty.


----------



## paracowboy (25 Jun 2006)

JackD said:
			
		

> Actually i don't know to be honest - met lots of gung-ho types as a sapper in the 70's but... when the shit hit the fan... these guys disappeared fast...posers and grunters they were called.


exactly. And the shit has not only hit the fan, it's been in there for 3 years. The posers are gone. The weak are culled. Folks joining now KNOW they're headin' into a fight.


----------



## Trooper Hale (25 Jun 2006)

I'm sorry if i offended anyone (or everyone). I Meant my post as joke and not to be taken overly seriously. 
Like i said in the post, i know a far few really nice Americans, i was just highlighting the way i've seen things but also making a joke about the way things relating to Americans seem to be percieved. I was being a smug sort of bastard and i accept that. Sorry about the whole thing, i just thought a bit of sarcasm and homour might be a good thing every now and then. I'll smarten up.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jun 2006)

JackD said:
			
		

> One thing about this enlistment figures - that more are staying in and more are joining up - is this out of desire and patriotism or - at the other end of the spectrum - no jobs or no possibility of getting a decent job in the civilian world? This is not a slag by the way.. simple curiosity - as, as you know, people join the forces for different reasons. If the latter is true - no jobs, or Macjobs, then these figures are worrisome as  the USA is the economic engine of the world.



The US economy is booming,so there are plenty of jobs for young high school grads. To compete the Army has been offering nice bonus' for both enlisting and re-enlisting particularly for critical MOS like EOD,linguists,SF among others. Re-enlistment bonus' paid in theater are tax free which is a really sweet deal. Military pay is very competitive with civilian pay when you factor in healthcare,food and housing allowances plus base pay. The military has a very nice tuition assistance program for those wanting to continue their education while in service.

We can sustain the all volunteer force at current levels. If we were faced with two wars then we would have to begin the draft to sustain an Army at Vietnam levels. This is always a possibility but one that is remote.


----------



## pbi (25 Jun 2006)

Trooper Hale said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if i offended anyone (or everyone). I Meant my post as joke and not to be taken overly seriously.
> Like i said in the post, i know a far few really nice Americans, i was just highlighting the way i've seen things but also making a joke about the way things relating to Americans seem to be percieved. I was being a smug sort of ******* and i accept that. Sorry about the whole thing, i just thought a bit of sarcasm and homour might be a good thing every now and then. I'll smarten up.



I really wouldn't feel to bad about it, despite the somewhat thin-skinned finger-wagging from some folks. Poking jabs back and forth across the border is a fact of life here, and it has been as long as there has been a border.  On personal and professional working levels, things are usually great. It's collectively that we seem to piss each other off from time to time, but that's probably just a healthy sign that we really are different, and see things differently. Sometimes it gets a bit too rabid on one side or the other, but that usually fades after a while, since the real screamers are usually either just ignorant or jealous or both.

Cheers


----------



## Trooper Hale (25 Jun 2006)

Ta PBI, thanks for saying that.


----------



## Trooper Hale (25 Jun 2006)

I'm still learning about the Canada - US relationship and everytime i think i know what it is someone says someone different.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jun 2006)

Why don't you just be quiet and read awhile. Maybe you'll learn some more.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (25 Jun 2006)

I believe the 82nd hit it re-up targets and then some in Iraq.  The troops, or some of them, aren't even trying to get a McJob or home to daddy's farm.

I suspect its largely out of loyalty to buddies...the ones you would be leaving over there, that type of thing.

I know that is what would do it for me.  More than being loyal to good ol GWB.


----------



## paracowboy (25 Jun 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I know that is what would do it for me.  More than being loyal to good ol GWB.


how about being loyal to the nation that gave you and your family so much? The nation that came under attack. How about being loyal to the ideals on which your nation was founded? How about being loyal to the idea that Freedom and Justice are concepts worth fighting and dying for?

Or maybe it's just the idea of knowing you're doing a good thing.

Either way, I'd be willing to continue the fight.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (25 Jun 2006)

Sure, all of the above.  The point I was trying to make is...I would bet they are doing it for reasons other than "I don't have a job".  I just kept it on the 1 point and not all the other ones you mentioned.  

"they are doing it for patriotic reasons" is the point I am making.  Loyalty to buddies, units, the nation...love of their country, family, friends, the things they believe in...

Maybe some are re-up'ing for "lesser" reasons, but I like to believe troops do things for right reasons...


----------



## JackD (26 Jun 2006)

Glad to hear all that - sure makes a better military. I left the Canadian one in 1985 after my boss told me "Dunster, the problem with you is that you are treating this as a profession. It's a 9 to 5 job! Smarten up!". My parting words to him were "Guess I'd better find a profession". I'd say despite all the problems with the current Armed forces, it's a far better place than it was... Glad to hear the American economy is booming too. Sure wish it'd trickle down to the East side of the Vistula where I work trying to give my students a future.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2006)

Trooper Hale said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if i offended anyone (or everyone). I Meant my post as joke and not to be taken overly seriously.
> Like i said in the post, i know a far few really nice Americans, i was just highlighting the way i've seen things but also making a joke about the way things relating to Americans seem to be percieved. I was being a smug sort of ******* and i accept that. Sorry about the whole thing, i just thought a bit of sarcasm and homour might be a good thing every now and then. I'll smarten up.



Well those damm American are annoying, why just last weekend I was in Seattle look at a gunshop selling all sorts of guns I can’t legally buy and ones that I could get legally in Canada where HALF the price of what we pay, now that really annoyed me!!!! So I went and drowned my sorrows in a few dozen Corona’s that were HALF the price as up here! $@$@#$$^$W arrrrrrgh  8)


----------



## Red 6 (5 Jul 2006)

Over the years I was in the service, I trained alongside the militaries of several countries (Canada, , Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc.) American Soldiers always tend to look at other nations armies, and say, "Man, those guys are squared away. I wish we could be like that?" I really think we want to be liked and find it sort of offensive when it isn't reciprocated. I remember during Desert Shield, we moved out into an AA near KKMC in the Saudi desert. There were a bunch of British units all around us, and we had just arrived in country. I was on a dismounted patrol with some of my guys and we walked up to a British laager (RHA) and one of my guys asked this British soldier if they were the Desert Rats, since their vehicles had a rat or a gerboa or something painted on them. I think they had them sewn on their shirts too. Anyway, real snooty, this guy replies, "Callin' us "Desert Rats," that's fighting talk." I didn't want to start anything with this guy and his buddies. so we just turned around and walked off. I never forgot it though. 

I think one of the big misconceptions about the US Army is that we're cowboys. (no offense to any real cowboys...) In reality, the US Army is so methodical, it's almost painful. We had our Mission Essential Task List, out short- medium and long-range training goals, we had our battle drills, our ARTEPs, risk assessment matrix, laminated checklists, Field and Tactical SOP's and OPORD's so detailed, you could probably run a Corps off one. We had brief backs, Come to Jesus meetings, hot washes, critical milestone briefs, AAR's from hell, etc. I'm not even scratching the surface, but you get the idea.

This is just me, but I think we as an Army have an inferiority complex. We want other armies to look at us for what we are and acknowledge that we're good, not because we're THE super power, but because our men and women are dedicated and just good at what they do.


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2006)

There are few that don't think the US Forces are not professional and "squared away". 

Time and again, it is the other countries that stand back and wish they had the same discipline and equipment. When they go into an area, they *ick *ss and take names, and the others are very aware of it. 

From what I can see, hear, read, all the NATO nations, Australia, New Zealand, and many others field efficient Forces. None of them should ever feel inferior to the others, they all have their strengths, and weaknesses, but they are all good


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2006)

An interesting look at the logistical train the US forces takes into theater, and the pros and cons of this. I must admit the descriptions of the US base in Tusla, Bosnia were pretty mind boggling (although Banja Luka was pretty posh compared to the Ledra Palace hotel in Cyprus).

http://babblingbrooks.blogspot.com/2006/07/two-are-not-mutually-exclusive.html



> *The two are not mutually exclusive *
> 
> Max Boot is concerned about troop comfort: he thinks American troops are too comfortable.
> 
> ...


----------



## Red 6 (7 Jul 2006)

The above thread poses some good points. Here are some ramblings in reply that may turn into a stream of consciousness. (I'm just letting you know in advance.. :warstory:

I spent about seven months in the Gulf during Desert Shield/Storm. This was probably the last war that we've fought in the traditional sense. We spent months in big assembly areas out in the middle of nowhere. We slept on the tracks, ate chow out of bags or mess kits, washed our own laundry and spent 12-18 hours a day doing maintenance, rehearsing and training. It was mind numbingly boring, a drudgery of soldiering that only mail call broke up. I imagine that Soldiers from World War II wouldn't have found field life much different. By the time the ground war kicked off, we were about ready to chew or way through the armor on our tracks, if it would just get us home.

Obviously, things are much different in the stabilization phase of OIF, the IFOR in Bosnia, even in Afghanistan, it sounds like. The phrase "Force Protection" is a mantra int he US armed forces. I went back to Kuwait in 2000 for a short tour at CJTF-Kuwait. I can tell you, the concrete Jersey barriers, Texas barriers and Alaska barriers are a way of life that isn't changing. Oh, I forgot the Hesco barriers. For better or worse, America feels itself at war with terrorism, and this feeling extends out into our armed forces. Force protection measures are THE thing when you're deployed, whether on a ship, in an air base, or an Army patrol. 

It's a helluva thing, but history has shown in a bloody fashion that lack of walls and protective measures is deadly to American forces. The Beirut bombing in '83 was a black day and it's remembered. The Khobar Towers bombings, the attack on the Cole, the embassy bombings in Africa: all these are examples that are cited all the time in regard to force protection and the consequences if effective measures aren't taken.

What's the down side? Well, you begin to feel under siege. In Kuwait, we felt like we were in prison sometimes. Surrounded by concrete, plowed strips, watch towers and monochrome tan, you want some relief from the monotony. I'm sure many of ya'll can relate. That's where the entire "slice of home" thing stems from. You put the "protection" of a reinforced enclave together with a relentless war, and it only increases the idea of us and them.

Anyway, I could write more on this topic, but I have to get ready for work.


----------

