NationStates Jolt Archive


National Guard locked up...

Zeppistan
25-11-2004, 16:34
... to make sure that they go to Iraq.... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=716&e=28&u=/latimests/20041125/ts_latimes/guardsmensaytheyrefacingiraqilltrained)


Members of a California Army National Guard battalion preparing for deployment to Iraq (news - web sites) said this week that they were under strict lockdown and being treated like prisoners rather than soldiers by Army commanders at the remote desert camp where they are training.

More troubling, a number of the soldiers said, is that the training they have received is so poor and equipment shortages so prevalent that they fear their casualty rate will be needlessly high when they arrive in Iraq early next year. "We are going to pay for this in blood," one soldier said.

They said they believed their treatment and training reflected an institutional bias against National Guard troops by commanders in the active-duty Army, an allegation that Army commanders denied.

The 680 soldiers of the 1st Battalion of the 184th Infantry Regiment were activated in August and are preparing for deployment at Doña Ana, a former World War II prisoner-of-war camp 20 miles west of its large parent base, Ft. Bliss, Texas.

Members of the battalion, headquartered in Modesto, said in two dozen interviews that they were allowed no visitors or travel passes, had scant contact with their families and that morale was terrible.

"I feel like an inmate with a weapon," said Cpl. Jajuane Smith, 31, a six-year Guard veteran from Fresno who works for an armored transport company when not on active duty.

...

The Guard troops in New Mexico said they wanted more sophisticated training and better equipment. They said they had been told, for example, that the vehicles they would drive in Iraq would not be armored, a common complaint among their counterparts already serving overseas.

They also said the bulk of their training had been basic, such as first aid and rifle work, and not "theater-specific" to Iraq. They are supposed to be able to use night-vision goggles, for instance, because many patrols in Iraq take place in darkness. But one group of 200 soldiers trained for just an hour with 30 pairs of goggles, which they had to pass around quickly, soldiers said.

The soldiers said they had received little or no training for operations that they expected to undertake in Iraq, from convoy protection to guarding against insurgents' roadside bombs. One said he has put together a diary of what he called "wasted days" of training. It lists 95 days, he said, during which the soldiers learned nothing that would prepare them for Iraq.

Hubbard had said he would make two field commanders available on Tuesday to answer specific questions from the Los Angeles Times about the training, but that did not happen.

The fact that the National Guardsmen have undergone largely basic training suggests that Army commanders do not trust their skills as soldiers, said David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. That tension underscores a divide that has long existed between "citizen soldiers" and their active-duty counterparts, he said.

"These soldiers should be getting theater-specific training," Segal said. "This should not be an area where they are getting on-the-job training. The military is just making a bad situation worse."

The soldiers at Doña Ana emphasized their support for the war in Iraq. "In fact, a lot of us would rather go now rather than stay here," said one, a specialist and six-year National Guard veteran who works as a security guard in his civilian life in Southern California.

The soldiers also said they were risking courts-martial or other punishment by speaking publicly about their situation. But Staff Sgt. Lorenzo Dominguez, 45, one of the soldiers who allowed his identity to be revealed, said he feared that if nothing changed, men in his platoon would be killed in Iraq.

Dominguez is a father of two — including a 13-month-old son named Reagan, after the former president — and an employee of a mortgage bank in Alta Loma, Calif. A senior squad leader of his platoon, Dominguez said he had been in the National Guard for 20 years.

"Some of us are going to die there, and some of us are going to die unnecessarily because of the lack of training," he said. "So I don't care. Let them court-martial me. I want the American public to know what is going on. My men are guilty of one thing: volunteering to serve their country. And we are at the end of our rope."




You know, call me crazy - but it seems to me that assuming that the Guard needs to be preemptively locked up in a POW camp to ensure that they go to Iraq is a lousy way to build morale.

How many of these guys do you think will re-up after getting treated like this?
Right-Wing America
25-11-2004, 16:43
But all our armed forces are supposedly volenteer only so I guess they cant complain since they signed up for it. Now if there was a draft then yea I would consider this to be completely wrong but as it stands if they didnt want to fight for American foreign interests then they never should have signed up to the National Guard in the first place.
Stephistan
25-11-2004, 16:43
But all our armed forces are supposedly volenteer only so I guess they cant complain since they signed up for it. Now if there was a draft then yea I would consider this to be completely wrong but as it stands if they didnt want to fight for American foreign interests then they never should have signed up to the National Guard in the first place.

I don't believe any one agreed or signed up for this:

preemptively locked up in a POW camp
DeaconDave
25-11-2004, 16:45
... to make sure that they go to Iraq.... (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=716&e=28&u=/latimests/20041125/ts_latimes/guardsmensaytheyrefacingiraqilltrained)




You know, call me crazy - but it seems to me that assuming that the Guard needs to be preemptively locked up in a POW camp to ensure that they go to Iraq is a lousy way to build morale.

How many of these guys do you think will re-up after getting treated like this?

Yet again Zep, you are bang on right.

This is worrying.
East Canuck
25-11-2004, 17:10
How many of these guys do you think will re-up after getting treated like this?
They won't have to with the back-door draft going on...
Tactical Grace
25-11-2004, 17:19
Soldiers in a position like that will inevitably focus on survival once in Iraq, and will not be able to afford the luxury of evaluating their actions in terms of the political goals they are supposed to be trying to achieve. Sending untrained soldiers into delicate political situations only makes things worse, as has already been seen in numerous modern conflicts, such as Chechnya. Indeed, after the recent US operations in Falluja, the situation in Iraq has come to resemble that of Chechnya in my eyes. It's not going to end well.
Cirdanistan
25-11-2004, 17:31
And that, people, is why the US causes so many civillian casualties-in the great tradition of the american bias towards militia forces and military weakness, the troops are being trained in everything they need to know-how to fire their rifles, throw their grenades, etc-except, crucially, how to fight (or in the article's terms, "for operations that they expected to undertake in Iraq"). This results in troops panicking when they see anything move, and they respond in the most reassuring way they can find-opening up with all they have, targeting anything from little girls on their way to school to a great-grandfather begging for enough of a pittance to survive.
Dobbs Town
25-11-2004, 17:33
Soldiers in a position like that will inevitably focus on survival once in Iraq, and will not be able to afford the luxury of evaluating their actions in terms of the political goals they are supposed to be trying to achieve. Sending untrained soldiers into delicate political situations only makes things worse, as has already been seen in numerous modern conflicts, such as Chechnya. Indeed, after the recent US operations in Falluja, the situation in Iraq has come to resemble that of Chechnya in my eyes. It's not going to end well.

...or not end at all.

Just sayin'...
Zeppistan
25-11-2004, 18:42
But all our armed forces are supposedly volenteer only so I guess they cant complain since they signed up for it. Now if there was a draft then yea I would consider this to be completely wrong but as it stands if they didnt want to fight for American foreign interests then they never should have signed up to the National Guard in the first place.


I'm pretty sure that few guardsmen signed up with the expectation of being treated in this manner. They should be honoured for their willingness to serve, treated with respect, and given the training and the tools they need to serve effectively.

Clearly these soldiers do not feel that this is the case.
World wide allies
25-11-2004, 22:56
Back on subject, that's an absolute travesty !

How can the U.S government treat their soldiers like this ?, you don't join the forces to be treated like this, in what is dubbed "The greatest military in the world."

I hope the world really gets to see what is really going on.

Nice work with the source Zepp, hit the nail on the head.
Modguy
25-11-2004, 23:00
my my, i do beleive it says it was a POW camp over 60 years ago, you would be AMAZED what we can convert in 60 years time. :rolleyes:
Ryanania
25-11-2004, 23:00
I'm in the Navy, and fortunately, nothing like that has happened to me, but I do get treated like shit. It kind of bothers me that we're treated like shit, when we're serving our country.

The public calls us murderers, and the government just doesn't give a shit about us.
Brittanic States
25-11-2004, 23:02
I'm in the Navy, and fortunately, nothing like that has happened to me, but I do get treated like shit. It kind of bothers me that we're treated like shit, when we're serving our country.

The public calls us murderers, and the government just doesn't give a shit about us.
But the Navy itself is good to you though?
New Scott-land
25-11-2004, 23:22
but as it stands if they didnt want to fight for American foreign interests then they never should have signed up to the National Guard in the first place.


So wait...

your NATIONAL guard, is defending your FOREIGN interests?
So...Iraq is now part of America huh? Makes sense... :rolleyes:
Or did you just name everything funky.
Tactical Grace
25-11-2004, 23:47
your NATIONAL guard, is defending your FOREIGN interests?
So...Iraq is now part of America huh? Makes sense... :rolleyes:
Or did you just name everything funky.
Kinda...the "national interest" basically allows one to maintain one's dependencies on foreign territories by military means. So, if you depend on the ME Gulf for oil and it stops giving you a deal you consider fair, then invading countries there in order to secure oil supplies is a "defense of the national interest"...even when it is clearly happening overseas.
R00fletrain
25-11-2004, 23:52
And that, people, is why the US causes so many civillian casualties-in the great tradition of the american bias towards militia forces and military weakness, the troops are being trained in everything they need to know-how to fire their rifles, throw their grenades, etc-except, crucially, how to fight (or in the article's terms, "for operations that they expected to undertake in Iraq"). This results in troops panicking when they see anything move, and they respond in the most reassuring way they can find-opening up with all they have, targeting anything from little girls on their way to school to a great-grandfather begging for enough of a pittance to survive.


yes because i'm sure you know what it is like being an american soldier. please :rolleyes:
The Black Forrest
25-11-2004, 23:54
But all our armed forces are supposedly volenteer only so I guess they cant complain since they signed up for it. Now if there was a draft then yea I would consider this to be completely wrong but as it stands if they didnt want to fight for American foreign interests then they never should have signed up to the National Guard in the first place.

Interesting.

Question: Have you ever served?
The Black Forrest
26-11-2004, 00:02
And that, people, is why the US causes so many civillian casualties-in the great tradition of the american bias towards militia forces and military weakness, the troops are being trained in everything they need to know-how to fire their rifles, throw their grenades, etc-except, crucially, how to fight (or in the article's terms, "for operations that they expected to undertake in Iraq"). This results in troops panicking when they see anything move, and they respond in the most reassuring way they can find-opening up with all they have, targeting anything from little girls on their way to school to a great-grandfather begging for enough of a pittance to survive.

Actually you wrong on this. I chatted with a British Soldier a couple months ago. He said the Brits were better trained but he thought the Americans were quite brave. He said they were surpising calm during a fight.

Simply opening up on civilians? Well unless you have some examples I doubt it.
Niccolo Medici
26-11-2004, 03:39
Actually you wrong on this. I chatted with a British Soldier a couple months ago. He said the Brits were better trained but he thought the Americans were quite brave. He said they were surpising calm during a fight.

Simply opening up on civilians? Well unless you have some examples I doubt it.

While not "opening up on civilians" statistically British troops use considerably less rounds per "incident or engagement" in Iraq, compared to rounds used by US troops. US troops shoot more at what they are aiming at than their british couterparts (Source: Economist...erm...Septemberish?)
Cirdanistan
26-11-2004, 17:31
Actually you wrong on this. I chatted with a British Soldier a couple months ago. He said the Brits were better trained but he thought the Americans were quite brave. He said they were surpising calm during a fight.

Simply opening up on civilians? Well unless you have some examples I doubt it.
so...they killed between 14,548 and 16,714 civillians (in reported and verifiable incidents, the true death toll may be higher still) without even opening up on them? they must have really poor aim then (i would laugh if it wasn't so sad...but you can't argue with the numbers). Do we even teach our soldiers how to pull a trigger if they can manage to kill circa 15000 people without even shooting at them?
Actually, i have dozens of precise cases, but arguing by number is easyer because less work's involved and i'm bone-lazy. Suffice to say the examples i used in my original post actually occured.