NationStates Jolt Archive

in the wake of the 3,000 American death toll in iraq, where do you feel this stands as far as warfare in american history?

im tired of hearing criticism about troop numbers in iraq, so my big question is this: how can you say that we dont have enough troops to send more to iraq when we only have 140,000 in iraq? we have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in other countries and we somehow dont have enough to send more to iraq?

in the wake of the 3,000 American death toll in iraq, where do you feel this stands as far as warfare in american history?

im tired of hearing criticism about troop numbers in iraq, so my big question is this: how can you say that we dont have enough troops to send more to iraq when we only have 140,000 in iraq? we have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in other countries and we somehow dont have enough to send more to iraq?

The problem is combat soldiers.

We don't have enough to rotate groups out so they can get some RNR.....

in the wake of the 3,000 American death toll in iraq, where do you feel this stands as far as warfare in american history?

im tired of hearing criticism about troop numbers in iraq, so my big question is this: how can you say that we dont have enough troops to send more to iraq when we only have 140,000 in iraq? we have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in other countries and we somehow dont have enough to send more to iraq?

You can't just use every resource on one thing.

You can't just use every resource on one thing.

I'm not stating that. I'm saying that people are saying that we simply don't have enough soldiers and that is just not the case.

I'm not stating that. I'm saying that people are saying that we simply don't have enough soldiers and that is just not the case.
You have the soldiers, but you want to equip and supply them. Every active combat soldier requires lots of other soldiers doing logistics and organisation for him or her.

Every soldier needs lots of equipment and ammunition too. That's being worn out in Iraq much quicker than it would be somewhere else. Particularly vehicles...many units come back from a tour of duty without their trucks, humvees and, if applicable, without many of their tanks and other armour. The military already doesn't have the resources to repair all those things, so they sit in some compound in the States waiting for the war to be over so the Pentagon can spare a few quid.

EDIT: Good link: U.S. Army Battling To Save Equipment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401347.html)

That's being worn out in Iraq much quicker than it would be somewhere else. Particularly vehicles...

QFT

When I was in Iraq in '03 our unit prohibited the driving of tracked vehicles during certain parts of the day during the summer because the track pads were literally melting on the hot roads. Patrols had to either use HMMWVs or wait until it cooled off later in the day.

Patrols had to either use HMMWVs...
I bet that would've been popular.

I bet that would've been popular.

Untracked, lightly armored vehicles in Iraq?

you bet. :rolleyes:

you bet. :rolleyes:
And nice and warm too. I expect a tracked armoured vehicle would have some sort of aircon in there, but I'm not sure on the extras catalogue of your average HMMWV.

also of note: ive talked to a few people who have been to iraq and have spoken against the belief that they didnt have enough armor.

thoughts?

also of note: ive talked to a few people who have been to iraq and have spoken against the belief that they didnt have enough armor.

thoughts?

If by enough armor you mean body armor that's correct, we didn't have enough at the beginning. Non combat arms personnel were given the old flak vest (the glorified sweater) and combat arms had the IBA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_Body_Armor). However, that was all sorted out a few months after we got there (I got there in April of '03). A big deal was made of it by people here in the States long after it was resolved over there.

And nice and warm too. I expect a tracked armoured vehicle would have some sort of aircon in there, but I'm not sure on the extras catalogue of your average HMMWV.

Nope, the only US vehicle with AC that I'm aware of is the Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M93_Fox) which is incidentally a German design.

I bet that would've been popular.

When I got there we didn't have any of the supplemental armor they have now. In fact, I had canvas doors on my HMMWV so I just removed the doors because they wouldn't stop anything and they'd get in the way when I wanted to get out.

When we did convoys we rigged up crap like this.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/tuebor/guntruck.jpg

For patrols we'd take the highback HMMWV as pictured above and remove the tarp and bows, leaving it like the one in this picture, and we'd have 4 guys sit in the back with M16s, and sometimes we'd rig up a seat to put an M240 on the roof like on the pic above.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/tuebor/preparingtoleave.jpg

Of course, that was 3 years ago, so things have changed a bit since then. Units were starting to weld supplemental armor onto their trucks just as we were getting ready to head home. I heard that scrap metal in Kuwait was extremely hard to come by right around then.

also of note: ive talked to a few people who have been to iraq and have spoken against the belief that they didnt have enough armor.

thoughts?

To troops in hot combat, 20 inches of battleship steel armor would seem inadaquate.

To troops in hot combat, 20 inches of battleship steel armor would seem inadaquate.

whatever happened to the hardcore army men we sent to vietnam?!

in the wake of the 3,000 American death toll in iraq, where do you feel this stands as far as warfare in american history?

im tired of hearing criticism about troop numbers in iraq, so my big question is this: how can you say that we dont have enough troops to send more to iraq when we only have 140,000 in iraq? we have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in other countries and we somehow dont have enough to send more to iraq?


The time to send more troops is over. Now its time to leave.

The time to send more troops is over. Now its time to leave.

ah... another thing.

how do you suppose we do that?

Exactly as follows:
Every troop says see ya later and packs up and heads out.

It was a mistake to go in there and now we need to get out before more troops get killed. There is a civil war and we don't win either way. When we get out we give funds to the Iraq government for a few years and then tell them good luck.

Exactly as follows:
Every troop says see ya later and packs up and heads out.

It was a mistake to go in there and now we need to get out before more troops get killed. There is a civil war and we don't win either way. When we get out we give funds to the Iraq government for a few years and then tell them good luck.

Have you been keeping up on the news? Iran said if the US left Iraq they would move into Iraq to support the Sunnis and in response Saudi Arabia said they would move into Iraq to support the Shiites (or maybe the otherway around).

Nope, the only US vehicle with AC that I'm aware of is the Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M93_Fox) which is incidentally a German design.
:eek:

Talk about bastard politicians! I bet when they visit Iraq they get aircon, and aren't being sat next to a thousand horsepower diesel in 50°C heat.

Though it's hard to believe the Abrams and Bradley don't have NBC filters.

:eek:

Talk about bastard politicians! I bet when they visit Iraq they get aircon, and aren't being sat next to a thousand horsepower diesel in 50°C heat.

Though it's hard to believe the Abrams and Bradley don't have NBC filters.

They ride in these big things called Rhino Buses that can take road side bombs and RPGs and just keep on riding...BS, huh?

whatever happened to the hardcore army men we sent to vietnam?!

Wait, for your example of US war heroes you chose the war America lost?

And personally, I think the US should pull out and simply reinforce the Iraq Government with Peace Keepers and continue to fund Iraq. This Civil War can't be ended by numbers alone, and there is really not much we can do but wait for it to blow over.

They ride in these big things called Rhino Buses that can take road side bombs and RPGs and just keep on riding...BS, huh?

And of course the soldiers risking their lives for the US don't get these near-impenetrable buses but the politicians who started this war do.

Wait, for your example of US war heroes you chose the war America lost?

And personally, I think the US should pull out and simply reinforce the Iraq Government with Peace Keepers and continue to fund Iraq. This Civil War can't be ended by numbers alone, and there is really not much we can do but wait for it to blow over.

I doubt hundreds of years worth of hate between muslims will just blow over.

I doubt hundreds of years worth of hate between muslims will just blow over.

Its a slim possibility, but sending in soldiers will only agitate the conflict further. Iraq is our mess, but by staying we're almost making it bigger.

Its a slim possibility, but sending in soldiers will only agitate the conflict further. Iraq is our mess, but by staying we're almost making it bigger.

Oh, I agree. By peace keepers you mean the UN right? Unless they send in at least 150k I don't think they can accomplish much of anything.

Have you been keeping up on the news? Iran said if the US left Iraq they would move into Iraq to support the Sunnis and in response Saudi Arabia said they would move into Iraq to support the Shiites (or maybe the otherway around).

I doubt Iran would do anything.

Well, it would still certainly help the Iraqi Police Force and its better than just leaving Iraq with some money and a "Good luck" handshake.

Well, it would still certainly help the Iraqi Police Force and its better than just leaving Iraq with some money and a "Good luck" handshake.

Certainly. It is almost impossible to see peace in Iraq though when the Iraqis keeping the "peace" are taking part in sectarian violence.

They ride in these big things called Rhino Buses that can take road side bombs and RPGs and just keep on riding...BS, huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_Runner
Dual A/C system.

Bingo. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhino_Runner


Bingo. :rolleyes:

Wow. The guys who make one visit in their life time get something like a tank while the troops who do multiple tours get stuck with your basic easily penetrated HMMWV.

Though it's hard to believe the Abrams and Bradley don't have NBC filters.

They do have NBC filters, but when the air being filtered is 120F it doesn't help much.

They do have heaters though.

Oh, I agree. By peace keepers you mean the UN right? Unless they send in at least 150k I don't think they can accomplish much of anything.

I'd doubt the UN will send any troops.
You remember the UN being against a war in Iraq? Well then they probably won't send any troops to a conflict which they were completely against.

ah... another thing.

how do you suppose we do that?
Honey if I knew how to get milk back into a broken bottle, I wouldnt have been so insistent about not spilling it out and smashing the bottle in the first place.

I know that that the US is now in a no-win, no good way to stay, no good way to leave quagmire, why do you think I thought going in was such a very stupid and destructive idea? The outcome to date was obvious, what isnt obvious and probably does not exist is any way to either stay or leave without making things worse.

ah... another thing.

how do you suppose we do that?

Planes?

I'd doubt the UN will send any troops.
You remember the UN being against a war in Iraq? Well then they probably won't send any troops to a conflict which they were completely against.

They would have

They were willing to in fact
directly after the invasion.

But while the US wanted them to come in it did not want to hand over
control and the UN could hardly go in as subservient to one of its member
nations and basically help occupy a country after an illegal war.

They simply cannot now as despite not going that far, they are now
seen as an organisation that cannot and will not protect anyone from
US aggression, at best is seen as an irrelevance and at worst as in collusion.

Have you been keeping up on the news? Iran said if the US left Iraq they would move into Iraq to support the Sunnis and in response Saudi Arabia said they would move into Iraq to support the Shiites (or maybe the otherway around).

So we stay and deal with a Sunni/Shi'ite civil war?

One that could potentially destabilize the entire Middle East?


Good plan.

in the wake of the 3,000 American death toll in iraq, where do you feel this stands as far as warfare in american history?

im tired of hearing criticism about troop numbers in iraq, so my big question is this: how can you say that we dont have enough troops to send more to iraq when we only have 140,000 in iraq? we have hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in other countries and we somehow dont have enough to send more to iraq?

Why waste them there? They will just keep getting killed for a war that we cannot win any more. At this point, we're just throwing them away.

And, in case this hadn't occured to you, the psychological effect of warfare upon troops rotating in and out of Iraq is breaking them. You also need to differentiate between combat and non-combat soldiers.