Anyway…

Yes, merely…for the most part our initial mobilization in 1942 was “merely” ramping up numbers (weapons and supplies and training came later). Thousands and thousands of soldiers in 1942 waited and waited, painted rocks and did all sorts of make work, waiting for weapons and trainers to show up. There were Congressional inquiries many many times between Pearl Harbor and our dispatch of the first units to Europe and the Pacific because the rampant idle soldiering going on across the military. Ask ANY vet who was drafted or enlisted in 1942…ask them about how germane most of their training was. And when sent overseas, “deployed” in today’s parlance, they took massive, really massive casualties…many of them for the most stupid of reasons, not being able to channel fear into something more powerful, but also because their training was inadequate.

Ask vets of Kasserine how effective their leadership and training was. Then, look at the casualty figures for every combat engagement in which we were involved until VE and VJ day. The concept of throwing large numbers of troops at an objective was pretty much the norm. Thank God, we don’t do that any more. The replacements sent overseas to Europe and to the Pacific were often avoided at all costs by the guys who had been through one or two good scrapes. Why? These officially trained but totally untested repo’s got people killed, often. Moreso, if they were officers.

At least we didn’t spend a year or more teaching Iraqi soldiers the manual of arms using broom handles, and using bags of flour to simulate bombs and grenades.

Not much up on your military history, and I can tell that. It is also safe to assume you never served, never commanded, never led in uniform. Oh, well, its a free country. Might want to give some thought to why that is so. And on whose back that is possible.

MB4, it is obvious you have an agenda, a weltgesichtpunkt that you intend to hold on to regardless. You don’t like the war in Iraq. Fine. I can’t think of anyone I know who does. I can’t think of anyone, save for one particular second lieutenant, who wanted to fight a war. You want us out of Iraq. Fine. So do I. But not because one or two politicians or a Congressional majority decides that they know better from apples. I’d much prefer the war be over when the job is done. It is not just a bumper sticker slogan to me, either. When Iraq is able to fend off threats to her sovereignty it’ll be pretty much done. When other nations in the region accept the notion that their people can run their own countries, and sheiks and despots are driven out of Dodge, it’ll be a bit closer to being over. When conditions exist in the entire region so much so that none of my grandchildren, nor any American’s grandchildren, will ever be called to fight there, then, I will admit, that the job is indeed done.

And it isn’t going to happen in 16 months, and it isn’t going to happen because a bunch of know-nothings elected to Conbress by a lot of other know-nothings arbitrarily decide that it is done.

Akzed:

I think that the rapid backpedaling in your response indicates that you are the one who is confused.

My lord. OK, here you are:

You people are racist.

There. I said it. You could not be anything but and believe the things you believe in. My point is that this is not something worth discussing. So say that you are not racist, call me racist, and let’s end this, please.

Proven by the fact that you brought up race in a thread about the Iraqi army. Riiiggghhht.

Like I often say, liberalism is an emotional problem.

The fight in Iraq is as nothing compared to WWII. Even compared to RVN. That’s why the vast majority of Americans in this war are out shopping or cruising the internet instead of being in the Army.

MB4 on August 6, 2008 at 3:21 PM

Yea I’d agree with that. It’s disturbing just how disconnected the majority of the general population is from the reality. I guess we could fill up several threads with why that is the case and how it came to be.

But I’m not one of them. Nor am I out shopping or cruising the internet. And since I am too old to join the military, I’m right now on a break from making cooling ties and sand scarves for a battalion of Marines in Iraq.

{Islamic] Iraq’s air force currently has nothing more than some trainer aircraft

crosspatch on August 6, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Much better for Israel that way.

And I’d add establishing an Army from scratch while fighting an insurgency and AQ-I at the same time.

Texas Gal on August 6, 2008 at 2:52 PM

The fight in Iraq is as nothing compared to WWII. Even compared to RVN. That’s why the vast majority of Americans in this war are out shopping or cruising the internet instead of being in the Army.

I have never seen any estimates for AQI strength at more than 2,000 at the top of the estimated range. A lot are suppose to have been killed of driven out of country by now. How many left?

The training of the Iraqi Army began closer to 2006.

Closer to 2006? What does that mean? Closer to 2006 than to what? 2003?

During WWII the vast majority of guys were in the Army less than 4 years.

Our “from scratch” army in 1941 had an established cadre, had established logistics, had a significant established national guard and reserve structure, had common military schooling, from West Point to the Ft. Leavenworth School of Infantry to other professionalization schools, and a lot more. So, no, we weren’t starting from scratch.

As I said, not from scratch, but pretty close. In 1941 we had little more than a “cigar store” Army. Back then they actually started their training after Pearl in some cases with sticks instead of rifles. Ask some of those who entered the Army in 1942 what it was like. They will probably laugh. We probably had a smaller army, and less well equipped, in 1941 than Italy. I think that we did have a bigger army than Switzerland though, maybe. I am almost certain that we had a bigger army than Lichtenstein.

In 1941-1945, we merely expanded the numbers to about 5 million from a pre-war level of a few hundred thousand. Most of the Divisions that fought in WWII were National Guard or Army Reserve Divisions. Pre-established long before 1941, and previously trained, poorly as it was for most, notwithstanding.

Merely? Merely? Something like what, a twenty fold increase in the Active duty Army from 1941 to 1944 is merely? Merely? I guess it all depends on what the meaning of sex is and what the meaning of is, is and what the meaning of merely is.

An Army is not just about numbers. Not any more. It is also a lot more than just giving a guy a rifle and telling him where the enemy is…a lot more.

And that’s why it’s hi! hi! hee! In the field artillery.
The Artillery, King of Battle, rides, the Infantry walks.

Amatuers talk about tactics and numbers.

Professionals talk of logistics and training.

coldwarrior on August 6, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Talk, talk, talk.

The Iraqis have had over 5 years and they now have, what $87 billion that the Iraqi government is sitting on? That all ought to have been buying them a lot of training and logistics. No one, that I know of anyway, is even talking about setting them up to invade another country or conduct bombing runs thousand of mile way.

The IA is only now beginning to get any significant amount of artillery and armor. They are pretty much a light infantry outfit at the moment with little in the way of artillery and armor support.

The Iraqi navy is a couple of patrol boats and that is it. How can they defend their interests in helping keep the Straits of Hormuz open so they can ship their oil without any navy at all?

We are a LONG way from Iraq being able to defend itself on its own considering the capabilities of its neighbors in Iran and Syria which have large forces on land, air, and in the case of Iran, at sea. Iran builds their own main battle tanks, the only country in the ME outside Egypt that does that.

The people are not being given an accurate picture of things by our news media. We seem to have some expectation that we can just leave and have an army of light infantry with no support mechanism be able to stand on its own. That is just plain nuts.

I can only imagine the effect on Syria, Iran, Hez and Hamas, not to mention KSA, on having a US trained professional military mentored and equipped right smack dab in the middle of the ME.

You’re right about the big picture coldwarrior. It’s always been one of my few dissatisfactions of our Constitution that our foreign policy is dictated by the changes in the WH. It’s a real wonder that we are able to even get any country to ally with us longer than 4 years max.

I have to give a lot of credit to Bush for quickly recognizing that to only way in the long term to safeguard our national security was to introduce the Middle Eastern people to democratic government. What was down side of doing so?

dave742

You evidently haven’t been listening to Bush or you just assume he’s lying. If there was ever a President that stood against the bigotry of low expectations, it is Bush. He has got to be the most positive, glass half full President we have had since Reagan. And I can’t really think of any others in my lifetime.

I also disagree with you that most Americans are racist but I do understand why you would think that.

It is going to take years to promote the most effective officers into position as they gain experience and a track record. The top brass at this point are little more than politically appointed placeholders. As effective leaders gain experience and demonstrate their capabilities, they will move into positions of greater leadership. And again, that takes years to happen. Yes, some of that can be accelerated in combat units but logistics and maintenance are what keep an army alive. It takes experience to get effective logistics types into place and get effective procedures and mechanisms built to keep soldiers alive.

It isn’t the “tooth” part if it that takes so long as much as it is the “tail”. Right now the Iraqi Army is all tooth and little tail, we are performing that function for them. It will likely take years to develop a self-sustaining infrastructure on which the rest of that army is built.

I was wondering how the US was going to work its way out of its contradiction cognitive dissonance. The goal is to stay in Iraq forever – fifty years – make it a hundred 16 months sounds pretty good, could be OK. But how do we do so while at the same time saying things are getting better and better? How many years straight can things keep getting better, but never get better to the point where we can leave?

dave742 on August 6, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Well it’s kind of like having a goal and every year the remaining distance to the goal is cut in half. That’s about it.

As for the 1941 reference, what type of army was that? Overall, it was but a slight departure from the WWI model, with the exception of the addition of armoured vehicles as cavalry and bringing in more aircraft.

It is not our desire, nor theirs, that we simply parrot the Saddam Army, just to be able to say the Iraqis have an Army.

We are talking about an entire sea change in small unit tactics and employment and training, company and battalion tactics and employment and training, brigade and higher integration and command, professionalization of command, staff, logistics and support, all of which did not exist under Saddam. The current Iraqi Army is in no way inter-operable with ANY aspect of Saddam’s army…with the exception of arming units with AK-47′s/AK-74′s.

Our “from scratch” army in 1941 had an established cadre, had established logistics, had a significant established national guard and reserve structure, had common military schooling, from West Point to the Ft. Leavenworth School of Infantry to other professionalization schools, and a lot more. So, no, we weren’t starting from scratch. As for Iraq…we are starting totally from scratch. A tabula rasa from which we are establishing each and every requirement and from the most rudimentary levels to the higher levels of national command.

In 1941-1945, we merely expanded the numbers to about 5 million from a pre-war level of a few hundred thousand. Most of the Divisions that fought in WWII were National Guard or Army Reserve Divisions. Pre-established long before 1941, and previously trained, poorly as it was for most, notwithstanding.

An Army is not just about numbers. Not any more. It is also a lot more than just giving a guy a rifle and telling him where the enemy is…a lot more.

Amatuers talk about tactics and numbers.

Professionals talk of logistics and training.

Is that about right?

About.

Is this always the case?

No. Different circumstances require different justifications. That’s why the justifications change constantly even within the same case.
Look. I am done with this. I made my point. I reiterated it several times to you and your friend and made my point abundantly clear. I don’t want to make this thread “all about me” and get coldwarrior mad at me, so I can be done now.

It takes years, and more likely decades, to instill a stable military culture

Years OK, but decades? Decades? As in Earth decades? Tens of Earth years? Multiples of 3,652 days? Earth days? Have these people ever been in the Army?

Americans do not comprehend the difficulties in creating an army from scratch

Well in the first place it is not exactly “from scratch” as that would mean that no one who is now in the Iraqi army ever had any army experience before.

In the second place – see U.S. Army in 1941 – then U.S. Army in 1944 or 1945. Not exactly “from scratch” but pretty close.

It has now been well over 5 years with Iraq – that is enough time to train a doctor.

dave742 on August 6, 2008 at 1:35 PM

So, you are saying our real goals are imperialistic but the administration disguises it with rhetoric of lowered expectations for people of different ethnicity or religion, because the American public is predominately racist and will buy into it? Is that about right? Is this always the case?

Can we get back to the military aspects of this thread?

It’s not always my idea to get on these tangents, and make it “all about me.” (from the last thread) I tried to get out of this. At a certain point I am doing nothing but responding.

You apparently feel U.S. policy is based on the expectation that dark skin makes people genetically incapable of running a decent govenment.

I don’t think our policy is based on racism. Our reason for going into Iraq is not based on racism. Our justification to the public for why we must stay there, though, is heavily reliant on racism. That, to me, was the topic of this thread. How does the US justify to the public staying in Iraq forever and at the same time talk about how it is getting better there every day? The answer the US will use is that the backwards, primitive people with their strange religion and funny names cannot exist without killing us or each other, so the benevolent white master race must show them how, and that will take a while, because they are really screwed up brown people. I am saying that US citizens will buy this line, because most US citizens are racist.

Seems to be quite clearly anti-racist to actually get involved to enable these same Middle Easterners to build their own government from the ground up, and (as is the theme of this thread) build their own defense structure to enable the stability they require to establish a government of the people, for the people, and to be able to live and breathe free.

In no way, thus, can our overall actions in Iraq be called racist. Period.

Can we get back to the military aspects of this thread?

My lord. OK, here you are:

You people are racist.

There. I said it. You could not be anything but and believe the things you believe in. My point is that this is not something worth discussing. So say that you are not racist, call me racist, and let’s end this, please.
dave742 on August 6, 2008 at 12:40 PM

Well,..no,…lets’s not end it. I have no idea who is racist and who is not, as is also the case with you. However, you introduced the concept that we are going to remain in Iraq because our policies are racist. You apparently feel U.S. policy is based on the expectation that dark skin makes people genetically incapable of running a decent govenment. Isn’t that what you were trying to say in your original post regarding brown skin? Or, were you just claiming HA posters feel that way? I don’t care what you call me, but you’ve made a claim regarding the basis for our Iraqi policy and I’d like to hear you defend it. What facts do you have to support it?

You people are racist.

dave742 on August 6, 2008 at 12:40 PM

And he goes off the deep end…

and I am delusional.

dave742 on August 6, 2008 at 12:20 PM

Wow, and here I thought we wouldn’t agree on anything.