$30 000

[BlueMark]

The US Army is offering upwards of US $30 000 for combat veterans to re-enlist for a further tour of Iraq. As I posted a month or so ago. The US Army is having serious trouble retaining soldiers after thier initial period of service and that morale of serving troops in Iraq is pretty low and that many just want to get out in one piece (fair enough).

The thing that Rummie and co do not seem to be able to get a grip of is that soldiers do not mind fighting and possibly dying but they want to know that thier leaders are sending them to fight for the right reasons and not to be lied to.

 

[Qsaint]

The US Army is offering upwards of US $30 000 for combat veterans to re-enlist for a further tour of Iraq. As I posted a month or so ago. The US Army is having serious trouble retaining soldiers after thier initial period of service and that morale of serving troops in Iraq is pretty low and that many just want to get out in one piece (fair enough).

The thing that Rummie and co do not seem to be able to get a grip of is that soldiers do not mind fighting and possibly dying but they want to know that thier leaders are sending them to fight for the right reasons and not to be lied to.

Or they like getting paid $1000/$2000 per day working for halliburton etc and not the $US 24K per year that the Grunts are on. I don't know if it is the 'right' reasons that encourage them to fight, I think they get disheartened because their training is all for huge quick attacks against convential forces, and they are not trained, prepared or psychologically in tune to get bogged down fighting an insurgents with sketchy goals or no clear cut victories.

 

[Qsaint]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Hugh-...g-the-wrong-war/2004/11/28/1101577346370.html

The army is fighting the wrong war

The trouble with using Iraq as an example of the wars we should prepare to fight in the future is that we do not seem to be winning. The fighting in Fallujah this month demonstrated again the lessons of counter-insurgency warfare, from Napoleon's defeat in Spain to our own in Vietnam, that heavy conventional forces cannot defeat insurgents who do not need to hold ground, but can simply move on when big forces mass against them.

So while the army is probably right to argue much of our fighting in future will be against non-conventional opponents, they may be wrong to think that those fights can be won from the relative security of a tank.

As the Chief of Army, Lieutenant-General Peter Leahy, himself says, application of brute force is no longer enough. To win against insurgency, you need to be able to relate to people in the streets. This is the way British forces, with their long traditions of colonial and counter-terrorist operations, operate; more foot patrols, with troops out in the open as much as possible. That used to be the Australian way as well. We ought to think carefully before abandoning these traditions.

............................

Whilst this article is mainly about Australia's position it does highlight the fact that you need the nerve, and take the casulties of putting light Infantry into these situations. This is politically impossible you would think for Australia and increasing so for the Yanks, which I don't think have many forces in this configeration, except perhaps for the Stryker units of the Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), of the US Army.

 

[- PC -]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Hugh-...g-the-wrong-war/2004/11/28/1101577346370.html

The army is fighting the wrong war

The trouble with using Iraq as an example of the wars we should prepare to fight in the future is that we do not seem to be winning. The fighting in Fallujah this month demonstrated again the lessons of counter-insurgency warfare, from Napoleon's defeat in Spain to our own in Vietnam, that heavy conventional forces cannot defeat insurgents who do not need to hold ground, but can simply move on when big forces mass against them.

So while the army is probably right to argue much of our fighting in future will be against non-conventional opponents, they may be wrong to think that those fights can be won from the relative security of a tank.

As the Chief of Army, Lieutenant-General Peter Leahy, himself says, application of brute force is no longer enough. To win against insurgency, you need to be able to relate to people in the streets. This is the way British forces, with their long traditions of colonial and counter-terrorist operations, operate; more foot patrols, with troops out in the open as much as possible. That used to be the Australian way as well. We ought to think carefully before abandoning these traditions.

............................

Whilst this article is mainly about Australia's position it does highlight the fact that you need the nerve, and take the casulties of putting light Infantry into these situations. This is politically impossible you would think for Australia and increasing so for the Yanks, which I don't think have many forces in this configeration, except perhaps for the Stryker units of the Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), of the US Army.

I just find it funny that Americans said about Vietnam ''we lost because he didnt fight our war'' meaning the wars taught in college werent applicable to the Vietnam experience of jungle-guerrilla warfare. There was a lot of determination that further wars would be fought appropriately.

When I saw the blitzkrieg of Iraq-1 my concern then was that the Americans would continue the large force big push mentality. Iraq-2 saw once again the blitzkrieg approach with fast moving small battle warfare...take a town leave without securing too much. This allows insurgents to rise and cause spot firing in those towns already taken. Is this a result of the large media coverage American wars are given? Do the Americans have 2 fronts to fight? Not only the one they are fighting with guns but the one with words?

I have a feeling that without CNN there may have been a different approach to this war.

 

[MightyFighting]

I have a feeling that without CNN there may have been a different approach to this war.

They needed to have perty pictures, or else the media would have lost interest.

(Can't just blame CNN anymore. The sad thing is, they're better than most US media.)

 

[- PC -]

They needed to have perty pictures, or else the media would have lost interest.

(Can't just blame CNN anymore. The sad thing is, they're better than most US media.)

I agree ...wonder what the mood would be without the coverage?

I used CNN as a generic ??? term for the whole media circus and those ''embedded'' journalists/talking heads

 

[MightyFighting]

I agree ...wonder what the mood would be without the coverage?

I used CNN as a generic ??? term for the whole media circus and those ''embedded'' journalists/talking heads

They should show the caskets of US servicemen being unloaded. That might have altered the election result.