0
   

Will Obama get ALL American troops out in sixteen months?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 03:49 pm
H2O_MAN wrote:
mysteryman wrote:


It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?


I doubt Obama knows as much about the US military as you and I combined... he is the wrong man for the job.
++

You guys are a hopeless case of imagined problems; the president can call on all the experts who has more knowledge than the both of you put together - or the ten of you put together. Get over it; you're just being stupid.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 03:55 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
mysteryman wrote:


It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?


I doubt Obama knows as much about the US military as you and I combined... he is the wrong man for the job.
++

You guys are a hopeless case of imagined problems; the president can call on all the experts who has more knowledge than the both of you put together - or the ten of you put together. Get over it; you're just being stupid.


You are absolutely correct.
But we were talking about how much Obama himself knows about the military.

And you still havent addressed the concerns we have about what he plans to do.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 03:59 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
mysteryman wrote:


It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?


I doubt Obama knows as much about the US military as you and I combined... he is the wrong man for the job.


...you're just being stupid.


Obama is the stupid one for promising voters that he would bring the troops home.
He could delegate the logistics to people smarter than himself, but I don't think he would do that.
He is just pandering for votes without a clue of what is involved. Obama is just being stupid.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 04:27 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
mysteryman wrote:


It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?


I doubt Obama knows as much about the US military as you and I combined... he is the wrong man for the job.
++

You guys are a hopeless case of imagined problems; the president can call on all the experts who has more knowledge than the both of you put together - or the ten of you put together. Get over it; you're just being stupid.

Hire kickycan, he is apparently the self proclaimed expert.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 04:34 pm
H2O_MAN wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
mysteryman wrote:


It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?


I doubt Obama knows as much about the US military as you and I combined... he is the wrong man for the job.


...you're just being stupid.


Obama is the stupid one for promising voters that he would bring the troops home.
He could delegate the logistics to people smarter than himself, but I don't think he would do that.
He is just pandering for votes without a clue of what is involved. Obama is just being stupid.


I'm not even sure why guys are discussion this issue when you're not even up to date with Obama's position on Iraq.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 04:52 pm
H2O_MAN Wrote

Quote:
Obama is the stupid one for promising voters that he would bring the troops home.
He could delegate the logistics to people smarter than himself, but I don't think he would do that.
He is just pandering for votes without a clue of what is involved. Obama is just being stupid.


I beg to differ.. Unfortunartely it is the American public that is either stupid or niave enough to believe that he Obama can deliver the impossible. Remember that is the same electorate that gave Bush a second term.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 04:59 pm
What is Obama's ever changing position on Iraq??




au1929 wrote:
Remember that is the same electorate that gave Bush a second term.


No, we are dealing with the same electorate that almost elected Owl Gore.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 05:25 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
mysteryman wrote:


It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?


I doubt Obama knows as much about the US military as you and I combined... he is the wrong man for the job.


...you're just being stupid.


Obama is the stupid one for promising voters that he would bring the troops home.
He could delegate the logistics to people smarter than himself, but I don't think he would do that.
He is just pandering for votes without a clue of what is involved. Obama is just being stupid.


I'm not even sure why guys are discussion this issue when you're not even up to date with Obama's position on Iraq.


So his position on Iraq is different then what is on his website, is that what your saying?

Because I took my info right from his website.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 05:40 pm
mysteryman wrote:
So he gets all the COMBAT troops out, big deal.

What about all the support troops?
Those are the cooks, clerks, medical troops, armorers, mechanics, computer techs,dentists, supply personnel, and the thousands of other noncombat troops

It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?

I'm not sure what the advantage might be to keeping non-combat troops in Iraq after all of the combat troops have cleared out. There certainly isn't much need for mailmen once most of the troops have left. In any event, a lot of those support troops are already accounted for in a brigade's TOE or at the division or corps level, so they'll leave along with the rest of the combat troops. The only ones left behind (aside from the troops guarding the American proconsulate ... er, embassy) will be advisors who will train Iraqi military and security personnel.

Wait a minute. I'm getting a strange sense of déjà vu.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 06:25 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
So he gets all the COMBAT troops out, big deal.

What about all the support troops?
Those are the cooks, clerks, medical troops, armorers, mechanics, computer techs,dentists, supply personnel, and the thousands of other noncombat troops

It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?

I'm not sure what the advantage might be to keeping non-combat troops in Iraq after all of the combat troops have cleared out. There certainly isn't much need for mailmen once most of the troops have left. In any event, a lot of those support troops are already accounted for in a brigade's TOE or at the division or corps level, so they'll leave along with the rest of the combat troops. The only ones left behind (aside from the troops guarding the American proconsulate ... er, embassy) will be advisors who will train Iraqi military and security personnel.

Wait a minute. I'm getting a strange sense of déjà vu.


I know they are accounted for in a brigade TOE, but Obama was quite specific that he would get all COMBAt troops out.
He specified combat troops, so is he going to leave some noncombat troops in Iraq?

I am only going by what his website says.
If his position has changed, his website doesnt show it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 06:28 pm
mysteryman wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
So he gets all the COMBAT troops out, big deal.

What about all the support troops?
Those are the cooks, clerks, medical troops, armorers, mechanics, computer techs,dentists, supply personnel, and the thousands of other noncombat troops

It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?

I'm not sure what the advantage might be to keeping non-combat troops in Iraq after all of the combat troops have cleared out. There certainly isn't much need for mailmen once most of the troops have left. In any event, a lot of those support troops are already accounted for in a brigade's TOE or at the division or corps level, so they'll leave along with the rest of the combat troops. The only ones left behind (aside from the troops guarding the American proconsulate ... er, embassy) will be advisors who will train Iraqi military and security personnel.

Wait a minute. I'm getting a strange sense of déjà vu.


I know they are accounted for in a brigade TOE, but Obama was quite specific that he would get all COMBAt troops out.
He specified combat troops, so is he going to leave some noncombat troops in Iraq?

I am only going by what his website says.
If his position has changed, his website doesnt show it.


I'm quite sure that some will remain, in either a purely defensive or advisory position.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 06:40 pm
mysteryman wrote:
I know they are accounted for in a brigade TOE, but Obama was quite specific that he would get all COMBAt troops out.
He specified combat troops, so is he going to leave some noncombat troops in Iraq?

I am only going by what his website says.
If his position has changed, his website doesnt show it.


the original statement is not accurate, BCT's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_Combat_Team
carry very few support people on their TOE. On the last deployment my wife's SBCT (Striker Brigade) had less than a thousand out of four thousand that could by any stretch of the imagination be called support. However it takes on average a one to two ratio, for every combat soldier there are two support soldiers in theater. Our Brigade had three thousand combat soldiers and less than one thousand support soldiers.....five thousand were in theater supporting the brigade but not on the brigade books. It is not that simple, as support soldiers often support a lot of different brigades, but the ratio is true and the numbers that I give fairly represent the situation.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 07:23 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
So he gets all the COMBAT troops out, big deal.

What about all the support troops?
Those are the cooks, clerks, medical troops, armorers, mechanics, computer techs,dentists, supply personnel, and the thousands of other noncombat troops

It takes an average of 10 men to support one combat soldier, why hasnt Obama mentioned them?
Is he planning on leaving them in Iraq?

I'm not sure what the advantage might be to keeping non-combat troops in Iraq after all of the combat troops have cleared out. There certainly isn't much need for mailmen once most of the troops have left. In any event, a lot of those support troops are already accounted for in a brigade's TOE or at the division or corps level, so they'll leave along with the rest of the combat troops. The only ones left behind (aside from the troops guarding the American proconsulate ... er, embassy) will be advisors who will train Iraqi military and security personnel.

Wait a minute. I'm getting a strange sense of déjà vu.


I know they are accounted for in a brigade TOE, but Obama was quite specific that he would get all COMBAt troops out.
He specified combat troops, so is he going to leave some noncombat troops in Iraq?

I am only going by what his website says.
If his position has changed, his website doesnt show it.


I'm quite sure that some will remain, in either a purely defensive or advisory position.

Cycloptichorn

Just some speculation here, and it seems anyone is qualified to speculate here, including Obama, why do you need support troops there if they are supporting combat troops, when there are no combat troops there? And how can you defend without your best equipped and trained troops to defend, which are probably combat troops? Obama talks about a quick strike force, which would include combat troops I presume?

Also, why advisors? I thought we are already utilizing many troops for advising and training, so how is this any different than what is going on right now?

I guess my thought is that the point of the spear is combat troops, and if there is no point of the spear, the spear becomes pretty blunt and useless it would seem to me, so why present the spear in Iraq, with any troops at all?

Obama finally has mentioned he would consult commanders on the ground, and just wondering, what if they tell him almost to a man that if we pull out too quickly, our work so far will all be in jeopardy? That we need to be more measured, to keep combat troops in Iraq for alot more than 16 months, what will Obama do then? Will he stick to his plan or will he listen to his commanders on the ground, which by the way is what Bush is doing.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 07:29 pm
Well, if Obama is elected, and then gets all combat troops out in 12 months, or less, I hope he will get some apologies from the Doubting Thomases.

One never knows; does one?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 07:51 pm
mysteryman wrote:
I know they are accounted for in a brigade TOE, but Obama was quite specific that he would get all COMBAt troops out.
He specified combat troops, so is he going to leave some noncombat troops in Iraq?

I am only going by what his website says.

No, actually you're not. Here's what you quoted from Obama's website:
    Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two [b]combat brigades[/b] each month, and have all of our [b]combat brigades[/b] out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
So Obama doesn't say "combat troops," he says "combat brigades." And since the support troops are, as you admit, covered by the brigade TOEs, it's clear that when Obama says that he will remove the combat brigades from Iraq he's also including the support personnel that are attached to those brigades.

mysteryman wrote:
If his position has changed, his website doesnt show it.

Obama's position hasn't changed. It's just your mischaracterization of his position that has.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 08:01 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
I know they are accounted for in a brigade TOE, but Obama was quite specific that he would get all COMBAt troops out.
He specified combat troops, so is he going to leave some noncombat troops in Iraq?

I am only going by what his website says.

No, actually you're not. Here's what you quoted from Obama's website:
    Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two [b]combat brigades[/b] each month, and have all of our [b]combat brigades[/b] out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
So Obama doesn't say "combat troops," he says "combat brigades." And since the support troops are, as you admit, covered by the brigade TOEs, it's clear that when Obama says that he will remove the combat brigades from Iraq he's also including the support personnel that are attached to those brigades.

mysteryman wrote:
If his position has changed, his website doesnt show it.

Obama's position hasn't changed. It's just your mischaracterization of his position that has.


Nice try, but I havent mischaracterized anything.

Lets look at his own words...

Quote:
The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year _ now," the Illinois senator says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091200243.html

Quote:
The first thing we have to do is end this war. And the right person to end it is someone who had the judgment to oppose it from the beginning. There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. I will begin to remove our troops from Iraq immediately. I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war


http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

So, his own words have been "COMBAT TROOPS", and not ALL troops.

Although I must admit, his record on Iraq has been very confusing...

Quote:
But a review of Obama's record during his 26 months in Congress reveals that he has taken a more nuanced and cautious position on the war than the full-bore opposition.

Campaigning for the Illinois Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama scolded Bush for invading Iraq and vowed he would "unequivocally" vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for it. Yet since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations, totaling more than $300 billion.

Last June, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an "arbitrary deadline" could "compound" the Bush administration's mistake. And last week, he voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/20/obamas_record_shows_caution_nuance_on_iraq/
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 08:12 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
I know they are accounted for in a brigade TOE, but Obama was quite specific that he would get all COMBAt troops out.
He specified combat troops, so is he going to leave some noncombat troops in Iraq?

I am only going by what his website says.
If his position has changed, his website doesnt show it.


the original statement is not accurate, BCT's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_Combat_Team
carry very few support people on their TOE. On the last deployment my wife's SBCT (Striker Brigade) had less than a thousand out of four thousand that could by any stretch of the imagination be called support. However it takes on average a one to two ratio, for every combat soldier there are two support soldiers in theater. Our Brigade had three thousand combat soldiers and less than one thousand support soldiers.....five thousand were in theater supporting the brigade but not on the brigade books. It is not that simple, as support soldiers often support a lot of different brigades, but the ratio is true and the numbers that I give fairly represent the situation.

Well, as I pointed out before:
    In any event, a lot of those support troops are already accounted for in a brigade's TOE [b]or at the division or corps level[/b]...
It may be that the 1301st Computer Technicians Battalion (motto: "We Do Our Bits!") is attached to the corps rather than to a particular brigade, but it's just silly to think that it or the 666th Mail Sorters Battalion (motto: "From the Depths of Hell We Stab at Thee -- With a Letter Opener!") will stick around in Iraq while the rest of the troops depart. I'm not sure what mysteryman could possibly be thinking -- maybe he thinks Obama has some kind of secret plan to occupy Baghdad with dental assistants and laundry workers -- but whatever it is it's just plain stupid.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 08:13 pm
Play all the word games you want...

Bottom line: There is no way Obama can keep his ever evolving promise to bring the troops home anywhere near the schedule he as laid out.

Unless you are totally against the birth of democracy in that region, pulling out prematurely will not result in a happy ending for the liberators or the liberated.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 08:31 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Nice try, but I havent mischaracterized anything.

Lets look at his own words...
...
So, his own words have been "COMBAT TROOPS", and not ALL troops.

Y'know, MM, it gets harder and harder to take you seriously. First, you quote from Obama's website, where he says "combat brigades," and you misquote him as saying "combat troops." Then, when it is pointed out to you that you're misquoting Obama, you rush out and have to Google a couple of remarks that Obama made, two of which aren't even on his website, just so you can say that you were right all along. Really, it's just too pathetic.

But putting all of that aside, the question remains: so what? If Obama said combat troops or combat brigades or whatever, what's your point? Obama has stated that the only troops that will remain at the end of the sixteen-month period will be those troops guarding the US embassy and performing some other limited tasks. If you think those troops will be non-combat troops, then all I have to say is: "whoop-de-freakin'-do!" Why is this some sort of big deal for you? Do you think Obama is concealing something from the public or misrepresenting his real intentions? Do you think his plan is to withdraw all the combat troops but keep all the non-combat troops in place? Or maybe he wants to hide all of those non-combat troops somewhere, maybe in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, north and south somewhat -- you know, the same place that Rumsfeld was certain the Iraqis had hidden all of their weapons of mass destruction. That's obviously a pretty good place to hide things so that they never get found!
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 08:43 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
I know they are accounted for in a brigade TOE, but Obama was quite specific that he would get all COMBAt troops out.
He specified combat troops, so is he going to leave some noncombat troops in Iraq?

I am only going by what his website says.
If his position has changed, his website doesnt show it.


the original statement is not accurate, BCT's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigade_Combat_Team
carry very few support people on their TOE. On the last deployment my wife's SBCT (Striker Brigade) had less than a thousand out of four thousand that could by any stretch of the imagination be called support. However it takes on average a one to two ratio, for every combat soldier there are two support soldiers in theater. Our Brigade had three thousand combat soldiers and less than one thousand support soldiers.....five thousand were in theater supporting the brigade but not on the brigade books. It is not that simple, as support soldiers often support a lot of different brigades, but the ratio is true and the numbers that I give fairly represent the situation.

Well, as I pointed out before:
    In any event, a lot of those support troops are already accounted for in a brigade's TOE [b]or at the division or corps level[/b]...
It may be that the 1301st Computer Technicians Battalion (motto: "We Do Our Bits!") is attached to the corps rather than to a particular brigade, but it's just silly to think that it or the 666th Mail Sorters Battalion (motto: "From the Depths of Hell We Stab at Thee -- With a Letter Opener!") will stick around in Iraq while the rest of the troops depart. I'm not sure what mysteryman could possibly be thinking -- maybe he thinks Obama has some kind of secret plan to occupy Baghdad with dental assistants and laundry workers -- but whatever it is it's just plain stupid.


Corps and divisions are for now administrative organizations only, the Army does not train or fight as divisions and corps. There are no such organizations in Iraq.
Quote:
Multi-National Force - Iraq Major Units
Saturday, 28 June 2008
Iraq is divided into six major areas of responsibility maintained by forces from 24 countries. Below are the units that cover these areas. When available a link has been provided to the unit's homepage on the Internet.

Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq
MNSTC-I, commonly called "min-sticky", is responsible for organizing, training, equipping and mentoring Iraqi Security Forces throughout the country.

Gulf Region Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Gulf Region Division is responsible for helping the Iraqi government rebuild the country's infrastructure.

Multi-National Corps - Iraq
This is the Tactical Unit responsible for command and control of Operations in Iraq. Currently MNC-I is headquartered by the U.S. 3rd Army Corps forward deployed to Camp Victory, Baghdad. The following units report to MNC-Iraq:

Multi-National Division - Baghdad
MND-Baghdad is also known as Task Force Baghdad. Its major area of responsibility is the city of Baghdad. MND-Baghdad is headquartered by the 4th Infantry Division from Fort Hood, Texas.
Multi-National Division - North
MND-North is also known as Task Force Iron. Responsible for an area including the cities of Balad, Kirkuk, Tikrit, Mosul, and Samarra, MND-N is headquartered by the U.S. Army's 1st Armored Division out of Wiesbaden, Germany.
Multi-National Force - West
MNF-W is headquartered by the U.S. II Marine Expeditionary Force. Their area of operations include the cities of Ar Ramadi and Fallujah.
Multi-National Division - Center
Multi-National Division - Center, also known as Task Force Mountain, assists Iraqi Security Forces with security and stability missions in the area south of Baghdad ranging from Najaf to Wasit provinces. MND-Center is headquartered by the 10th Mountain Division (Light) from Fort Drum, New York.
Multi-National Division - Center South
MND-CS covers an area that includes the cities of Diwaniyah, Afak, Al Hamzah. The division is headquartered by the Polish Military.
Multi-National Division - South East
MND-SE operates in the southern most part of Iraq, including the cities of Basrah, An Nasiriyah, Al Amarah. The division is headquartered by elements of the British and Australian militaries.
Multi-National Division - North East
MND-NE
Logistical Support Area Anaconda
LSA Anaconda is currently run by the U.S. 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary). 13 SC(E) is responsible for providing logistics support throughout the theater.
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=294&Itemid=27

Obama could remove every single Combat brigade but leave all of the above structure up and running to support the Iraq's, our "advisors" and to allow for the possible rapid return of combat brigades if the need arises, and still technically keep his word. I don't know what the head count would be, but I figure it would be north of 50K.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 01/21/2022 at 09:29:10