1
   

Army Units Skip Training in Rush to Iraq

 
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 05:36 pm
What was SOP and deemed to be necessary has now due to Bush's desire to get his "surge" manned is now a waste of time and funds. Based upon his track record I would not believe that pack wolves in the White House and it hangers on if they swore and a stack of bibles.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 05:41 pm
They were well trained. They got a briefing on the plane ride over.
"They went through all the things they know they're going to do in Iraq,"

:wink:
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 05:42 pm
Personally, I would hope our troops are trained to adequate readiness at all times.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 05:48 pm
Do any of the Bushies really care? Barbara Bush,
"But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So, why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" Laura Bush, ", of course, what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everybody." The Presidunce, "I don't feel in a bubble."
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 06:00 pm
I still feel the same. The troops skipped a training, so what. That does not mean they are untrained. Also, you do not know what the President cares about or not unless you hear it from him. He knows what he cares about and anyone he chooses to tell. I do not know and neither do you unless he told you.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 06:04 pm
tryingtohelp wrote:
I still feel the same. The troops skipped a training, so what. That does not mean they are untrained. Also, you do not know what the President cares about or not unless you hear it from him. He knows what he cares about and anyone he chooses to tell. I do not know and neither do you unless he told you.


You're writing in parody, right?

I mean, your whole Bush-loving thing must be shtick. It's just a little too much to believe.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 06:11 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
.
You're writing in parody, right?

I mean, your whole Bush-loving thing must be shtick. It's just a little too much to believe.

Cycloptichorn


No, I am not writing in parody and I do not know what "shtick" even means.
I also never said I love Bush. Agreeing with someone does not mean you love them. I do not always agree on what the President does.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 06:13 pm
tryingtohelp wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
.
You're writing in parody, right?

I mean, your whole Bush-loving thing must be shtick. It's just a little too much to believe.

Cycloptichorn


No, I am not writing in parody and I do not know what "shtick" even means.
I also never said I love Bush. Agreeing with someone does not mean you love them. I do not always agree on what the President does.


I don't always agree on what the president does either. Funny coincidence, since I seem to spend most of my time badmouthing him, and you spend most of your time defending him.

What is it exactly that you disagree with about what Bush does?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 06:16 pm
Quote:
The US National Guard, under strain from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, suffers from severe equipment shortages that could jeopardize its ability to respond to a possible terrorist attack, natural disaster or other domestic crisis, a US commission says.

The National Guard has been reduced to its lowest readiness level ever due to the dramatic equipment shortfalls, posing an unacceptable risk to Americans, the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves said in a report to Congress.

The report, issued Thursday, said 88 percent of Army National Guard units and 45 percent of Air National Guard units that are not deployed abroad have serious equipment shortages because of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Defense Department had told at least one governor that it could take up to four years to replace equipment his state's National Guard units had left behind in Iraq, said Arnold Punaro, chairman of the independent commission chairman and a retired Marine Corps major general.

"If major changes are not made, the guard and reserve, the capability to carry out their missions, will continue to deteriorate," Punaro told reporters. "And it will go down, down, down. They will be less and less ready, and we will be taking more and more risks."
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 06:17 pm
I do not agree with how long this "invasion" has taken. I think they need to step it up, do what they went there for and get out. That was part of the intent but I feel it is taking "too" long.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 06:36 pm
A female [not even sure of that] Chauncey Gardener perhaps.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Mar, 2007 06:37 pm
JTT wrote:
A female [not even sure of that] Chauncey Gardener perhaps.

quite a good match I would think. ..all is well - and all will be well - in the garden.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 09:38 am
Shortages Threaten Guard's Capability

Quote:
Nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units in the United States are rated "not ready" -- largely as a result of shortfalls in billions of dollars' worth of equipment -- jeopardizing their capability to respond to crises at home and abroad, according to a congressional commission that released a preliminary report yesterday on the state of U.S. military reserve forces.

The report found that heavy deployments of the National Guard and reserves since 2001 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other anti-terrorism missions have deepened shortages, forced the cobbling together of units and hurt recruiting.

"We can't sustain the [National Guard and reserves] on the course we're on," said Arnold L. Punaro, chairman of the 13-member Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, established by Congress in 2005. The independent commission, made up mainly of former senior military and civilian officials appointed by both parties, is tasked to study the mission, readiness and compensation of the reserve forces.

"The Department of Defense is not adequately equipping the National Guard for its domestic missions," the commission's report found. It faulted the Pentagon for a lack of budgeting for "civil support" in domestic emergencies, criticizing the "flawed assumption" that as long as the military is prepared to fight a major war, it is ready to respond to a disaster or emergency at home.

From Virginia and the District of Columbia to Indiana and New Mexico, National Guard units lack thousands of trucks, Humvees, generators, radios, night-vision goggles and other gear that would be critical for responding to a major disaster, terrorist attack or other domestic emergency, according to state Guard officials.

The equipment shortage extends to Gulf Coast states such as Louisiana and Mississippi -- devastated in 2005 by Hurricane Katrina -- where Guard units have only a fraction of what they would need to respond to another large-scale disaster.

The Louisiana Guard, its gear depleted by Iraq and Katrina, is short of Humvees and trucks such as high-water vehicles critical for a major evacuation. "We are really concerned about vehicles," said Lt. Col. Pete Schneider, a spokesman for the Louisiana Guard. "We would have enough for a small-scale issue . . . maybe a Category 1 tropical storm we could handle -- an event that doesn't involve massive flooding or massive search and rescue," he said. But for bigger disasters, Louisiana would need help from other states.

Mississippi lacks trucks and is relying on contractors to fill gaps in engineering vehicles, according to the state Guard's assistant adjutant general, Maj. Gen. Ike Pylant. "We will make do with what we got," he said.

In the Washington area, Guard officials worry about a catastrophic attack. In the event of "a very large . . . chemical, biological or nuclear incident in the national capital region, I would need every truck I was authorized, and we don't have that," said Col. Robert Simpson, director of the joint staff for the Virginia National Guard. "We are definitely short trucks, all wheeled vehicles," as well as radios, bulldozers and other gear, Simpson said. The state Guard could handle ordinary contingencies such as "bad winter weather," he said.

Other state Guard leaders voiced similar concerns. "What keeps me up at night is, I think I am able to surge . . . for the normal disaster, but if I needed to deploy every bit of my soldiers and airmen, I know for a fact I do not have enough equipment," said Maj. Gen. R. Martin Umbarger, head of the Indiana National Guard.

Army National Guard units in the United States have on average about half of their authorized stock of dual-use equipment, needed both for fighting wars and for domestic missions, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. The National Guard estimates that it would require $38 billion for equipment to restore domestic Army and Air National Guard units to full readiness. The Army has budgeted $21 billion to augment Guard equipment through 2011.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the use of U.S. military reservists has risen from about 12.7 million days of service in 2001 to an estimated 63 million days in 2006. The current increase of U.S. troops in Iraq is expected to require the call-up of as many as four National Guard combat brigades beginning early next year.

But while the 830,000-strong selected reserves make up more than a third of the total military, they receive only 3 percent of equipment funding and 8 percent of the Defense Department budget, the report said.

In 2006, Army National Guard units preparing to deploy had to borrow on average one-third of their people and 60 percent of their equipment from a dozen other units, making for a less cohesive force, the report found.

National Guard units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have been required to leave large quantities of gear in the combat zone. Partly as a result, 88 percent of Guard units in the United States are now so poorly equipped that they are rated "not ready," according to Guard data and the report, which cited the National Guard Bureau chief, Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum. Forty-five percent of the Air National Guard is also "not ready," according to Guard data.

The commission called for granting governors more power to handle emergencies, including allowing them to command not only National Guard forces but also federal troops responding to emergencies in their states. The commission also called for the chief of the National Guard Bureau to be elevated one rank to four-star general.

In commenting on legislation known as the National Guard Empowerment Act, the commission disagreed with a proposal to make the head of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in part, it said, because it would complicate the chain of command. Lawmakers backing the act criticized the recommendations as tepid.

The report also said prospects for Guard recruiting and retention remain "highly problematic," despite successes last year. Fewer former active-duty military personnel have joined the reserves over the past 10 years -- they made up 38 percent of the Army National Guard recruits last year, compared with 61 percent in 1997. Polling data for youths and their parents also show that favorable views of service in the Guard and reserves have declined since November 2001, the report said.

The commission is scheduled to issue its final report in January.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 10:45 am
Are you saying that the reservists actually had to be used? Oh no. Imagine actually having to do a job you signed up for.

Maybe you should not believe everything you read.

Shortage of night vision googles now that I find funny. I know for a fact they are not short of those.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 10:57 am
Reservists did not sign up for overseas duty--and certainly not for repeated assignment to foreign shores.
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 10:59 am
JTT wrote:
A female [not even sure of that] Chauncey Gardener perhaps.


Haha, I needed that laugh!! Laughing
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 11:27 am
Noddy24 wrote:
Reservists did not sign up for overseas duty--and certainly not for repeated assignment to foreign shores.


Yes they did.
Webpage Title
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 11:47 am
Noddy24 wrote:
Reservists did not sign up for overseas duty--and certainly not for repeated assignment to foreign shores.


Actually,they did.
By taking the oath and by signing up,they agreed to go wherever they are sent,at the request of the President.

They are regular army,but they also hold civilian jobs.

During EVERY war,there have been thousands of reservists used overseas.
During WW2,reservists commanded USN warships.
JFK was a reservist,but he commanded a PT Boat.

Reservists are an integral part of the armed forces,and they always have been.

So,your contention that they didnt "sign up for overseas duty--and certainly not for repeated assignment to foreign shores",is wrong.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 12:09 pm
tryingtohelp wrote:
Are you saying that the reservists actually had to be used? Oh no. Imagine actually having to do a job you signed up for.

Maybe you should not believe everything you read.

Shortage of night vision googles now that I find funny. I know for a fact they are not short of those.


Actually I merely posted an article without comment.

I believe the point of the article is like everything else, the Iraq war is depleting the readiness of the Army National Guard units.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Mar, 2007 12:14 pm
revel wrote:
tryingtohelp wrote:
Are you saying that the reservists actually had to be used? Oh no. Imagine actually having to do a job you signed up for.

Maybe you should not believe everything you read.

Shortage of night vision googles now that I find funny. I know for a fact they are not short of those.


Actually I merely posted an article without comment.

I believe the point of the article is like everything else, the Iraq war is depleting the readiness of the Army National Guard units.


Wait a minute!!
You started out talking about the reserves,now you say you were talking about the NG.
Those are two very different entities,with some (but not all) different roles.

The reserves are NOT National Guard units,of any type.
They are two different forces.

Comparing the reserves with the NG is like comparing zebra's and mules.
They are both equine,but thats all they have in common.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 03:01:55