| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| About that "low morale" among US troops |
| 2003-07-12 |
| It really all boils down to this: Just about everyone here would rather be at home right nowâbut nobody wants to go home a loser. If we gave in to the snivelers and peaceniks who cry, âBring our troops home now!â Iraq would undoubtedly descend into a bloody civil war, and God only knows who would come out on top. Saddam might even emerge from hiding, claiming to have driven the âinfidelsâ out of his country. The United States would have suffered another black eye, and our enemies would be further emboldened to attack us again. We would have lost the war, and all of the brave Americans and British who gave their lives in this operation would have died in vain. I am not willing to accept that scenario. You shouldnât be, either. We are the mightiest military to ever walk the face of the Earth. We have the capability and the will to finish this job. Letâs see it through to the end. I canât think of a more succinct answer to the cut-and-run-crowd.. |
| Posted by:R. McLeod |
| #20 Eric:"But I don't think they ever could or should equal or exceed the private sector." Why not? Shouldn't a soldier who faces at least as much risk as a cop on a daily basis get at least the same pay? Gaudicanal chaplan:"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition". |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-7-13 9:05:13 AM |
| #19 "So what are going to do, kick out the draftees when they don't perform? That's what they want. There's a whole sector now in our society which will treat them as heros." Yep. Damn a society that treats 'em as equals. Kick 'em out before they can get deployed. Every level of society has losers... the draft finds 'em sooner. Think of it as a big sieve (with no college deferments). "how many times does it take the barbarian to keep pounding on the gate before one time, he eventually succeeds? How long did it take for the economy to recover from the impact of 911? What would happen if a series of such impacts happened on the economy?" I respectfully disagree that this makes the case for "no draft". With even a 20% washout rate, you have more manpower to do the job with, and society gets some underpinnings of former street (and other) people who have a clue. The barbarians pounded on the gates of Rome for 700 years without getting in. The Romans had a draft. It can and has been argued that when they hired the fighting out, the barbarians got in. Every Roman had a direct stake in the fighting, at least during the Republic and the first couple centuries of the Empire. We should be so lucky. It has also been argued that what felled Rome was religion. Specifically, Christianity, from within. That may only be a part of the story, but look for mass French conversions to Islam (shame, sons of Reginald, Godfrey, Raymond, Tancred!) to know the end is nearing for some. I totally agree that in the modern battlefield, there is no rear. I also tend to believe that "support" troops need combat training, although it's still a pipe dream to think that they will be as adept at combat as the real front line. Specialization works. I think that the shock of 9/11 was largely psychological, and that 6 x 9/11 would equal an America just as big, but several times as determined. Think about your reactions at the time... did it matter that 3000, 15,000 (as first reported) or 30,000 died? Was there a linear relationship between the body count and American determination? Nope, there was only a horror max that got violated and the rest will be history. I also don't think that the current recession is a direct result of the attacks. I think that we were due anyway, and the attacks were the catalyst to be sure, but the causes of recessions are always oversimplified. More attacks at this point would only rally the people behind the Prez, especially if the media's carefully timed reports on "approval ratings" can be believed. I will not accept that any defeat is inevitable. Winning the West did not require the overseas logistics, it did not require anywhere near the percentage of the national budget, and it did not entail the apparent risk of religious war. In short, I don't consider it a good analogy, except on a very local basis. I am thinking more in terms of the Parthian and Germanic Wars, or (to fast-forward) Korea, and looking for a way to remodel our response for success. This is a longer term war and the ability of the administration to make our will prevail will be hard tested. More attacks would actually help the cause.. |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-7-12 9:30:17 PM |
| #18 Mark IV - I was in for the long haul from the early 70's till after GW1. I lived through the problems, the zero pay raises, the departure of good men to feed and take care of their families. When Reagan hit, we got the pay, the incentives, and the support needed to reconstruct the system in a manner not seen since WWII. It was all done by volunteers. Not all the cream of the crop. But we had the ability to fire people, kick them out, so we could concentrate on the job of preparing to fight. If you drag the unmotivated into the bunch, they just waste the NCOs' and officers' time which is better spent with those who want to be there. You spend 80% of your time dealing with 10 to 20% of the crowd who want to get out anyway. So what are going to do, kick out the draftees when they don't perform? That's what they want. There's a whole sector now in our society which will treat them as heros. You don't have enough MPs for Iraq, where are you going to get the guards for all the prison space if you send them to the jug rather than kick them out. Sorry, boys, unless you're going to do the job, I ain't. I've done my time. You put everyone else at risk, who are putting their lives on the line for you and this country, by inserting the unwilling into the unit. Fred - recall the fight at the underpass in Baghdad? Those were the support troops. They had to get through because if they didn't show up, the guys in the infantry and armor were going to run out of ammo and fuel. If they don't come, the combat guys don't fight either. If you recognize anything from the fight in Iraq, it is that on a mobile battlefield there is not rear. Everyone has to be able to fight. And I do recall a Chaplain catching flak for manning a gun in that fight as well. He can be in my unit any day. ZF - We indeed can't afford to lose this as we did Vietnam. If this enemy sees that it can slide back into the shadow and bids it time and strike at will and the Americans do not have the will to see it to the end, then they will eventually be able to dictate the initiative. If you are the student of history you seem to be, how many times does it take the barbarian to keep pounding on the gate before one time, he eventually succeeds? How long did it take for the economy to recover from the impact of 911? What would happen if a series of such impacts happened on the economy? All the threat needs to do is put enough aligators into the swamp before we forget the mission was to drain the swamp in the first place. The threat doesn't need to destroy us, just reduce our ability and willingness to act. They have a willing ally in the mass media. Just see the result of only a month's worth of harping, harping, and harping has done to raise this issue. To me, the WOT is nothing more than another winning the west. It took decades to close the western frontier, it took numerous lives of the small professional army, under strength and over committed, against a foe who at one moment was friendly, the next neutral, and the next day outright hostile. There was no consistant distinct strategy out of Washington either. However, in the end, the west was consolidated and incorporated into the union. In this case it just bringing the new hostiles into at least the late 20th century concept of western civilization. But for those out there ready to send their fellow Americans into involuntary servitude, just answer this question. When hasn't a general said that he needs more troops? |
| Posted by: Don 2003-7-12 5:08:27 PM |
| #17 We've got these guys right where we want them - on the run and in fear for their lives. The Muslim world (to the extent that such a phrase means anything) is now fully aware of the consequences of attacking us at home. In return for the killing of 3000 Americans, we have toppled two regimes. Malaysia, which played host to terrorist conferences, is now somewhat more reluctant to host them. Muslim leaders around the world who previously turned a blind eye to anti-American terrorist activity are now acutely sensitized to that activity by the existential question - "Am I next?" (on the American list). Donations to terrorists have slowed to a trickle, to the extent that news organizations have to pay for interviews with terrorist organizers. The media's obsession with minor skirmishes cannot obscure the central fact that we are winning, and they are losing. And that's all that matters. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-7-12 2:09:14 PM |
| #16 Yes but what about the draftees that turn out to be eager, willing, capable and all-round good at ass-kicking? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-7-12 1:34:06 PM |
| #15 I tend to agree with you, and I was in the Army during the same period. But I would restrict the combat arms to professionals. Use the draftees as cooks, bakers, clerks. Use them for maintenance tasks, chaplain's assistants, and all the other tail jobs. Infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers, and combat support jobs should be restricted to professionals. The professionals should also get the pay and the respect they deserve. |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-7-12 1:07:10 PM |
| #14 Don, and Hoda: I went in (Army) right after y'all, at the beginning of the all-volunteer (VOLAR) army. It sure wasn't any better when I got there, and I don't think the draft is to blame. That was immediate post-Vietnam era. The armed forces were demoralized, loaded with dead wood, and hiring the scum of the earth (including me, I guess). It was a huge force without a mission, enjoying both deep budget cuts and the scorn of civilian society (encouraged by our friends in the press, natch) and the Carter administration. It was also a mirror of the general social melt-down on the streets of the US in the sex-drugs-rock'nroll era. There should be a big, shiny-assed medal for that core of real professional NCOs and officers who kept it together during that awful post-Nam period... talk about unsung heroes. I also got to see the beginning of the change back to a real military, at the beginning of the Reagan presidency (bows to the west). I stayed in touch with my buds who stayed on (and there weren't many who opted for that under those conditions). They cracked down on the drugs, quit obsessing over Nam, got serious about new missions, and did training that mattered. So, on to my point: I would support a draft because I think that it's good for society. It could be 18 mos., the term is negotiable, but there are a bunch of folks who never get the standards of cleanliness, attention to detail, respect for authority, and the general ass-kickin they need, without a draft. I saw and believe this. And for my trump, the media's favorite argument: Even the Europeans are doing it. If lame little countries you could chuck a rock clear over, who haven't defended themselves in 150 years, have a draft, shouldn't we? And there ya have it. |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-7-12 12:53:01 PM |
| #13 I'm repeating this post from yesterday to point out that it's morning in Iraq - we have won, and what we're seeing are just skirmishes: From a poster in yesterday's Rantburg: we realize that if we lose this one, nothing else matters. Are you seriously entertaining the thought that we could lose this one? Excuse me while I let out a bellylaugh. Media hyperventilation and wishful thinking aside, there is zero possibility we will lose it. Anyone who says that the peace will be more difficult that the war that preceded it is full of it. War is hard - extremely hard, but typically short in duration. Compared to war, enforcing the peace is easy, but can take a lot of time. It was 25 years before we drew down our presence in Japan. Nothing much happened there after an initial period of sporadic attacks lasting several years. (An example - soldiers would disappear, never to be found. AWOL or murdered and buried? These incidents decreased as time progressed. You draw your own conclusions). Almost 60 years later, we're still in Japan. Everyone thinks of Iraq as a bottomless rathole. But before Iraq, there was Mesopotamia. This country has real possibilities. I believe that by the time we leave Iraq, five or six decades later, it will be the strongest and richest country in the Mid East, perhaps even an ally of Israel. What the media perceive as problems in Iraq aren't even real problems. Iraq has oil. Unlike Japan and Germany in the postwar period, most of Iraq's cities aren't flattened. Iraq's bridges and power stations are intact, except for a little looting. (In WWII, Allied forces made a lot of river crossings on pontoon bridges because the Germans had destroyed the existing structures). Iraq is in better shape than most Allied cities after WWII - Allied troops destroyed many of these cities in order to get at the German troops who were holding the line. The media can only see what's in front of their noses - they have no sense of perspective. What they see in Iraq is different from peacetime conditions in their own countries, so they point out all the differences. They are congenitally anti-American and doing a comparison to what happened in the past would destroy the anti-American angle, so they skip the comparison altogether. Bottom line - take the gloom-and-doom talk from reporters with a few cupfuls of salt. Understand that many liberal hate-America reporters will lie without compunction if there's an anti-American angle in a story. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-7-12 12:44:31 PM |
| #12 I like Mcloeds Sunniland. Those are the ex-facto rulers of Gangland Iraq. Thats a population that should carry a heavey burden. Like fleeing to Syria. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-7-12 12:41:34 PM |
| #11 Letâs see it through to the end. This is the end. It's not the end of the deployment, which will last decades. It's not the end of US casualties, which will mount into the hundreds. It's not the end for skirmishes with deadenders, which will last at least a decade. But it's the end for our enemies in Iraq. Ultimately, if we ignore political correctness and run Iraq well, with American civilian administrators supervising Iraqis, for perhaps a decade, Iraq will prosper and grow strong. In many ways, Iraq is closer to the US than Japan was at the end of WWII. Japanese propaganda against the US covered the whole spectrum - racist propaganda at American 'mongrels', equating Americans to devils and resentment at American 'bullying' and 'interference' in the geopolitical sphere (i.e. Japan's ambitions). There are problems in Iraq, they're not anywhere near what we faced with either the German or the Japanese occupations in the postwar period. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-7-12 12:35:48 PM |
| #10 I have to agree with Don...I enlisted in the Navy during the draft and saw the same crap he speaks of...my own service was in subs and since we were all screened volunteers, I didn't experience the worst of it, but doesn't anyone recall how Forrestal got the nickname "Forest-Fire"? |
| Posted by: Hodadenon 2003-7-12 12:05:21 PM |
| #9 In times of war I have no problem with a draft, and we are at war now. Politically, I just don't think it can be done, though. It would have to be proposed and nurtured by a group of political leaders including many Democrats. I know, I know; fat chance of that happening, especially in this Silly Season leading up to the Prez elections. As for military pay increases, I think they are justified and will help recruitment. But I don't think they ever could or should equal or exceed the private sector. Again, it's another political nightmare because Dems flat-out don't like to give money to the military and the GOP will be loath to increase taxes to pay for it. (God forbid if all other Gov't spending were to take a spending freeze for a year that would save billions.) Thus endeth my rant... |
| Posted by: eric 2003-7-12 10:39:00 AM |
| #8 badanov - I went in at the tail end of the last draft Army. Never again unless the homeland is in direct threat as it was in '41. No crap about terrorist who kill as many as we do in a month on the highway, I mean a real threat. I lived through an Army filled with desertion, AWOL, drugs, disorder, and real low morale. The volunteers may be grumbling about being in Iraq, but they understand that they did indeed volunteer. [BTW - Napoleon's Old Guard were known as the Grumblers, things really don't change when it comes to the GI.] You put people out there who have no real interest, desire or investiment in the process and you'll have the same situation you had in the late 60's and 70's. You won't have an Army. I notice that the NBA and NFL don't have a problem recruiting people. Wonder why? If it pays, it plays. Slaves are always a lot cheaper than free men. It is expensive to have the most effective Army in the world. That is a problem most large successful countries have faced throughout history. Remember that the next time your state's Congressmen and Senators fight to keep open a base or a procurement program which the military does not want to expend further resources on. When they talk about the next Black Hole of federal funding, free drugs for the AARP crowd, ask them why your security is not as important as the over 70 vote. |
| Posted by: Don 2003-7-12 10:33:40 AM |
| #7 Rumsfeld has made a conscious decision to cast aside part of the so-called Powell Doctrine. Specifically, that no major conflict should be initiated without calling up the reserves. The thinking behind this is that America should know that its sons and daughters, husbands and wives are going to war and not just the "military." Powell's generation of officers felt that America never went to war in Viet Nam. Only draftees. Thus it was easy for the anti-war crowd to drive a wedge between the military and the population. When DoD started the mobilization process, Rumsfeld and his circle hit the roof when they found out that units key to operations had been placed in the reserves and National Guard. They have since decided to put those units back on active duty (link). Their goal is now is to be able to go to war in 15 days. We are really at risk of destroying the the post-Viet Nam military that we built at such great expense and difficulty. I like Rumsfeld's aggressiveness and no BS attitude, but his understanding of the military is pre-Viet Nam and he is ignoring the post-Viet Nam lessons learned. In doing so he is making some of the same mistakes as MacNamara, especially regarding manpower management. The units (15 combat brigades, 8 divisions) needed to end this SNAFU are already there, in the reserve force structure. They need training, plus ups from the Individual Ready Reserve, and officer and NCO cadres from the active component. We've spent billions on these units and haven't used them since the Korean War. Winning wars on the cheap is a bad idea. MacNamara tried it. Hitler tried it. (He refused to mobilize all industries to a war footing until 1944 when Speer fianlly convinced him.) Wars are won through national commitment and persistence. They are an exercise of national will. If we lack the will to mobilize the nation to fight the war against the Islamists (the War on Terror sounds too much like the War on Drugs to me), we may very well win this battle (which I don't doubt) but risk losing the war as our enemies adapt and devise new tactics and strategies or just plain outlast us. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-7-12 10:24:27 AM |
| #6 But incentives won't guarantee the manpower will be there. Only a draft can do that. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-7-12 9:22:46 AM |
| #5 It would be better to increase the pay and benifits for those e-1 thru e-6,at least on a level with those of the same skill levels in the civilial sector.There would be a dramatic increase in recruitment.The few cops I know with a couple of years experience make about $3,000/month. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-7-12 8:33:26 AM |
| #4 Y'all are gonna hate this, but I think with the committments we have made to battle terrorism and terrorist states, we need to bring back the draft to fulfill manpower needs. I have watched the volunteer army for 30 years and it has worked very, very well as long as we do not have multiple deployments, and no prospect of even more. That particular scenario no longer exists. I know our military leaders will complain from one side of its mouth that the recruit quality will suffer, but I fail to see how. True, a soldier who is drafted doesn't have the same outlook as one who didn't, but after the service, both have the same outlook about their experience. The standards that exist now can remain in place as recruits are vetted the same. And the military will say on the other side of its mouth how conscripts did well in Viet Nam. Poor quality troops from conscipts versus good performances in combat; I suspect the truth leans more towards good performance in combat. Okay, I am ready to see your remarks. I think there will be a flood of them, but I do not think I am wrong about this. I think we need the draft as long as we are going to conduct global war against terrorism. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-7-12 7:55:15 AM |
| #3 Agree we need to rotate the combat units out of there. Which obviously is why we'd like more international help. Once again, I'll say it: we might have to face the reality of a divided, defensible, and pro-US Iraq to make this work. I can visualize us designating SunniLand, where most of the attacks are taking place, a de facto state. We essentially withdraw from that area, and isolate it. Nothing in, nothing out. Meanwhile we concentrate our forces (which could be much smaller) on friendly turf in Kurdistan and ShiiteLand. Think about it: do we ACTUALLY care if Iraq has the borders drawn by the British 80 years ago? The viable, and economically meaningful, parts of the country are basically friendly to us. Turn those areas into the new Iraq and leave the Sunnis to rot. This isn't an original idea, but the realities in that part of the world, including our limited manpower capabilities, may well lead to something like this. |
| Posted by: R. McLeod 2003-7-12 6:31:42 AM |
| #2 With all respect to LT Smash, I think the situation is a little different for those in combat units. They're exhuasted, and should have been rotated out of there a while ago. But we simply don't have the men available. |
| Posted by: Pete Stanley 2003-7-12 3:42:34 AM |
| #1 Letâs see it through to the end. Yeah but let's do it with brains. I think the administration's been doing a lot of war planning and that went well, but this soldier-turned-policeman with a smile and a candy bar ain't all it was cracked up to be. As the story goes... you know how Russians used to clear mine fields in WW2? Well, I don't think the admin should be trying that here. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-7-12 3:30:23 AM |