Do US troops in Iraq have all that they Need? Is ideology preventing reinforcement?

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
I would guess the reason we sent in these troops on the cheap is because we bush need to get the replacements in quick and cheap and didn't have enough ships to transfer alot of heavy armor.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Rumsfield sucks. Should be managing a sweat shop someplace not commanding a war.

Edit: I read earlier today Powell and Rumsfeild can't even stand be in the same room with one another. Powell's a heavy guy while Rummy "the fast and light" guy has the presidents ear.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: Spencer278
I would guess the reason we sent in these troops on the cheap is because we bush need to get the replacements in quick and cheap and didn't have enough ships to transfer alot of heavy armor.

I question the whole "cheap" part. We have almost twice the amount of contractors in Iraq than the our biggest ally in the coalition. Those contractors are making upwards of $1500 a day.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Spencer278
I would guess the reason we sent in these troops on the cheap is because we bush need to get the replacements in quick and cheap and didn't have enough ships to transfer alot of heavy armor.


As far as I know most of the heavy armor used during the war came from prepostiioned stocks in Kuwait. The marines and army divisions flew in to Kuwait and jumped in thier brand new shrinkwrapped tanks. I believe I read that thier was at least a divisions worth of that armor in Kuwait, I am not sure where they shipped it after the war.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Spencer278
I would guess the reason we sent in these troops on the cheap is because we bush need to get the replacements in quick and cheap and didn't have enough ships to transfer alot of heavy armor.


As far as I know most of the heavy armor used during the war came from prepostiioned stocks in Kuwait. The marines and army divisions flew in to Kuwait and jumped in thier brand new shrinkwrapped tanks. I believe I read that thier was at least a divisions worth of that armor in Kuwait, I am not sure where they shipped it after the war.

The article says
The Army's 1st Cavalry Division?which includes the unit in Sadr City?left five of every six of its tanks at home, and five of every six Bradleys.

Imagian that most of our heavy equipment came form stocks in kuwait or was shipped out of germany. The statement above implies that they came with at least sum tanks but left most at home because moving a tank can't be cheap if it is done by plane.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Yes, "IDIOTology" is the culprit.

We ARE talking about the Pentagon and Rumsfeld, right? :)

-Robert
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Where are our troops (massed)? The big number aren't in Iraq or back home?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Spencer278
I would guess the reason we sent in these troops on the cheap is because we bush need to get the replacements in quick and cheap and didn't have enough ships to transfer alot of heavy armor.


As far as I know most of the heavy armor used during the war came from prepostiioned stocks in Kuwait. The marines and army divisions flew in to Kuwait and jumped in thier brand new shrinkwrapped tanks. I believe I read that thier was at least a divisions worth of that armor in Kuwait, I am not sure where they shipped it after the war.

There was alot of munitions left behind, but there were no brand new shrink wrapped tanks there.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825948/

I didn't realize that they were down to less than a brigades worth of tanks, and that the Bradleys were mostly pulled out as well. I guess we are going to prove that light is better no matter what.

I am not sure if this is on the cheap or not. Swappting out for lighter troops is not uncommon.
Before the breakout of current hostilities in Fallujah, this seemed like a very reasonable thing to do.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Spencer278
I would guess the reason we sent in these troops on the cheap is because we bush need to get the replacements in quick and cheap and didn't have enough ships to transfer alot of heavy armor.


As far as I know most of the heavy armor used during the war came from prepostiioned stocks in Kuwait. The marines and army divisions flew in to Kuwait and jumped in thier brand new shrinkwrapped tanks. I believe I read that thier was at least a divisions worth of that armor in Kuwait, I am not sure where they shipped it after the war.

There was alot of munitions left behind, but there were no brand new shrink wrapped tanks there.

I believe you are wrong. Thier are six brigades worth of pre positioned stocks around the world munitions/vehicles/auxillary equipment. For the middle east thier was at least one Brigade in warehouses in Kuwait, another afloat in RO/RO ships and another in Saudia Arabia/Qatar?
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: charrison

That is a small fraction of what got sent over there. 1 brigade is about a 1/3 of division.

yes stuff is still prepositioned, but many ship loads of stuff was sent over there.

It's actually three Brigades. Kuwait/RO/RO/and Qatar., but they obviously shipped over a great deal of additional equipment.

Rumsfelds original idea was to do a massive raid with a reinforced brigade with massive airpower running straight to Baghdad. General Franks talked him out of that one.

Basically it looks like they didn't think this through and started to believe thier own propoganda.

I wonder what Iraq would be like now if they hadn't canned General Shinsiki after he gave his hundreds of thousands of troops for many years occupation testimony?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: charrison

That is a small fraction of what got sent over there. 1 brigade is about a 1/3 of division.

yes stuff is still prepositioned, but many ship loads of stuff was sent over there.

It's actually three Brigades. Kuwait/RO/RO/and Qatar., but they obviously shipped over a great deal of additional equipment.

Rumsfelds original idea was to do a massive raid with a reinforced brigade with massive airpower running straight to Baghdad. General Franks talked him out of that one.

Basically it looks like they didn't think this through and started to believe thier own propoganda.

I wonder what Iraq would be like now if they hadn't canned General Shinsiki after he gave his hundreds of thousands of troops for many years occupation testimony?

The goal was overwelming force and that was delivered. We still have that type of force there.
I would have to agree we need an army that is a division or 2 larger right now.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur. According to an unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now circulating through the Army, of a total of 789 Coalition deaths as of April 15 (686 of them Americans), 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825948/
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Yes, this is hosed-up if true. Just a couple of comments and clarifications:

as of recently, a senior Defense official told NEWSWEEK, there was barely a brigade's worth of operational tanks still there. (A brigade usually has about 70 tanks.)
A brigade, depending on the MTOE, usually has between 60 - 120 tanks. A 10-battalion heavy mech division normally contains 5 IN + 4 AR + 1 ACR battalions = roughly 530-580 M1/M2 victors.

The Army's 1st Cavalry Division?which includes the unit in Sadr City?left five of every six of its tanks at home, and five of every six Bradleys.
If this is true (I drive up to the Ft. Hood area 2x weekly but haven't bothered to cruise down Motorpool road), then in essence, 1 platoon of M1/M2 for every 2 companies are on the ground there at this time. Way too few.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: burnedout
Yes, this is hosed-up if true. Just a couple of comments and clarifications:

as of recently, a senior Defense official told NEWSWEEK, there was barely a brigade's worth of operational tanks still there. (A brigade usually has about 70 tanks.)
A brigade, depending on the MTOE, usually has between 60 - 120 tanks. A 10-battalion heavy mech division normally contains 5 IN + 4 AR + 1 ACR battalions = roughly 530-580 M1/M2 victors.

The Army's 1st Cavalry Division?which includes the unit in Sadr City?left five of every six of its tanks at home, and five of every six Bradleys.
If this is true (I drive up to the Ft. Hood area 2x weekly but haven't bothered to cruise down Motorpool road), then in essence, 1 platoon of M1/M2 for every 2 companies are on the ground there at this time. Way too few.


Why would they send all the tanks home like that especially as the isnurgency was continually ramping up since right after the war?
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Why would they send all the tanks home like that especially as the isnurgency was continually ramping up since right after the war?
Logistics, which was wrong. The only thing I can say is that if these reports are true, then Rumsfeld and Co. fvcked this one up.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81

The forces of the United States military are located in nearly 130 countries around the world performing a variety of duties from combat operations, to peacekeeping, to training with foreign militaries. Some of these deployments have existed for nearly 50 years, as in Japan, Germany, and South Korea, while other deployments have more recent origins such as the current occupation of Iraq.


Does anyone else think this is absurd? America was never meant to galavant around the world "freeing" people. The American military was never intended to engage in wars except in self-defense. The American people were never supposed to pay heavy prices in battle for the liberty of others.


Listen to what a real statesman once said (John Adams), Pure poetry:

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
"She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."

Conservatives believed this at one time, but according to the neocons we have a new world order, so these principles are now nonsense.

-Robert
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
The forces of the United States military are located in nearly 130 countries..
This statement is somewhat misleading. In many of the '130 countries', the US military contingent consists of little more than Defense Attache's and US Marines assigned to embassy duty. DA staff usually consists of no more than 3-5 military personnel. Defense Attache is a good assignment too. I was accepted for that duty just before hitting 18 years but decided instead to go ahead and slog it out at my unit until retirement.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Realworld accounts on Stryker's survivability from The Stars and Stripes

In December, two Strykers were hit a couple of days apart by IEDs in Samarra, where the brigade was temporarily based until it moved north to Mosul to replace the 101st Airborne Division. One suffered just a flat tire. The other absorbed a more lethal punch.

?The vehicle was destroyed,? Piek said, ?but it took the blast.?

Only the driver was seriously injured.
Note: I'm still a diehard M2 BFV fan.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: charrison

That is a small fraction of what got sent over there. 1 brigade is about a 1/3 of division.

yes stuff is still prepositioned, but many ship loads of stuff was sent over there.

It's actually three Brigades. Kuwait/RO/RO/and Qatar., but they obviously shipped over a great deal of additional equipment.

Rumsfelds original idea was to do a massive raid with a reinforced brigade with massive airpower running straight to Baghdad. General Franks talked him out of that one.

Basically it looks like they didn't think this through and started to believe thier own propoganda.

I wonder what Iraq would be like now if they hadn't canned General Shinsiki after he gave his hundreds of thousands of troops for many years occupation testimony?

There are a few key mistakes that has led to the mess we are seeing now IMO. One, Rumsfeld's decision, against the advice of senior military officials, to use use an army made mostly of airpower and light on ground troops in invade and secure the country. We could easily defeat the weak Iraqi army this way, but security demands "boots on the ground." F-16s do not provide local security. 2.) The policy reversal to dismiss the Iraqi army right after the war. We threw away our single greatest resource to stabilize the country and bring order, and did not have the needed forces to replace them (see above.) Instead we turned it into a liabilty, and have been forced to fight many of the people we could have had working for us. 3.) Rushing the timing of the war to fit with political timetables, not with strategic ones. We didn't wait to get all of our forces ready. The fiasco with the troops not being allowed into Turkey is one huge example. Not giving diplomacy suffcient opportunity alienated us from real alliances which would be needed later to secure and rebuild the country (and not lay the whole cost on the American military and taxpayer.) This war was timed to give Bush an easy victory and clean withdraw right before the '04 elections to ride cheering crowds into an easy re-election. Ignorance and arrogence on part of the administration has directly resulted in the great problems we're now facing in Iraq. These last points are prob the most debatable, but is my firm beliefs nonetheless.