so the US is out of troops

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: daniel49
We had 18 divisions in the active Army at the end of the first Gulf war. President Bill Clinton reduced these to 10.
that was his mistake.

This old right-wing fallacious talking point again?

From another forum that I used to post on when this stink was said previously:

As for the ACTUAL thread, I looked over the report that Advocate got his data from and it CLEARLY shows that Bush Sr. cut the defense of our country by multitudes over Clinton. When Clinton was in office, the "leveling out" that Advocate spoke of in reference to Bush Sr. started to take place. Not the other way around.

http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=1672

If you look at the chart on page 2 of the report, you will notice that the spending cuts in defense began while Reagan was in office. They began in 1985 and declined at their steepest points between the years 1989 and 1994 where they leveled off. NOT A SINGLE Clinton budget cut in that time because he wasn't in office and his first budget didn't take effect until 1994.

If you take a look at the chart on page 6, you will see that defense spending as it relates to GNP has dropped under Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton AND Shrub.

If you look at the graph on page 7, you will see that the LARGEST DROP IN DOLLARS SPENT on defense was, once again, by Bush Sr.

Someone please explain to me how the chart on page 11 makes any sense? How can they show the Bush Sr. spending plan for defense and compare it to the Clinton ACTUAL plan for FY's 1990, 1991 and 1992?

I covered the chart on page 13 that clearly displays that the majority of the cuts in staffing occured under Bush Sr.

The chart on page 14 (and the data that Advocate used in the initial post in this thread) are useless because it does not give a breakdown of each year. It is impossible to determine if those cuts in combat units occured under Bush Sr. or Clinton. From the evidence so far on all other items, guess which one I would assume had more cuts?!?

I can actually validate my above assumption using the information from the Washington Times article quoted on page 20. Below are the numbers that Advocate used to make his case in the original post once more:

Quote:
Army Active Divisions:
1986 - 18
2000 - 10
Army Reserve Divisions:
1986 - 10
2000 - 8
Active USAF Wings:
1986 - 26
2000 - 13
Reserve USAF Wings:
1986 - 13
2000 - 7.6


Here they are with the numbers from 1993 inserted with them (Bush Sr.'s last defense budget):

Army Active Divisions:
1986 - 18
1993- 12
2000 - 10
Bush cut 1/3 of the Active divisions (18-6) while Clinton cut 1/6th (12-10).

Army Reserve Divisions:
1986 - 10
1993 - 8
2000 - 8
Once again, Bush made the cuts. Clinton made 0 cuts.

Active USAF Wings:
1986 - 26
1993 - 14
2000 - 13
Bush Sr. killed them again.

Reserve USAF Wings:
1986 - 13
1993 - 10
2000 - 7.6
This one is about a wash, but still leans more to Clinton making less cuts.


If you look at the Clinton promises that are listed on pages 31-32 and were made in his 1999 SOTU address, there are increases in military spending, salaries, more retirement benefits and new weapons systems.

If you look at the chart on page 33, you will see that he delivered on what he promised. There is an upward trend that starts in FY 2000 (he promised that his next budget would include the increases and they obviously did). The chart on page 34 confirms this same conclusion in regards to RDT&E spending. That is on the rise under Clinton also.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe the General meant he did not know why the figure was at 20,000 or he did not know what the reasoning of the president is. A general follows the orders of the Commander-in-chief or the President. It is not his job to be the Commander-in-chief.

I think the president is very reluctant to tell congress the military needs Billions of dollars, or that the budget needs to be changed from about 3% to 6% of GDP. I think everyone knows that the military is underfunded. Push come to shove we have lots of troops in Germany and other places that we can recall. That would not be very easy to do. However, we dont really need to be protecting Germany and France. They think they are so smart, so why protect the European Union? They can just kill themselves.

I have no love for this war in Iraq. I thought it was a doomed endeavour from the get-go. However, at this point we have to decide if there is anything in the middle-east worth saving. We could just let them kill each other for a while. We are obviously without a backbone and do not have the guts to even use the weapons we do have. We keep letting Iran push the UN around, so we deserve whatever we get from them. Why does Bush say we will not attack Iran? He has no guts, and we have no backbone. The UN did nothing in the Darfur region and they do not have the guts to do anything about Iran. The UN did nothing about the Hezbolah attacking Isreal, and they will do nothing now. The UN will sit idly by when Iran blows up its first nuclear device.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let us not forget that despite all the stories our military is the best train, best equipped and most capable force in the history of the planet.

Would the additional training have helped? Yes, of course it would have, but any of our military members will tell you that they train constantly.

Also did you notice that this will be the third deployment for one of these groups? I would guess that as many as half the soldiers in that group were there for the first two deployments.

Take off the skirt, put down the pom poms, and stop cheerleading for a failed war by a failed criminal administration that has no regard for the lives of our troops fighting their war of lies.

That's why John Murtha, a former Marine combat veteran's plan is to use Congress' spending power to force setting strict conditions on funding to guarantee that troops being sent into combat are fully trained and equipped and that they have sufficient rotation time out of battle to make sure they get the rest, the training and the equipment they need to be effective.

For the record, the thread title is utterly ridiculous and totally off base. Changing the way troops train is not a sign that we are ?out of troops.? The change in training is most likely a factor of them going to Iraq a month earlier than planned than a sign we are out of troops. The training and troop deployment schedules are done years in advance. I would be willing to bet that the group going to Iraq for their third deployment can already tell you when their forth deployment is scheduled.

For the record, YOU are utterly ridiculous and totally off base. We ARE out of fully trained, fully equipped troops or they wouldn't be considering over-stressed, under-rested units into battle with under-trained replacements or insufficient or inadequate equipment.

Maybe YOU would like to volunteer to write the letters to all the families of all those who will die because they were sent into Iraq with ess than complete rest, training and equipment. Better yet, maybe YOU and the rest of the chickenhawks would like to volunteer to go in their place, instead of being such a cheerleader for sending others to their deaths.

 

[Lemon law]

I find it somewhat amazing that this thread ignores current military transitioning and the over reliance of the reserve system. Ever since that spoilsport Gorbachev waved the cold war white flag and said you win---the USSR can't afford to play the military parity out spend your adversary game. Our military has been in crisis mode and mission creep ever since. But a causality in the cold wars end has been the large toys the generals craved as their vision of large set piece battles of one large technologically advanced military against another. With the side having the best toys best able to deter aggression by the other side. with the generals regarding themselves as the best button pushers in the military business. Able to fight a war from global distances from the front with high tech.

The mission suddenly shifted to a transitioning our military into a force better able to fight brush fire wars against opponents not far advanced from the semi automatic rifle and the rocket propelled grenade. Worse yet, the rascals lurked inside of a larger civilian population that humanity prohibited simply destroying. And the new skill set called for actual boots on the ground and poltitical sensitivity.----in short all that our main line military was not.

Yet when it came time---in gulf war one and the later gulf war two---our military excelled at taking a small man and whipping them. The Russian made tanks Saddam had invested so heavily in suddenly found themselves matched against more modern US tanks that at speed were hitting Saddam's tanks outside of the range that Iraqi tanks could even fire from stationary---and thats assuming that the Iraqi tank had even survived the US planes that owned the skies. In short the US military still excels at killing people and breaking things. Aided by smart bomb technology---which simply means that a few air craft carriers can do the damage that used to take thousands of sorties by land based planes using dumb bombs.

But when it came time for boots on the ground---thats what got our military's back up---urban combat is nasty stiff--US personnel have to get down and dirty up close---but that was supposed to be the forte and job of Rumsfeld---to retain only parts of the high tech military and transition a large part to create well trained and equipped rapid response forces that could go anywhere at a moments notice.----but Rummy never was serious about it---or he would not have popped up with the statement "you go to war with the army you have"----seriously folks---you are talking Rummy as one of the neocons who lied us into the war---and quietly furious that Colin Powell insisted in the two month delay of running the Iraqi invasions past teh UN--is not using the time to make sure our troops were equipped. And then proceeding at a snails pace at providing body armor and better armored humvees.

But the politically sensitive Rummy knew he was already skating on thin ice with army brass---so instead he send not regular army types but national guard types to do the dying---we did not ever see the guard ever deployed to that extent during Vietnam---and it
should be noted that is where GWB hid during Vietnam. And now we are sending those guards men and women on their third and fourth tours while the regular army is deployed elsewhere.---and not doing their share of the heavy lifting.

A national guard makes sense as civilian core already trained and able to help get a nation mobilized in event of war--while they spend the bulk of their lives as civilians---the net effect can only be the destruction of our reserve system.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey

That's why John Murtha, a former Marine combat veteran's plan is to use Congress' spending power to force setting strict conditions on funding to guarantee that troops being sent into combat are fully trained and equipped and that they have sufficient rotation time out of battle to make sure they get the rest, the training and the equipment they need to be effective.

Hey Harvey,

I supose this will "send you off", as the Brits (or is it Aussies) say, but -

I keep hearing from sources, even those on the Left, that the point/objective of Murtha's proposal is not actually for the "benefit" of the troops, per se. Rather it's to install such restrictive requirements, which everyone knows and admits, that are unobtainable and therefore force a de-escalation or withdrawl. I.e., he's trying to accomplish the withdrawl in a "sly" way.

I've never heard anybody (commentator, news analylists) say it was anything other than a disguised withdrawl plan. No one seems to treat it as a "sincere" proposal.

What say you?

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Our worthless youth don't want to join the army and would squeal like stuck pigs if they recalled the draft.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Hang on, why are we in Iraq again?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Fern
Hey Harvey,

I supose this will "send you off", as the Brits (or is it Aussies) say, but -

I keep hearing from sources, even those on the Left, that the point/objective of Murtha's proposal is not actually for the "benefit" of the troops, per se. Rather it's to install such restrictive requirements, which everyone knows and admits, that are unobtainable and therefore force a de-escalation or withdrawl. I.e., he's trying to accomplish the withdrawl in a "sly" way.

I've never heard anybody (commentator, news analylists) say it was anything other than a disguised withdrawl plan. No one seems to treat it as a "sincere" proposal.

What say you?

Fern

I say he's right to make the point in those terms just because he's right, and if he's successful in stopping the insanity, completely, I'll congratulate him. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
I find it somewhat amazing that this thread ignores current military transitioning and the over reliance of the reserve system. Ever since that spoilsport Gorbachev waved the cold war white flag and said you win---the USSR can't afford to play the military parity out spend your adversary game. Our military has been in crisis mode and mission creep ever since. But a causality in the cold wars end has been the large toys the generals craved as their vision of large set piece battles of one large technologically advanced military against another. With the side having the best toys best able to deter aggression by the other side. with the generals regarding themselves as the best button pushers in the military business. Able to fight a war from global distances from the front with high tech.

The mission suddenly shifted to a transitioning our military into a force better able to fight brush fire wars against opponents not far advanced from the semi automatic rifle and the rocket propelled grenade. Worse yet, the rascals lurked inside of a larger civilian population that humanity prohibited simply destroying. And the new skill set called for actual boots on the ground and poltitical sensitivity.----in short all that our main line military was not.

Yet when it came time---in gulf war one and the later gulf war two---our military excelled at taking a small man and whipping them. The Russian made tanks Saddam had invested so heavily in suddenly found themselves matched against more modern US tanks that at speed were hitting Saddam's tanks outside of the range that Iraqi tanks could even fire from stationary---and thats assuming that the Iraqi tank had even survived the US planes that owned the skies. In short the US military still excels at killing people and breaking things. Aided by smart bomb technology---which simply means that a few air craft carriers can do the damage that used to take thousands of sorties by land based planes using dumb bombs.

But when it came time for boots on the ground---thats what got our military's back up---urban combat is nasty stiff--US personnel have to get down and dirty up close---but that was supposed to be the forte and job of Rumsfeld---to retain only parts of the high tech military and transition a large part to create well trained and equipped rapid response forces that could go anywhere at a moments notice.----but Rummy never was serious about it---or he would not have popped up with the statement "you go to war with the army you have"----seriously folks---you are talking Rummy as one of the neocons who lied us into the war---and quietly furious that Colin Powell insisted in the two month delay of running the Iraqi invasions past teh UN--is not using the time to make sure our troops were equipped. And then proceeding at a snails pace at providing body armor and better armored humvees.

But the politically sensitive Rummy knew he was already skating on thin ice with army brass---so instead he send not regular army types but national guard types to do the dying---we did not ever see the guard ever deployed to that extent during Vietnam---and it
should be noted that is where GWB hid during Vietnam. And now we are sending those guards men and women on their third and fourth tours while the regular army is deployed elsewhere.---and not doing their share of the heavy lifting.

A national guard makes sense as civilian core already trained and able to help get a nation mobilized in event of war--while they spend the bulk of their lives as civilians---the net effect can only be the destruction of our reserve system.

Although it's nearly impossible to decipher your 150-word and hyphen-jumbled sentences, I'm just going to summarize your knowledge and attitude on the military as astoundingly... bad.

Regurgitate all the Leftwing TPs you want about the political decisions and strategy. But for the love of God, your analysis of military matters needs an extreme makeover.

As far as the OP goes, of course it's off base. Deployment train-ups at the NTC and JRTC are nice, but they aren't required or always completed... especially when units have already done a tour or two. And sometimes, they do extra training in theater in addition to the mandatory 28 days in Kuwait.

I am the first to admit that our military, particularly the Army, is stretched too thin in several key areas. But this article appears to be trying to rub that point home a little too exuberantly with data that just doesn't support it.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Going to NTC in California is definitely great training, but most grunts have been there several times already. The only soldiers missing out are those who are brand new to the infantry and brand new to the units in question. Then again, they just came out of Infantry AIT, so they should be good to go after a few weeks/months of training with their new unit at their home-station.

NTC has never been a training requirement for deploying units. Consider it an added bonus for those who are lucky enough to find time to do it. The Army has set up similar counter-insurgency training, convoy training, and other theater-specific training, at nearly every mobilization station in the world.

The brigades in question are plenty ready for the job ahead. I went downrange in '04, as an infantryman, without first going through NTC, and my unit did just fine.

ho hum... just another case of civilians overreacting about something they know little or nothing about...

..says the guy who's actually served in Iraq and knows what he's talking about

Fixed for you

I've also been to both NTC and Iraq and found NTC to be the biggest waste of time for everyone below the level of battalion staff...and battalion staff could have done that training at their home base, inside a building.

Not going would certainly not have been a huge tragedy.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Going to NTC in California is definitely great training, but most grunts have been there several times already. The only soldiers missing out are those who are brand new to the infantry and brand new to the units in question. Then again, they just came out of Infantry AIT, so they should be good to go after a few weeks/months of training with their new unit at their home-station.

NTC has never been a training requirement for deploying units. Consider it an added bonus for those who are lucky enough to find time to do it. The Army has set up similar counter-insurgency training, convoy training, and other theater-specific training, at nearly every mobilization station in the world.

The brigades in question are plenty ready for the job ahead. I went downrange in '04, as an infantryman, without first going through NTC, and my unit did just fine.

ho hum... just another case of civilians overreacting about something they know little or nothing about...

Still no excuse to not get desert training before going to the desert.

For the record I went to NTC 3 times in a 4 year period with my unit.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Wrong.

Gates and Pace are saying that we would have difficulties meeting our obligations if another conflict were to arise, which means we are at our limit and do not have any troops to spare. i.e. we are out of troops.

The Army and the Marines combined have around 650,000 soldiers.
Only 150,000 are stationed in Iraq at this time.
That leaves another 500,000 soldiers sitting around some place. (There is also 200,000 Army reservists plus National Guard etc.)
If we are ?out of troops? please explain what these 500,000 soldiers are?

As explained in an article I read a while back: For every brigade that is in Iraq there is essentially another brigade that has just returned from Iraq and is cycling down, and a third brigade that is preparing to deploy to Iraq. (cycling up)

Now we have this nice deployment cycle that gives our members of the military time off in between deployments. However, in an emergency we could shorten that time off and deploy them longer and with shorter rest periods. We could probably double the number of troops in Iraq, but that would require a drastic change in our deployment cycles and greatly hurt moral. So while we may be stretched a little thin, we are certainly not ?out of troops.?

Most members of the US military are not grunts. It takes a lot of people to support tanks, jeeps, trucks, apcs, copters, etc...

Most of the military in Iraq are not grunts. Where do you think the support is needed most? duh

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: daniel49
We had 18 divisions in the active Army at the end of the first Gulf war. President Bill Clinton reduced these to 10.

Rubbish.

 

[fskimospy]

Ugh, so many armchair generals.

First of all, I have found from my experience that people in the military are SHOCKINGLY bad at determining what they need.

Secondly, just because someone is in the military gives them no more knowledge/authority of geopolitical/strategic troop decisions then any other person. Asking the average grunt in Iraq what to do about grand strategy for the US Army in the Middle East is like asking the janitor at your local starbucks how they should strategically position their business.

What's the saying? They know nothing. In fact, they know less then nothing... because if they knew they knew nothing that would be something.

Note: this doesn't mean that people in the military are incapable of learning about, and then having some useful insight onto what is going on in the world, but that their military experience alone nets them nothing. I wish some people on this board would realize that.

We're definitely running low on troops though. Of course the lesson from this should be "stop invading countries for no reason" not, "ahhh spend even more money on the military, lets see if we can't crack the trillion dollar mark!". A good illustration of how short we are is the fact that they are not only pulling national guard troops out in record numbers, but they are raiding the other services as well. 3 people out of my 12 person maintenance activity alone were pulled out, given a quick once over of training for a few weeks in Georgia, and sent to Iraq barely knowing how to use a pistol. They weren't being sent to the front lines or anything, but still. When you're prying people away from other services at a moment's notice, undertraining them and sending them to Iraq... you're hurting for troops.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ugh, so many armchair generals.

There's these things, they're called mirrors...

 

[Lemon law]

To Cwjerome---as the self styled military expert who poo poos my post----I just point out what I am saying is the military reality at the moment--and you do nothing to point out that its not the reality at the moment.---all you can harp on is that troops get sink or swim training in Iraq---and not that that training prepares them to fulfill the mission they need to fulfill to be remotely successful in quelling an insurgency.---or that the army or GWB&co. even have a clue of what it takes to win.---or even understand who they are fighting.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
and sent to Iraq barely knowing how to use a pistol.

I know you were somewhat joking, but if you are in ANY branch of the military and unable to use basic weapons you deserve whatever comes to you.

 

[Lemon law]

The point being---the US military--or any military are bureaucratic organizations--and the skill set required of the leadership are not in being the best gunners, hand to hand combat aces,
or anything of that nature. They must be first and foremost bureaucrats----and make their part of the organization function when the chips are down.

There is a certain logic in stating arm chair generals debate strategy---and the real military talks logistics.

So if you need a cog in the wheel---say a cook or some other support personnel---why do they even need to know how to fire a pistol?--they simply feed and support someone
else in the bureaucracy that does have the needed skill set.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: eskimospy
and sent to Iraq barely knowing how to use a pistol.

I know you were somewhat joking, but if you are in ANY branch of the military and unable to use basic weapons you deserve whatever comes to you.

No, I'm not joking. Most people in the navy have little to no weapons training. You know how you qualify on a pistol? Takes about an hour, you get a 15 minute safety lecture and then you fire about 40 rounds. This qualification is good for as long as you are at a command... so figure on firing about 40 rounds every 3 years or so.

When you think about it, the reason is that most people in the navy will never have any reason whatsoever to use a weapon, so they don't devote a ton of time and resources towards making you into a floating rambo. Most people in the navy are pretty decent firefighters, but weapons.. no.

Normally, this isn't a problem. It IS a problem when you take these people and ship them off to a war zone with extremely limited training. The people in charge know this, but they are betting that the navy people can fufill the duties of an army person over there that won't get close to combat, freeing up an additional soldier for a real weapon-holding job. This definitely has some serious PR risk if one of those undertrained people gets killed though... and is most certainly a sign of how badly stretched they are.

EDIT: Edited for clarity

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Ugh, so many armchair generals.

There's these things, they're called mirrors...

Guess reading isn't your strong suit.

The entire point of my post was that there are some people here who believe that being a grunt in the military has endowed them with some sort of geopolitical/strategic knowledge above and beyond that of the common man. It hasn't.

Where in my post did I say what we should do in Iraq? Or speak to how and in what ways I think the US military is deployable? Did I describe myself as an authority on the capabilities of the US army in this sort of situation? No, I spoke of the things that either I have personally witnessed, or that the military freely admits it is doing and said that they would not be doing them if they were not in serious need of more troops. This would tend to imply that things are not as fine as some other people previously wrote.

So please, before you accuse me of being a hypocrite you might want to make sure you've done a once over of what I've written.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Going to NTC in California is definitely great training, but most grunts have been there several times already. The only soldiers missing out are those who are brand new to the infantry and brand new to the units in question. Then again, they just came out of Infantry AIT, so they should be good to go after a few weeks/months of training with their new unit at their home-station.

NTC has never been a training requirement for deploying units. Consider it an added bonus for those who are lucky enough to find time to do it. The Army has set up similar counter-insurgency training, convoy training, and other theater-specific training, at nearly every mobilization station in the world.

The brigades in question are plenty ready for the job ahead. I went downrange in '04, as an infantryman, without first going through NTC, and my unit did just fine.

ho hum... just another case of civilians overreacting about something they know little or nothing about...

..says the guy who's actually served in Iraq and knows what he's talking about

Fixed for you

You sure about that? Perhaps Horse will step in/up and tell you about his Iraq experiences

 

[will889]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: eskimospy
and sent to Iraq barely knowing how to use a pistol.

I know you were somewhat joking, but if you are in ANY branch of the military and unable to use basic weapons you deserve whatever comes to you.

No, I'm not joking. Most people in the navy have little to no weapons training. You know how you qualify on a pistol? Takes about an hour, you get a 15 minute safety lecture and then you fire about 40 rounds. This qualification is good for as long as you are at a command... so figure on firing about 40 rounds every 3 years or so.

When you think about it, the reason is that most people in the navy will never have any reason whatsoever to use a weapon, so they don't devote a ton of time and resources towards making you into a floating rambo. Most people in the navy are pretty decent firefighters, but weapons.. no.

Normally, this isn't a problem. It IS a problem when you take these people and ship them off to a war zone with extremely limited training. The people in charge know this, but they are betting that the navy people can fufill the duties of an army person over there that won't get close to combat, freeing up an additional soldier for a real weapon-holding job. This definitely has some serious PR risk if one of those undertrained people gets killed though... and is most certainly a sign of how badly stretched they are.

EDIT: Edited for clarity

Naval SW and EOD-Seals have plenty of weapons training. NSW boat crews have no mission in Iraq -- obviously.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes they do, and while I'm not sure about their exact numbers... I'm going to say that those groups comprise about 1% of the Navy.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

Originally posted by: eskimospy
and sent to Iraq barely knowing how to use a pistol.

I know you were somewhat joking, but if you are in ANY branch of the military and unable to use basic weapons you deserve whatever comes to you.

No, I'm not joking. Most people in the navy have little to no weapons training. You know how you qualify on a pistol? Takes about an hour, you get a 15 minute safety lecture and then you fire about 40 rounds. This qualification is good for as long as you are at a command... so figure on firing about 40 rounds every 3 years or so.

When you think about it, the reason is that most people in the navy will never have any reason whatsoever to use a weapon, so they don't devote a ton of time and resources towards making you into a floating rambo. Most people in the navy are pretty decent firefighters, but weapons.. no.

EDIT: Edited for clarity

Damn, that is just pathetic. I don't care what branch you are in, you need to know how to handle a weapon. I look at it like cops who do not train with their weapon more than the minimum twice-yearly excursion to the range. Sorry, but it is part of your job to be prepared, even if you have to do it on your own time.

 

[imported_Infidel]

NTC was critical to see where your weaknesses were. We learned how difficult it was to operate in that environment. Busting through the desert at night looking through nods with no depth perception, you can run right off an embankment/cliff before you know whats hit you. You learn to appreciate the logistical nightmares you're going to encounter, how your communications are going to go to hell etc.

Sorry, but I think its pretty critical training.

OPFOR was soviet style when I was there, freaking gas attacks via mortar every morning. Sucked.