Army to Deploy 1st Infantry Division Soldiers to Iraq

From Military.com

The U.S. Army announced Friday it will deploy about 500 soldiers from the Big Red One to Iraq this fall.

The 1st Infantry Division Headquarters troops will assume the role of Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command-Iraq in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, according to an Oct. 14 Army press release.

The Fort Riley, Kansas, unit will replace soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), providing command and control of coalition troops training, advising and assisting Iraqi Security Forces.

This is the second deployment of 1st Infantry Division HQ soldiers to Iraq in the last 2 years.

Currently, the Combat Aviation Brigade, 1st Infantry Division is deployed to Afghanistan. My old unit.

1ID HQ is headed to Iraq to relieve the 101st ABN Div.

But remember folks, no boots on the ground, ISIS is the JV team, and so forth and so on.


Look I'm a Big Red One soldier. I'm all about bringing the fight to whatever enemy we may face. But at the end of the day this situation is a failure in leadership. There is no clear goal, and no strategy to win the fight. There is no greater disservice to soldiers than not providing direction and PURPOSE.

a reply to: projectvxn

I would hate to imagine the ROE's that they have.

a reply to: DBCowboy

"Advise and assist".

Also, like the Div HQ's last deployment "Take IDF and do nothing about it".

a reply to: projectvxn

Please forgive my crudeness, but our military needs to kill people and break things.

Being used as a sound bite for a 30 second spot on CNN is an insult to every single man and woman who ever wore a uniform.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Please forgive my crudeness, but our military needs to kill people and break things.

Anyone who thinks the military serves a purpose other than what you described is a delusional idiot.

Society and politicians have decided that the military should also be a humanitarian organization. While the military has the capacity to do these things, and just about every service member would jump at the chance at doing that sort of work, that is not the main purpose of the training we receive. Nor is it the mission of the military to do those things.

The purpose of the army, for instance, is to close with and destroy the enemies of the United States and close combat. That's it. There's no other purpose.

a reply to: projectvxn

yep if we had a real commander and chief during the last eight years, things would have went much better in iraq and afghanistan. bombing doesn't do it all, gotta go in and mop up. you got to kick em while the shock of hell raining down is still fresh and the bells are ringing in their rag covered noggins.

off topic, The Big Red One is one of my favorite movies, watch it every time i see on some where.

a reply to: projectvxn

Pardon my ignorance and feel free to pick this apart.

I would say the goal is occupation and they've done it.

a reply to: projectvxn

hua

We have just been holding the "footprint" until someone comes along and wants the job done.

The FOB's will be up and running again in weeks and it will be "business as usual" within a month once the leadership decides they actually want the enemy gone from the theater.

+If you're going to be one, be a BIG RED ONE!!+

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: projectvxn

Pardon my ignorance and feel free to pick this apart.

I would say the goal is occupation and they've done it.

Sorry, but you'd be wrong.

You can't occupy a country with 500 troops most of which are support, 1 Combat Aviation Brigade, and some jets.

a reply to: projectvxn

Fair enough. So then why deploy such a low number? What , if any, is the official stance?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: projectvxn

I would hate to imagine the ROE's that they have.

I was thinking the same thing. They will be nothing but targets if the ROE's continue as they have been.... Maybe they could take the time while they are ducking to avoid being shot to learn how to not offend someone by using the wrong pronoun to identify someone?

Putin has to be laughing his ass off at how Obama has neutered our military leaders.

a reply to: projectvxn

Society and politicians have decided that the military should also be a humanitarian organization. While the military has the capacity to do these things, and just about every service member would jump at the chance at doing that sort of work, that is not the main purpose of the training we receive. Nor is it the mission of the military to do those things.

This is a legitimate function of the NG, but not a use for the Army itself. And no they are not the same thing.

No, I am in agreement with project here. The Army is a weapon meant to be used when the owner of the weapon (the US) is threatened. That means, it stays home (American soil) until needed to defend the homeland, and then is unleashed in its complete fury to destroy completely the enemies which threaten the nation. But no, politicians have defanged the military so we are left with a "humanitarian force".

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: projectvxn

Fair enough. So then why deploy such a low number? What , if any, is the official stance?

Officially? Advise and assist.

Actually? All they will really do is sit there like the Div HQs last deployment to Iraq a couple of years ago and make Obama look like he's doing something.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: projectvxn

Fair enough. So then why deploy such a low number? What , if any, is the official stance?

The point is to have a presence. It is all political at the expense of the soldiers. And you cannot say that it is for training the locals, that is the mission of SF not an ID.

a reply to: projectvxn

Thanks for the brief education guys, I appreciate it.

a reply to: JinMI

I was with the 1st CAB 1ID when the Div HQ deployed in the summer of 2014.

I knew then that it was a # show of a shell game to score political points for the president. They did next to nothing out there except to take photo ops with Iraqi forces for the media consumption.

The president is not committed to this because he knows he would take a political beating for deploying another invasion force to Iraq. So instead he orders the smallest possible force to ensure his political aspirations and the democrats don't look weak.

originally posted by: projectvxn
From Military.com

The U.S. Army announced Friday it will deploy about 500 soldiers from the Big Red One to Iraq this fall.

The 1st Infantry Division Headquarters troops will assume the role of Combined Joint Forces Land Component Command-Iraq in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, according to an Oct. 14 Army press release.

The Fort Riley, Kansas, unit will replace soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), providing command and control of coalition troops training, advising and assisting Iraqi Security Forces.

This is the second deployment of 1st Infantry Division HQ soldiers to Iraq in the last 2 years.

Currently, the Combat Aviation Brigade, 1st Infantry Division is deployed to Afghanistan. My old unit.

1ID HQ is headed to Iraq to relieve the 101st ABN Div.

But remember folks, no boots on the ground, ISIS is the JV team, and so forth and so on.


Look I'm a Big Red One soldier. I'm all about bringing the fight to whatever enemy we may face. But at the end of the day this situation is a failure in leadership. There is no clear goal, and no strategy to win the fight. There is no greater disservice to soldiers than not providing direction and PURPOSE.

With respect, one aspect of understanding international affairs is to understand that usually rank and file soldiers are NOT told the real motives for various conflicts, nor the real goals. Neither is the general public told.

Just like, it took my having to study the Syrian conflict with former UN officials, and also engage in a huge amount of private study, to see beyond the veil of media and government obscuration to what is going on there.

So, to analyze or criticize this move in Iraq, one would have to actually be privy to the actual real intent.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So, to analyze or criticize this move in Iraq, one would have to actually be privy to the actual real intent.

I was in the 1st ID last time they deployed 500 of us to Iraq.

I was not one of them, but I do know what they were actually doing.

Which was next to nothing.

This is admittedly anecdotal, but it is what I was told by some of my friends who were deployed.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So, to analyze or criticize this move in Iraq, one would have to actually be privy to the actual real intent.

I was in the 1st ID last time they deployed 500 of us to Iraq.

I was not one of them, but I do know what they were actually doing.

Which was next to nothing.

This is admittedly anecdotal, but it is what I was told by some of my friends who were deployed.

I respect your service.

One thing though, never underestimate the use of military for political purposes, "optics" (the visual impact and appearance of things), etc. So it may be that for example a certain army group didn't "do anything," but there was a political purpose of some kind, or show of strength.