One Army or Two?, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 1-7-2009 @ 08:28 PM by spec_ops_wannabe
One Army or Two? DoD Buzz

Okay, this is dealing with current warfare strategy and training overall of the US Army in it's role in being functional as a mainline battle force as well as a counterinsurgency force at the same time. It is very difficult to maintain both styles of fighting in a blanket format for all Army units so this brings up the question should we have two US Armies or try and have one that can deal with everything, but of course you can only train someone to be able to do so many things at once.


In spring 2005, while embedded with an infantry battalion in southwest Baghdad, I was hanging out late one night in the battalion command post bs’ing with the battle captains when radio traffic suddenly spiked with reports of a massive attack on the Abu Ghraib prison compound, located just west of Baghdad. Hundreds of insurgents attacked the compound with suicide car bombers, accurate mortar, small arms and RPG fire, and simultaneously tried to seal off the battlespace; the first American reinforcements that rushed to the scene ran into clusters of roadside bombs and ambushes.

As the battalion command group packed into the TOC, orders came from division to spin-up a quick response force to rush to Abu Ghraib by an alternate route. The battalion commander decided to go in heavy, and use his 70-ton Abrams tanks to blast through any insurgent obstacles or ambushes along the route. He told one of his ablest company commanders, Capt. Ike Sallee, to ready his mechanized platoons. Within thirty minutes, Sallee radioed the TOC that his tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles were ready and assembled on the main road outside the FOB awaiting the go order. As it turned out, Apache gunships drove off the insurgent attack and Sallee was told to stand down. While Sallee’s soldiers didn’t end up battling the insurgents that night, there is every reason to believe their training, coupled with superior technology - thermal sights, heavy armor and overwhelming firepower - would have easily tipped the scales.



reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 08:48 PM by LSDeviant
reply to post by dooper



I'm going to assume that by "Taken any scalps" you mean "Killed any people".

I am ignorant as to how the Armed Forces' leadership functions, but I guess I've always assumed that in order to advance in that organization, you would need to be accruing experience within the ranks of said organization. So... I mean... we've been at war, officially or unofficially since, essentially, the American Revolution.

Do you mean that in order to lead you should have to, like, come from Infantry? Or that if you just, you know, randomly kill someone, then, BAM! Leadership material!

I'm genuinely interested in clarification.



reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 08:52 PM by spec_ops_wannabe
reply to post by LSDeviant



I'm thinking more along the lines of people who can say they've "been there, done that." A lot of officers these days are more like DC politicians using their careers for advancement into other places like the Senate or runs for Governor. That's why you'll find many with Masters in foreign policy, politics, etc. A lot more is put on careers after getting out than what will be done while in.


reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 08:55 PM by LSDeviant
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe



Still though; isn't that more of a consequence of people looking out for themselves? Advancing the career? These leaders, obviously if they are senior, they haven't done any fighting in Iraq. Well, maybe, but Desert Storm was a VERY different story than this cluster****. But surely they've had combat experience?

I just can't see someone getting promoted ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP without ever having done any work. Like I said, though. Pretty ignorant re: Armed Forces. : /


reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 09:02 PM by UFOTECH
reply to post by dooper



I have to agree with you in the case of Gen. Ray Odierno. That man has no and mean "0" combat experience. He is a politician's pick for a general and not a battle hardened soldier. His career has mostly been in Germany in the cold war years and in the US at Fort Hood running the First Cav. He has not been deployed in any major battle. In fact he has no real qualifications to lead much more than a training camp. I guess that is his role in Iraq now to basically teach the Iraqi army in US military strategy.


reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 09:05 PM by spec_ops_wannabe
reply to post by LSDeviant



I suppose it's slightly the animosity of the common enlisted personnel feeling towards the ones who have always been desk jobs.
The way the system is set up is that some fields will propel someone's rank really quickly due to high demand for that field, so some people who might not be leadership material yet or never will be are given commands that sometimes are not earned like many would like them to be. Other times they are given commissions simply because they have college degrees already at the time of getting in.


reply posted on 1-7-2009 @ 09:06 PM by LSDeviant
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe



Had no idea, that sucks

thanks for clearing it up though, always looking for MOAR INFORMATION ABOUT EVURRRTHING!

Pages:     ^^TOP^^



ALL ATS`ers are terrorists
  Posted 3 days ago with 9 member flags
CNN Endorsing Terrorism
  Posted 6 days ago with 7 member flags
Obama\'s terror Drones.
  Posted 4 days ago with 6 member flags
Pair Detained in Twitter Homeland Threat Mix-Up
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Stop Bashing Us Military Folks.
  Rant, Posted 16 hours ago, 187 replies
Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 11 hours ago, 102 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 7 hours ago, 71 replies