It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Perhaps a purpose of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was to build the troops' experience?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
So I was watching a program called Modern Sniper on the Military Channel and one sniping instructor they interviewed said "Survivability of the snipers has increased because you've had so many more people go to combat and come back and train up your troops." This got me thinking, because that statement applies to many branches of the military, in particular, the infantrymen and special operators. I thought that maybe one of the reasons they started these wars was to created battle hardened troops.

If it seemed inevitable that the US is going to clash with Russia and China at some point, I know I would want my military to be the best trained in the world to help overcome the numerical superiority that the opposing force would undoubtedly have. It would probably help as well when the draft got reinstated as well, because for every freshly trained draftee you'd have several experienced men, and their experience would likely get transferred to some degree.

Tell me what you think ATS.
edit on 15-6-2012 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I will not go as far as to say this was the plan from the start. However, the chain of events have certainly seemed to make this the case.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   
well i would believe that if it was not for this.

Pentagon May Oust Troops

if your trying to build experience, why would you want to get rid of them.
and of course there will be some that say they are not getting rid of combat troops.
just support and others.
edit on 15-6-2012 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Seems more plausible than WMDs.

Its a crazy world we have lived in this past decade, I leave nothing off the table.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
This is interesting. Yes, I definitely agree that troops who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan have gained plenty of combat experience.

The only problem with the premise that Iraq and Afghanistan were "live fire training exercises" is that it would mean the timeline for all this would have to go back at least to 9/11 and that there was foreknowledge of some future, larger conflict with Russia and/or China that far back and that this larger conflict would start and take place in the Middle East.

So are you trying to say that WW3 has been planned and that 9/11 was an inside job to get the American people behind the idea of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan just so that the US would have combat experienced troops ready for WW3?



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Pretty sure the timelines set by TPTB are hitting their milestones right on time. That being said, I think we'd be seeing alot more stop loss across the board. Experienced bullet catchers are a plus, however and experienced support team for said bullet catchers would be a brighter feather in the cap would it not?

Having served in both roles, I will not dimish the importance of either combat arms or support services, they're both equally worthless without each other IMO.
edit on 15-6-2012 by usmconslaught because: too quick on the post key ...



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Mkoll
 


I'm a history buff. One of the things I have noticed while watching documentaries is the way today’s Soldiers fight vs. the way past Soldiers fought.

Sure tech has progressed, but the individual Soldiers actions have as well.

Watch a vid of a firefight or even a patrol, from WW2, Korea, Vietnam and compare the actions of those involved then to the actions of those involved today in Afghanistan or Iraq.

After three decades of service, even I have gone through the changes. From slinging my weapon at my side to carrying it across my chest. (more accessible)

And the purpose of leaders is to impart lessons learned. To coach, train and mentor those under them.

There is a difference.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by LevelHeaded
 


I'm so much saying that it is a solid plan with a rigid time table, intricately planned from the beginning, but instead I feel like the people in power in America back then would realize that at some point Russia and China are going to start playing hardball with us, and that these wars of choice we started would, in addition to their original intentions, provide a giant live fire exercise. Likely the main reason we went to war is to feed the military industrial complex and pay well connected people to rebuild the things we blew up, crony capitalist style.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mkoll
reply to post by LevelHeaded
 


I'm so much saying that it is a solid plan with a rigid time table, intricately planned from the beginning, but instead I feel like the people in power in America back then would realize that at some point Russia and China are going to start playing hardball with us, and that these wars of choice we started would, in addition to their original intentions, provide a giant live fire exercise. Likely the main reason we went to war is to feed the military industrial complex and pay well connected people to rebuild the things we blew up, crony capitalist style.


There is a saying from “Murphy’s Laws of Combat”.

No Plan survives first contact.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LevelHeaded
This is interesting. Yes, I definitely agree that troops who have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan have gained plenty of combat experience.

The only problem with the premise that Iraq and Afghanistan were "live fire training exercises" is that it would mean the timeline for all this would have to go back at least to 9/11 and that there was foreknowledge of some future, larger conflict with Russia and/or China that far back and that this larger conflict would start and take place in the Middle East.

So are you trying to say that WW3 has been planned and that 9/11 was an inside job to get the American people behind the idea of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan just so that the US would have combat experienced troops ready for WW3?


Wesley Clark ( US 4 Star General ) US will attack 7 countries in 5 years.
www.youtube.com...

Kind of fits. Iraq and Afghanistan were the first. Granted it took more than 5 years, which I believe Muammar Gaddafi held the plans up in Libya. As Assad is doing in Syria today. Yeah full of conspiracy, but it makes some sense to the madness that has been the last decade as Iran was I think last on that list. And the media sure is making Iran out to be the bad guys.

On a side note, I find it hilarious the US, who has actually used a nuclear weapon, is telling Iran to halt its progress. The world didn't have the pleasure of someone telling America to stop production of a WMD back in the day.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I believe the US is being set up for defeat to subdue us.These bush wars cropping up that require our forces are to serve to weaken the US military,so are the economic failures that require us to restrict our military.I would say they are going to wear us down with more of the same at the same time alienating friends and making more foes ,as can be seen by the people on this board.I expect more of this.
The the Coup De Gras will be a unified force probably combining Russian and Chinese forces backed by more effectively executed terrorist actions in the US.This, again,not done by Americans but allowed to occur.After we are defeated in the field militarily,Then they would go after guns in this country.Probably by surrender accords so internationally it is lawfully required.We of course would fight so they would then have the excuse to kill us off.
edit on 15-6-2012 by cavtrooper7 because: finished my point



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Mkoll
 


the only thing that makes me reluctant to accept that line of thought is that Drones seem to be the new 'warrior'... the large troop force to occupy lands is a thing of the past.

along with hi-tech Drones is the concept that 1,000 12 man Delta-Force-type-Teams would do more internal destruction to Russian or Chinese Armies than a 100,000 man invasion force


combat experience & war hardened soldiers are not automatically superior warriors compared to religious zealots with arms RPGs, updated stingers, IEDs, and any number of equally destructive weapons...


Iraq & Afghanistan and very soon Pakistan were waged to consolidate the American Empire hegemony & Militaristic superiority for at least 5 different, specific justifications...trade routes/sea lanes/MIC/encircling China+Russia/ making the USD universal....etc etc etc



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I don't think that is what he is saying :-/

What he is trying to say is that the West is bombing the poop out of smaller nations, charging them for the weapons used and then ensuring that they get the lucrative 'rebuilding' contracts and the oil contracts.

@OP,
It's very possible they want battle hardened troops but they are shooting themselves in the foot with over deploying soldiers and making diplomatic mistakes that cost them a few hundred million or billion dollars.

Also, you can't 'transfer some of their experience' from active soldiers to fresh recruits because experience can only be garnered first hand.
The experienced troops can give tips sure but they can't give their experience away.

You can be well trained and well equipped but if you don't have the stomach and will for fighting then that million dollar investment (The average cost of training and arming a soldier throughout his career) suddenly isn't so effective.

If you are going to do anything, do it the proper way and only pick those you can work under stress to join your military.
If you say 'Oh well they might get overwhelmed by numbers' I have one word for you. Spetsnaz.

The Russian's have only chosen the strongest people in their armed forces to join the Spetsnaz and they numbered over 30,000 during the Russo-Afghan war.
That number can only have risen since then so it could easily be 40,000-100,000.

China's military numbers over 2 million active and 850 thousand reserves. That doesn't include their 'People's Liberation Army' which could reach 200,000,000. So in a war against China having 1 million highly trained troops or 2 million mediocre troops isn't going to count for sh1t.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Trajan
 


I believe that you and cavtrooper7 are right that these wars are ultimately a liability to the USA's ability to defend itself and a giant money sink and a waste of human life. It is only an observed effect that our veteran soldiers are quite battle hardened, and that won't matter much if we end up going to war with big boys and a large chunk of our fighting ability is stuck in Afghanistan.

Let me clarify what I was trying to say about experienced troops working with fresh draftees. I think the battle hardened core of veteran units would remain and the new guys would fill out the ranks. I'm sure that there are things that veterans can teach new guys, even if it isn't anything like personal combat experience. Also, in the event of a draft we will likely raise new units or take disbanded units and reestablish them. In this case many veteran NCOs and officers would be used to form the cadre of any new units we establish. It is easier to create a new fighting unit and get it up to speed using leadership that has a very good idea what needs doing.
edit on 15-6-2012 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
i dont know if these wars were fought just so that the troops could get experience. that kinda undermines the whole war for oil argument.

Anyhow, regardless, it DOES make them more battle tested and they know what works and what doesnt. I havent too many boxers who have never fought step into a ring and beat a a prize fighter



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join