U.S. Military vacations in Iraq extended

To allow our military personel the full advantage to visit all the historic neighborhoods of Bagdad and other areas in Iraq the DoD has extended the tours there from 12 to 15 months. It seems that 12 months is not enough time to visit all the mosques, museums, historic battlefields (those more than 3 days old), castles (built by Saddam), or visit the perfectly safe Parliament building.

After long (ten minutes) and deliberate (they are doing it on purpose) consideration it was determined that 12 months was not long enough to destroy all military families and marriages. It is hoped that by adding 3 months, and letting the boys and girls go there (or that other place no one ever talks about) for multiple tours that they will all be able to see every stinking rock and sand pile the country has to offer them.

Maybe then they can appreciate what a good education can do for a person .... like giving them alternatives to joining the military.


note:
I have three family members in the military - all intended to make it their careers. Now they talk about going back to school or taking a civilian job in their particular field of expertise, and this after 10 - 15 years active duty. Then again, my son is a civilian contractor in Iraq - of course he is making a bit more than he did when he retired from the USAF; I didn't support him in this endevour but it was his choice.

Extending tours - doesnot give the soldiers and marines there much of a choice. It certainly can't do much for their family life. Also, it use to be that 13 months in a hostile fire zone was the max. Maybe we should just leave them there 'til the war on terror is concluded - like WWII - you know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

Maybe we should just leave them there 'til the war on terror is concluded - like WWII - you know?

---

Forever is a long time.

Their tours are going to get extended again if the emergency funding pissing contest isn't resolved soon...

Get a government job and prepared to be :404:ed over.

Doctors in the UK just had their careers completely redone that is now recognised as a complete mess.

Hardly surprising that it's happening. Most people who join the armed forces are fairweather soldiers - in for the free schooling, but would rather not get shot at.

~:smoking:

now this is what really is gonna turn this cluster**** of a war around I see....

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ent_George.jpg

Quote:

---

George:Bravo-issimo! Let's make a start, eh - up and over to glory! Last one in Berlin's a rotten egg!

---

:wall:

The thread title alone made me laugh out loud. :bow:

yet another excellent example of why our involvement in Iraq should terminated immediately.

I'm starting to lean in on Odin's side here.

Ultimately, I think withdrawing now guarantees a full-on civil war and the creation of a radicalized Kurdistan and a shattered Shia client-state from Baghdad on South to the Shat al Arab.

Still, I would rather that then this continued anemia with limited resolution.

Either quintuple the forces used and make it WORK, or admit you're unwilling to pay the price and cut the resource drain.

:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

yet another excellent example of why our involvement in Iraq should terminated immediately.

---

My support for my Norse god friend's position.

Kafir, I sincerely hope your family members make it through their tours and come back safe and sound.

:balloon2:

Edit - Seamus, I'm curious. By 'historical triangle', you mean RDU?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Either quintuple the forces used and make it WORK, or admit you're unwilling to pay the price and cut the resource drain.

---

Now, now, there's no call for getting all "practical" on your fellow Orgahs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Now, now, there's no call for getting all "practical" on your fellow Orgahs.

---

Still pisses me off. Why did we use overwhelming force behind part "A" and think that occupation -- Part B -- would use fewer troops.

Any RTW player knows you -- not the AI -- need a huge garrison just to keep the lid on, even if your field troops can whack 12X their numbers.

We could have pulled out the regulars on day 45 if we'd replaced them with about 80% of the Guard -- and then it would have stayed quiet and had a future. Instead we try to run a "butter and guns" war which is producing far less result than we'd hoped for and will cost us MORE -- any way you define cost -- than going in full bore would have.

AAAAAAAAArgh.

Obviously they want to destroy their army, again.

Oh well, never mind. Those who survive can have fun rebuilding the sorry mess, the politicians can become even more divorced from military reality and the reputation of the US Army can plummet 100%, again.

Then everyone can talk about Iraq as an unjust and worthless war where everyone involved should have been a conciencious objector instead.

All hail the shadow of Vietnam.

Long time ago, in order to attract people in what were the Troupes Coloniales, the French Government issued a placard stating: “Engagez-vous, rengagez vous, vous verrez du pays” Join, re-join, you will see Countries… Ah, the joy of military travels, the discovery of old and ancient civilisations , the Kmer Kingdom, Hue, the Imperial Capital, Mesopotamia, Obeid and Samara civilisations, Summer Babylonia, Ninive… :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Still pisses me off. Why did we use overwhelming force behind part "A" and think that occupation -- Part B -- would use fewer troops.

Any RTW player knows you -- not the AI -- need a huge garrison just to keep the lid on, even if your field troops can whack 12X their numbers.

We could have pulled out the regulars on day 45 if we'd replaced them with about 80% of the Guard -- and then it would have stayed quiet and had a future. Instead we try to run a "butter and guns" war which is producing far less result than we'd hoped for and will cost us MORE -- any way you define cost -- than going in full bore would have.

AAAAAAAAArgh.

---

Sad, isn't it? A PC game has more realism than "planning" by the Pentagon. Games have to be realistic so they get played. War planning has to be acceptable to the preconceived ideas of those at the top.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Now, now, there's no call for getting all "practical" on your fellow Orgahs.

---

Quintupling our current force level isn't something I'd exactly call "practical".....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

We could have pulled out the regulars on day 45 if we'd replaced them with about 80% of the Guard -- and then it would have stayed quiet and had a future. Instead we try to run a "butter and guns" war which is producing far less result than we'd hoped for and will cost us MORE -- any way you define cost -- than going in full bore would have.

---

I'm still not at all convinced that a larger number of US troops would've resulted in much more than a larger number of casualties. The bigger mistakes that I see (comfortably seated in my Monday morning quarterback chair, mind you) was the overzealousness of Baathist purges which completely dismantled civillian government services and the profoundly stupid decision to completely disband the Iraqi military and rebuild it from scratch- that decision in particular turned out to be a wrong one on so many, many levels. I think Bremer and Co. completely underestimated the mounting insurgency and thought they'd have all the time in the world to remake the military and other government institutions. They seemed to be trying for some "model" democratic government rather than a practical one. :no:

Quote:

---

Either quintuple the forces used and make it WORK, or admit you're unwilling to pay the price and cut the resource drain.

---

Yep , increase the forces . reinstate the draft , put all those that supported the madness on the top of the list , and send them out for a years tour so their body is where their mouth is .
Oh , but a year must now be further redifined beyond the new 15 month definition to "until its sorted"

All you liberal wussies with your cut and run rubbish , its the damn liberals that wanted this war , they must stick by their crazy ideas and see it through no matter what .
Onwards to Victory or .......errrrr ....whats the other word ?

Quote:

---

The bigger mistakes that I see (comfortably seated in my Monday morning quarterback chair, mind you)

---

The biggest mistake doesn't need a monday morning quarterback chair , it was patently obvious before it all started .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

The bigger mistakes that I see (comfortably seated in my Monday morning quarterback chair, mind you) was the overzealousness of Baathist purges which completely dismantled civillian government services and the profoundly stupid decision to completely disband the Iraqi military and rebuild it from scratch- that decision in particular turned out to be a wrong one on so many, many levels. I think Bremer and Co. completely underestimated the mounting insurgency and thought they'd have all the time in the world to remake the military and other government institutions. They seemed to be trying for some "model" democratic government rather than a practical one. :no:

---

Paper liberals, who theorised about their ideal state and saw the opportunity to put their theories to the test (cf. numerous quotes from 2003 and earlier from neocon thinktanks). The liberals of the Old World have long had to temper their idealism with the realisation that the real world is more complicated than that. The New World, however, is the land of opportunities where anything is possible. And when you put people who think thus into power...

The best way to judge politicians is to line them up and ask them how they can change the world and make it a better place. Then elect the dullest, most conservative one on the list. They're probably not going to change the world for the better, so at least make sure they don't change it for the worse.

Listened to about 20 minute of the Hannity program while driving.

One woman caller claimed to be the spouse of one of our soldiers deployed in Iraq -- one of those in the brigades being extended. The kicker? She claimed to have found out about the extension from the media broadcast...and that SHE was the first to inform her husband and his CO via e-mail of their extended tour.

:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:



Xiahou:

It is possible that more boots would not have done the trick -- the region has a long history of being quiet only while some thug was standing on the neck of the populace with a boot (and not always then). Literature from the professionals who have dealt with insurgencies suggest that a 10-1 ratio is needed to suppress same -- note that suppress does NOT mean eradicate. Eradicating an insurgency is more of a war of ideas than force, the suppression only allows conditions wherein the war of ideas may be won. If we had ANY knowledge of the number of Fedayeen Saddam and did not have that ratio in place early on, we were nipping in the bud our chance -- if one existed -- to nip the insurgency in the bud.

Basic Rule of thumb for USA military should be:

Since we can kick anybody's tush in conventional conflict in jig-time, it is safe to assume that any and all opposition forces will adopt guerilla and/or insurgency tactics within 30 days of a military operation's onset (assuming that developing world = stupid is ridiculous as well as arrogant). Therefore, if you are going to be involved longer than 30 days, assume an insurgency of significant size and be ready to deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

All you liberal wussies with your cut and run rubbish , its the damn liberals that wanted this war, they must stick by their crazy ideas and see it through no matter what .
Onwards to Victory or .......errrrr ....whats the other word .

---

Sarcasm .... right? Unless Wolfy, Rummy, the Dick (Cheney), and their PNAC pals are now considered liberal. The PNAC plan to invade Iraq was formed almost immediately after Desert Storm - they only needed a premise (thank Zeus for 9/11). Thing is they thought they knew better than the military and ignored the Powell doctrine. The Generals that disagreed with their "Rummy doctrine" were forced to retire ... or fired, same with those in the intelligence community.

Convincing Congress and a slim majority of Americans that invading Iraq was a good thing is without a doubt the scam of all time (even better than "I am not a crook". Prior to the 2000 elections I warned (lost a few rightist friends over it) that Bush would start a war in Iraq, I had hoped to be disappointed - unfortunately I wasn't.

It is as though the morons running this sham learned nothing from the american experience in Vietnam - and with these guys one would believe they should have since they spent so much energy avoiding having to fight there.

The Phillipvs comments are right on.

Btw, did you hear how the Marines have been filling their "sign-up quotas"? By recalling men that have completed their normal DEROS. They have been doing it quietly, 200 men at a time ... and only after they have been discharged for six months. Nice huh? Just as some poor sod that begins to get his civilian life back inorder they yank them back into the grinder. Semper Fi, y'all. Of course the Army is letting in drug users, HS dropouts and Jail birds (but no gays) ... so much for be all you can be. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

...The kicker? She claimed to have found out about the extension from the media broadcast...and that SHE was the first to inform her husband and his CO via e-mail of their extended tour.

---

My son, the PFC (in Iraq) keeps a MySpace page. No frills; he just logs in when he has a spare minute, so I can see the login date/time, and know that he's still OK. About once a month we write something to each other. He heard about the 12 to 15 month extension from me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

It is possible that more boots would not have done the trick -- the region has a long history of being quiet only while some thug was standing on the neck of the populace with a boot (and not always then). Literature from the professionals who have dealt with insurgencies suggest that a 10-1 ratio is needed to suppress same -- note that suppress does NOT mean eradicate. Eradicating an insurgency is more of a war of ideas than force, the suppression only allows conditions wherein the war of ideas may be won. If we had ANY knowledge of the number of Fedayeen Saddam and did not have that ratio in place early on, we were nipping in the bud our chance -- if one existed -- to nip the insurgency in the bud.

Basic Rule of thumb for USA military should be:

Since we can kick anybody's tush in conventional conflict in jig-time, it is safe to assume that any and all opposition forces will adopt guerilla and/or insurgency tactics within 30 days of a military operation's onset (assuming that developing world = stupid is ridiculous as well as arrogant). Therefore, if you are going to be involved longer than 30 days, assume an insurgency of significant size and be ready to deal with it.

---

I'm always skeptical of any formulas that lead to a "magic number" for success in something as uncertain as the unconventional modern warfare now taking place. Also, coming in, the average US soldier knew little of the culture and nothing at all of the language. Further, US troops can not and should not be the ones to "stand on the neck" of the populace- particularly with a media that puts every indiscretion on the front page of the NYT for a month. They're unparalleled fighters, but not an ideal choice as "oppressors"- which is good imo. Regardless, afaik, the US would not have been able to deploy 600+ combat troops to Iraq, so it's something of a moot point.

At no point did the US have the numbers in theater (nor could the have) to occupy the entire country, nor did they know the culture/language. I think more could have been done by re-mobilizing and revetting the Iraqi army that was, at the time, around 400k strong. Further, they could have had more and more competent bureaucrats on hand ahead of time. Some of the stories about well-meaning, but largely incompetent stooges who were put in charge of government ministries are truly saddening. Tangentially, purging competent and experienced bureaucrats for no other reason than they had obligatory Baath party membership also seems a mistake

More US troops may have helped, but on the list of errors and missteps made by the CPA, I think troop strength would rank pretty low. I certainly don't think more US troops would've been a magic bullet of any sort. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

... don't think more US troops would've been a magic bullet of any sort.

---

I nodded my head through the entirety of your post, until that bit. And I actually agree that you may be right stratigically and tacticly.

Warning :rant follows:

But that option never seems to have been thought of, much less tried, IMO.

IF S. Hussein had or sought nukes, chem and/or bio weapons, and IF it were estimated that he could and/or would deploy them at our friends in the region OR sell/give them to terrorists,

and IF our 'decider' was so convinced of those imminent threats that he went to the UN to persuade the Security Council that Mr. Hussein had pwn'd them and their conditions of cessation of hostilities for years, and got a resolution to act,

and then IF individual SC members called "bullcrap", leading to an assertion of the right to act pre-emptively and unilaterally, dragging along the UK and lesser members of a 'coalition of the willing', most of whom were merely abiding by their promise to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us since the 9-11 atrocities,

THEN it seems to this innocent bystander/ignorant citizen, that any responsible CinC would have moved to focus the full force and fury of the united states of America to definitively defeat that threat, specifically:

1) sought a declaration of war
2) mobilized the populace, industry & gov't to achieve total war status
3) moved every soldier, sailor, airman and marine to the theatre of operations immediately, until the threat was eliminated... then left when the job was done.

What happened is a pale, inaccurate reflection of our national will, our collectively resolve, and our can-do-ness, for which we are rightly famous.

In short, we've been sold short, and our military has been "rode hard and put away wet", in pursuit of a policy which has no policy... and for which the bosses now seek some scapegoat to enunciate (a WoT Czar, like the Drug Czar; a useless figurehead on a useless mission).

A half-assed war, with half-assed results, suffered by thosands of full-assed soldiers and Iraqi civilians - the failure of which will, in less than 5 years, result in more terror attacks in Europe and North America by more nutjobs with boomski-belts than would have occurred if we'd just stayed home.

:/rant:

Xiahou none of that was aimed at you, or your position. I just needed to get that off my chest. Maybe the NSA is listening, maybe not. If so, I hope it gets forwarded to someplace besides a GS5 analysist's dustbin.

Quote:

---

Sarcasm .... right? Unless Wolfy, Rummy, the Dick (Cheney), and their PNAC pals are now considered liberal.

---

Nope , I have just decided that I will adapt to the common usage of theword "liberal" that has been evident lately , liberal means anything and anoyne that conflicts with my views .:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Warning :rant follows:

---

Kukri , a rant is supposed to be confused and foolish outburst , not a summation of problems about a confused and foolish occurance .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

My son, the PFC (in Iraq) keeps a MySpace page. No frills; he just logs in when he has a spare minute, so I can see the login date/time, and know that he's still OK. About once a month we write something to each other. He heard about the 12 to 15 month extension from me.

---

This distrubs me more then anything else the military is doing. When the information comes from family and media faster then the chain of command then there are serious problems within the military.

Moral is going to take a big hit within the force.

I wonder if this is another examble of the politians forgetting about the men and women who serve to make political points? :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

This distrubs me more then anything else the military is doing. When the information comes from family and media faster then the chain of command then there are serious problems within the military.

Moral is going to take a big hit within the force.

I wonder if this is another examble of the politians forgetting about the men and women who serve to make political points? :thumbsdown:

---

Meh, in the past 5 years it's become pretty evident to me that the armed forces are nothing but a means for American big business/corporate America to enforce and achieve ends outside our borders, seeing how the government has been whoring itself out to the aforementioned much more strongly in that period of time. The exception to the rule is Afghanistan, which I believe was Bush looking for some "big visible measure" to appease the post 9/11 rage.

Xiahou, I will assume your comments meant no offence, so I shall treat them as a mistake, or misstep.

Quote:

---

Also, coming in, the average US soldier knew little of the culture and nothing at all of the language. Further, US troops can not and should not be the ones to "stand on the neck" of the populace- particularly with a media that puts every indiscretion on the front page of the NYT for a month. They're unparalleled fighters, but not an ideal choice as "oppressors"- which is good imo. Regardless, afaik, the US would not have been able to deploy 600+ combat troops to Iraq, so it's something of a moot point.

---

Leaving aside the claim that Americans are "unparralellded fighters" NO ONE was asking them to stand on anyone's neck. It's very simply a fact that when a country goes to hell the army used to restore order must also fill in for the Police/Fire Service/Security and Intelligence Force/Private Security and everything else civilised. Lots of soldiers also allow them to be out and visable, it alos removes the neccessity to call in lots of air strikes, which tend to upset the locals.

Without the means to do any of those things American forces defaulting to some shamefulling neck squashing, cullminating in some nasty scandals.

Also, the most irritating thing I hear from Americans is "we didn't learn anything from Vietnam."

No, it would appear you didn't, if anything you un-learned things you knew in World War II. Vietnam was a totally different situation, the problem there was that America tried to police the DMZ instead of destroying the NVA, because the South Vietnamese wanted the Americans there, and after the Tet Offensive the Viet Cong were pretty much dead ducks.

In Iraq America is trying to fight a war when it needs to be policed.

Totally reversed situations, excepting that both are going to hell.

As an American, I saw absolutely nothing wrong or offensive about Xiahou's post whatsoever.

In fact I largely agree with it, the only point I would add is that even though the average trooper doesn't know the language or culture, there are a good number of Gulf War and theater veterans who do speak the language and understand the culture, but these people are not the majority.

Well as an Englishman with conections to her Britanic Majesties' Rifles Regiment I am sensetive to the fact that our Armed Forces are involved in peacekeeping around the world, most famously in Northern Ireland. Xiahou's post might be taken to imply that the success of these operations depended on the willingness our our lads to "step on necks" as he put it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

This distrubs me more then anything else the military is doing. When the information comes from family and media faster then the chain of command then there are serious problems within the military.

Moral is going to take a big hit within the force.

I wonder if this is another examble of the politians forgetting about the men and women who serve to make political points? :thumbsdown:

---

Er, Red? Aren't the troops always the last to be informed of what the hey is going on? Atleast it was when I was in. I mean, I got a "letter" (took 5 - 7 days transport time) from my Mom informing me that all personell were staying in Korea (some time before x-mas 1967) unless they were ETS'ing (extentions for early release didn'y count). Not that it affected me, but it sure upset alot of draftees. Also, as for operations - none of the lowly grunts had a clue ... except for their immediate surroundings.

As to moral - I agree. If it can go lower, it will. Knowing one will be in country for 15 months and only a year with family will not have a possitive response from even the can-doers.

What is really scary is that the Army and Marines are cutting their training tables back. That was one thing I was impressed with - the amount of time implemented to properly condition the troops prior to deployment. In the hey days of 'nam, it was 8 weeks basic (or boot) and 6-8 weeks advance infantry training and three days of "bunker" experience - then a 3 week leave and off to across the pond. Reality was that it was OJT once a person deployed there. Zeus help us if we revert to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

Er, Red? Aren't the troops always the last to be informed of what the hey is going on? Atleast it was when I was in. I mean, I got a "letter" (took 5 - 7 days transport time) from my Mom informing me that all personell were staying in Korea (some time before x-mas 1967) unless they were ETS'ing (extentions for early release didn'y count). Not that it affected me, but it sure upset alot of draftees. Also, as for operations - none of the lowly grunts had a clue ... except for their immediate surroundings.

---

Not always. I knew I was going to be deployed for Kuwait back in 1990 before the media. A couple of other times the military informed us in a timely manner also.

Quote:

---

As to moral - I agree. If it can go lower, it will. Knowing one will be in country for 15 months and only a year with family will not have a possitive response from even the can-doers.

---

Its a point I totally agreed with.

Quote:

---

What is really scary is that the Army and Marines are cutting their training tables back. That was one thing I was impressed with - the amount of time implemented to properly condition the troops prior to deployment. In the hey days of 'nam, it was 8 weeks basic (or boot) and 6-8 weeks advance infantry training and three days of "bunker" experience - then a 3 week leave and off to across the pond. Reality was that it was OJT once a person deployed there. Zeus help us if we revert to that.

---

I also hope the military does not futher erode the training time. I will have to discuss it with my brother - he is scheduled to rotate back in December, so they should be starting their trainup here shortly if it didn't change.

One of those time will tell situations I am afraid. With the desire to cut funds - that means training dollars will be the first to go.