Hmmm Seems the American People were MISLED!!

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
Can you believe it!!! Everyone has said the LAST COMBAT BRIGADE had let Iraq....seems thats no true, and those that are left are still there as a "security force"...so nithing has really changed, they are just going to be asked to do the same work with less troops...not a good thing, but why the bs about ALL Combat troops being out and coming home!?!? Oh wait, the "Changed" the name.....more "hope and change" that won't work.....it WILL get worse before it gets better....:rolleyes:


Combat brigades in Iraq under different name

7 Advise and Assist Brigades, made up of troops from BCTs, still in Iraq

By Kate Brannen - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Aug 21, 2010 16:10:59 EDT
Combat brigades in Iraq under different name - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

As the final convoy of the Army’s 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Lewis, Wash., entered Kuwait early Thursday, a different Stryker brigade remained in Iraq.

Soldiers from the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division are deployed in Iraq as members of an Advise and Assist Brigade, the Army’s designation for brigades selected to conduct security force assistance.

So while the “last full U.S. combat brigade” have left Iraq, just under 50,000 soldiers from specially trained heavy, infantry and Stryker brigades will stay, as well as two combat aviation brigades.

Compared with the 49,000 soldiers in Iraq, there are close to 67,000 in Afghanistan and another 9,700 in Kuwait, according to the latest Army chart on global commitments dated Aug. 17. Under an agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.

There are seven Advise and Assist Brigades in Iraq, as well as two additional National Guard infantry brigades “for security,” said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Craig Ratcliff.

Last year, the Army decided that rather than devote permanent force structure to the growing security force assistance mission, it would modify and augment existing brigades.

The Army has three different standard brigade combat teams: infantry, Stryker and heavy. To build an Advise and Assist Brigade, the Army selects one of these three and puts it through special training before deploying.

The Army selected brigade combat teams as the unit upon which to build advisory brigades partly because they would be able to retain their inherent capability to conduct offensive and defensive operations, according to the Army’s security force assistance field manual, which came out in May 2009. This way, the brigade can shift the bulk of its operational focus from security force assistance to combat operations if necessary.

To prepare for their mission in Iraq, heavy, infantry and Stryker brigades receive specialized training that can include city management courses, civil affairs training and border patrol classes.

As far as equipment goes, the brigades either brought their gear with them or used equipment left behind that is typical to their type of brigade, said Ratcliff.

The first Advise and Assist Brigade — the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Armored Division from Fort Bliss, Texas — deployed last spring to Iraq, serving as a “proof of principle” for the advisory brigade concept.

Of the seven Advise and Assist Brigades still in Iraq, four are from the 3rd Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, Ga. The 1st Heavy Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, based at Fort Bliss, and the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division, based at Fort Carson, Colo., are also serving as Advise and Assist Brigades.

The 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division is based at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. A combat medic from that unit was killed Aug. 15 when his Stryker combat vehicle was hit with grenades, according to press reports.

Two combat aviation brigades also remain in Iraq, according to Dan O’Boyle, Redstone Arsenal spokesman. Three more are deployed in Afghanistan, where there are currently no Advise and Assist Brigades
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
we were not misled...maybe some just can't read....

original article said some security troops would be there to assist the Iraqi's IF asked....most certainly they wouldn't be just support group....instead of combat troops they call them security..no biggie...troops are troops....they all come out of boot camp....
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
we were not misled...maybe some just can't read....

original article said some security troops would be there to assist the Iraqi's IF asked....most certainly they wouldn't be just support group....instead of combat troops they call them security..no biggie...troops are troops....they all come out of boot camp....

They did not all have the same training AFTER boot camp. It is called BASIC COMBAT TRAINING. NO ONE is ready for a combat role right out of basic. Troops are not troops. While it is true that they COULD be used in combat at anytime while they are in they would by no means be ready or properly outfitted for combat. They would just be there to slow up the enemy until others were brought in.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
They would just be there to slow up the enemy until others were brought in.

Yes that's supposed to happen.

We are not occupiers of a now independent sovereign country, we are not liberators either, we are now advisors and aid providers.

The soldiers on the ground are not in an offensive position but defensive only with the appearances that we can't be aggressors. But isn't this the same as the DMZ, Bosnia and other places where we are advising?
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Yes that's supposed to happen.

We are not occupiers of a now independent sovereign country, we are not liberators either, we are now advisors and aid providers.

The soldiers on the ground are not in an offensive position but defensive only with the appearances that we can't be aggressors. But isn't this the same as the DMZ, Bosnia and other places where we are advising?

Yep. It is FAR more dangerous for our troops now. I would MUCH prefer to have my son fighting for real than sitting on the DMZ.

Advizors die too. The first two Americans killed in Vietnam were so called advizors. The fact of the matter is that they were from my old unit, the Army Security Agency.

Link below:

ARMY SECURITY AGENCY Recognition
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
I understand what you are saying but here is the real problem - the world is dangerous.

Without those people to do that job, we would be worst off.

We have the issue of who is in danger and how we can mitigate that danger which the only way to make it safe is just to kill everyone - friend or foe alike - and than live on.

I know that sounds stupid but like I said the world is dangerous.
 

witness23

Veteran Expediter
can you believe it!!! Everyone has said the last combat brigade had let iraq....seems thats no true, and those that are left are still there as a "security force"...so nithing has really changed, they are just going to be asked to do the same work with less troops...not a good thing, but why the bs about all combat troops being out and coming home!?!? Oh wait, the "changed" the name.....more "hope and change" that won't work.....it will get worse before it gets better....:rolleyes:

s-----t-----r-----e-----t-----c-----h
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Kinda when all this started and I posted about sending the "weekend warriors" to the front lines....and people commented they went thru the same boot camp as regular soldiers...they were called "combat" then....I would have thought the NG would be more suited to "security and support" vs a fully trained army or marine combat...
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I understand what you are saying but here is the real problem - the world is dangerous.

Without those people to do that job, we would be worst off.

We have the issue of who is in danger and how we can mitigate that danger which the only way to make it safe is just to kill everyone - friend or foe alike - and than live on.

I know that sounds stupid but like I said the world is dangerous.


Yes, the world is dangerous. It is now, has been in the past and is likely to remain so for the at least near future.

What we need is a stronger military. The stronger we are the less chance there is that we will need to use it. As we weaken, the greater the chance.

The reserves should only be used as a last resort. The Guard should be on our borders.

When we have to deploy troops they should be fully trained and equipped for the job that they are being deployed for. Deploy the "right" units for the job. We need to get away from the "cannon fodder" delay thinking, that is so Soviet Army thinking.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
A soldier these days wears many hats...

If the UN believes that Iraq is such a condition of repair,,,then they should send the Blue hats in for security...
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
A soldier these days wears many hats...

If the UN believes that Iraq is such a condition of repair,,,then they should send the Blue hats in for security...

If the UN takes over things will get REALLY bad.

You seem to have a lack of understanding about the military. Yes, everyone is a "rifleman". In reality that is NOT correct. People are trained to do a certain job. It is that way for a reason. A cook should only be used in a combat role in a time of extreme danger. That cook should NEVER be considered at front line combat ready soldier.

The problem we have is our military is too small and weak and that trend is continuing and accelerating.

If that trend continues we will find ourselves in greater danger. Weakness breeds contempt. Contempt breeds attack.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
first and foremost they should be a soldier first...then..I guess that is why we see most with "specialist Ryan" example...
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
first and foremost they should be a soldier first...then..I guess that is why we see most with "specialist Ryan" example...


Well, let's see if we can clear this up.

You need brain surgery (insert as many smart remarks as needed here). Do you want a brain surgeon to do it? I mean, a doctor is a doctor after all. Doctor first, surgeon second.

What is a "specialist Ryan"?

Soldiers have MANY jobs. Some are cooks, some are supply. When I was soldier I hacked dits. Lots and lots of dits. I fired a rifle exactly ONCE after basic training. Our units were not armed. Could I have fought? Sure. Would I have been good? Not at first. I had NO idea about combat. I was NOT trained for it. On the job training is NOT a good idea on the front lines.

The SMART thing is to insure that if and when we deploy troops we deploy the right numbers and the right units for the job we are intending them to do. Now, can this administration do THEIR job right? I doubt that VERY much.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Well, let's see if we can clear this up.

You need brain surgery (insert as many smart remarks as needed here). Do you want a brain surgeon to do it? I mean, a doctor is a doctor after all. Doctor first, surgeon second.

What is a "specialist Ryan"?

Soldiers have MANY jobs. Some are cooks, some are supply. When I was soldier I hacked dits. Lots and lots of dits. I fired a rifle exactly ONCE after basic training. Our units were not armed. Could I have fought? Sure. Would I have been good? Not at first. I had NO idea about combat. I was NOT trained for it. On the job training is NOT a good idea on the front lines.

The SMART thing is to insure that if and when we deploy troops we deploy the right numbers and the right units for the job we are intending them to do. Now, can this administration do THEIR job right? I doubt that VERY much.


So's who's brilliant idea was putting NG into battle postitions at the beginning...I questioned this years ago in year and I got "its ok they have the same basic training..they be ok" I still say bull crap on that...

The good thing now is..we have "experienced" combat soldiers and some officers.....not like in the beginning....
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
A cook in support of front line operations should be a front line soldier, not a non-combative support person. A cook on a base should be a cook but always a solider first. If you are in a war zone, you are a solider.

See Layout, every person in the military takes an oath to the country, and that oath for better or worst means that their job is to fight - skills or no skills. If we start down the path of justifying people not fighting because of their "job classification" we are frickn' lost as a country. When Canada invades, and believe me the day is soon approaching, the cooks sitting in the mess tent near the front lines better get off their a**es, turn off the burners and pickup a rifle or any weapon other than a fork.

I agree that we have a weak military but who's fault is that?

I think it is a two fold issue, one is society has changed and we no longer view the military as a way to learn and the government has become dependent on technology over men.

Maybe we should consider our reformed military and our lack of conscription. Maybe we need to move back to actually teaching more than the skill of how to put on your cover and think as individuals.

I don't know

However I do know that we should not be a military who needs to be concern with the culture of the enemy at the level we have had been in combat zones (oh you can't shoot at anyone who may look like a Muslim). In addition I also feel we need to look at winning the war means actually winning the war without concern of what damage we do.

Our lack of real leadership is too obvious, but we have not had a real leader in a long time. I think even within the last 100 years. BUT since Wilson, we have had an up and down relationship with the military that we never had before and this has damaged us in many ways.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
So's who's brilliant idea was putting NG into battle postitions at the beginning...I questioned this years ago in year and I got "its ok they have the same basic training..they be ok" I still say bull crap on that...

The good thing now is..we have "experienced" combat soldiers and some officers.....not like in the beginning....

the National Guard and the reserves have the exact same job skills as the regular army. They are just NOT full time.

We put NG infantry in along side regular army infantry. Cooks with cooks, etc.

The idea is NEVER to have "experienced" combat soldier. Be strong enough that no one would want to mess and maybe we won't HAVE to fight.
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Thank You Greg....

a soldier is a soldier first....whatever after....

we are setting up a bad mentality here with classes and types of soldiers....a grunt is a grunt...

all we need is for some cook asked to fight saying...it is not my job....doh
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
the National Guard and the reserves have the exact same job skills as the regular army. They are just NOT full time.

We put NG infantry in along side regular army infantry. Cooks with cooks, etc.

The idea is NEVER to have "experienced" combat soldier. Be strong enough that no one would want to mess and maybe we won't HAVE to fight.

That'll never happen....other countries don't want our meddling...and meddle we do....

we want our warriors to be feared...nasty, mean killers...not just a cook..(Seagal)
 
Top