Pot Stirring

[Team Sergeant]

In my opinion it would be a mistake to use non-combatant in a combatants role.

While they could give the appearance of a well defended base or fortification IMO if the enemy were to find out they could/would exploit this vulnerability to their advantage.

US military combatants are feared for a well deserved reason, they are trained and effective killers. To quickly train a non-combatant to serve in a combatants stead without all the requisite training the combat soldier receives is contemptible at best.

While I agree with Max that the non-combatants can be led, therein lies the problem. If the shit were to hit the fan and there were no combatants to lead the non-combatants it could easily turn into a one sided battle very quickly.

Anyone can pull a trigger, anyone, not everyone can fight and win against a determined enemy. To fight and win does not only take good equipment, but damn good training also and the will to win.

Max, While I agree with some of your posts I do not agree with using non-combatants in combat patrols. I for one, do not wish to rely on someone that thinks a 213 on their PT test is GTG, or is patrolling with a Special Forces soldier just so he can impress his CONUS girlfriend.

The Air Force and Navy (besides the SEALS) need to stay out of the ground combat. If we in the Army cannot handle the bad guys on the ground someone has screwed the pooch.

TS

[CTA3]

Copy and agreed. Risk analysis and mitigation... nightmare from a project perspective and I can only imagine what it would be like at an organization level of armed services with this type of hypothetical....

CTA out

P.S. Someone always pays!

TS, just saw your post and concur... hope all is well.

[Max_Tab]

Originally posted by Team Sergeant
In my opinion it would be a mistake to use non-combatant in a combatants role.

While I agree with Max that the non-combatants can be led, therein lies the problem. If the shit were to hit the fan and there were no combatants to lead the non-combatants it could easily turn into a one sided battle very quickly.

Anyone can pull a trigger, anyone, not everyone can fight and win against a determined enemy. To fight and win does not only take good equipment, but damn good training also and the will to win.

Max, While I agree with some of your posts I do not agree with using non-combatants in combat patrols. I for one, do not wish to rely on someone that thinks a 213 on their PT test is GTG, or is patrolling with a Special Forces soldier just so he can impress his CONUS girlfriend.


TS

Ok here is realistic but hypothetical situation.

You are going out on a mission where you know you will need to search a building. You want to get on the Objective as fast as possible and flood the building. You deffinately want a team guy on the gun, and you need to keep a driver with the vehicle. Let's say you have a full team, of 12 (which never happens) and four vehicles to pull outer security. If you only took team guys, that would leave 4 people to search the entire house. but if you put in a support guy to drive, that gives you 8 people to search the house. Now lets say you have a support guy who is shit hot, and know's how to use a .50 cal, you can leave him there, and that's an extra guy.
Now imagine trying to do all that without a full team and you understand what I am refering too.

In a perfect world you would only have to work with operators, and would have plenty of infantry support for the security, but in real life you take your chance and make do with what you got.

[Ambush Master]

I think that what you are talking about is using "COMBAT TRAINED and QUALIFIED" Personnel to drive and man the guns, ie Ranger or Infantry qualified people. That would work !! I believe that what TS was referring to, was Cooks, Mechanics, and all manner of Support People, that have no business in that kind of arena, conducting combat patrols !!

[Max_Tab]

Originally posted by Ambush Master
I think that what you are talking about is using "COMBAT TRAINED and QUALIFIED" Personnel to drive and man the guns, ie Ranger or Infantry qualified people. That would work !! I believe that what TS was referring to, was Cooks, Mechanics, and all manner of Support People, that have no business in that kind of arena, conducting combat patrols !!

Nope that's exactly who I'm talking about. Mechanic's, commo support guys, Psyops, CA, CI. I said if you were lucky, you got infantry support, but that is not always they case. When you can't get them, and you still have to go in, you use what you got.

[Adam White]

Originally posted by The Reaper
I disagree.

I think less than 20% of the soldiers I see in the COSCOM could serve adequately as an infantryman, maybe less. I would give 10% of the Air Force. Certainly A6 can come to the party and show us what she has. I would count her as probably part of my 10%.

...

TR

Sir, COSCOM units and higher are derided not just by Combat Arms types, but by the majority of support types as well. It is not hard to avoid being assigned there - which usually means that only thoise who WANT to be COSCOM pogues stay there long.

Does your assessment hold true for the support soldiers in the 82d's line battalions, the FSBs, and the MSB?

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by Adam White
Sir, COSCOM units and higher are derided not just by Combat Arms types, but by the majority of support types as well. It is not hard to avoid being assigned there - which usually means that only thoise who WANT to be COSCOM pogues stay there long.

Does your assessment hold true for the support soldiers in the 82d's line battalions, the FSBs, and the MSB?

Can't say, never worked with them.

Sometimes, bad soldiers are the result of bad leadership, if you know what I mean.

TR

[Airbornelawyer]

The problem of manpower is two-fold. One is the immediate need for foot soldiers in the GWOT over the past two-plus years (not just in OIF, but in the Horn of Africa, Afghanistan and airports and railroad stations around the US). The second is the long-term transformation of the Army. The first hurts the second - units that should be nondeployable while undergoing transformation are instead deployed, delaying their transformation. The second harms the first - it limits the manpower available in deployable units. And the first harms the first - it's hard to deploy a unit to stand in an airport for months and then turn around and send it to Iraq.

For several years now, I have been arguing that we need a standardized rotation schedule for National Guard maneuver units - divisional brigade combat teams and separate enhanced readiness brigades (ERB) - that would allow 2 full brigades to be on active duty and deployable at any one time, but would ensure that once that deployment was over, the unit wouldn't be called up for several years (lest constant deployment hurt retention).

There are currently some 39 such brigade or brigade equivalents - 15 ERBs (7 light, 8 heavy), 22 divisional brigades (5-6 light and 16-17 heavy), the 92nd Infantry Brigade (Separate) and the 207th Infantry Group (Scout). They are on an 8-year training calendar, with a CTC rotation at the end of eight years.

Take a 36 brigade-force. Call up two brigades at a time for a six-month call-up, with the first month as train-up, validation and equipment issue, then four months as an Army ready brigade, and one month to demobilize. Stagger the call ups so the train-up month overlaps with a prior brigade's last ready month, so there are always two brigades on ready status - i.e., your brigade's train-up month ends when the prior brigade's demob month begins. In this scenario, any one brigade would be on active duty for 6 months and then off for 66 months, i.e. a six-year training cycle.

Would this regimen be too much for most National Guardsmen? Six months away from home and one's civilian job is a long time for many Guardsmen, but with the knowledge that it would only occur every 6 years make it easier to plan around?

There are also 15 separate field artillery brigades and 8 DIVARTY brigade equivalents, as well as at least two separate ADA brigades. If, as is planned with the active Army, many artillery units are to be converted to maneuver units, these 25 brigades would bring additional resources to the mix. You could have three-brigade call-ups, giving you a National Guard division-equivalent on active duty at any one time, or you could stretch out the call-ups to return to an 8-year cycle.

I haven't touched on National Guard MP, aviation and engineer units. We found during the fight over the Reserve SF deactivations and the "off-site agreement" on USAR combat units that governors and state adjutants general like the prestige of combat arms units, but will fight to keep their MP, aviation and engineer units, as well as medical, for state civil disaster and civil disturbance missions.

Currently, of course, far more than a division of Guardsmen is active. There are something like 60,000-80,000 active at any one time. But the deployments are somewhat haphazard - a company here, a platoon there - and are mostly for Homeland Defense. Putting together units for Iraq deployments has often involved deploying Guardsmen who had been called up for airport security only a few months before. A better organized system ought to provide the necessary manpower without irreparably harming retention.

[CommoGeek]

Originally posted by Max_Tab
Nope that's exactly who I'm talking about. Mechanic's, commo support guys, Psyops, CA, CI. I said if you were lucky, you got infantry support, but that is not always they case. When you can't get them, and you still have to go in, you use what you got.

Max, are you referring to SF Support and USASOC units like the 112th and 528th or "support guys" like a leg support unit? I ask becasue there is a big difference in the mindset and training of a 31C2S or 74B2S in an SF SIGDET vs. their "peer" in some leg Signal BN. I'm not busting on you, just seeking clarification.

My earlier posts in this thread were about these non-SOF support types. Maybe given enough training and time they can perform some limited defensive roles, but who is going to do their support jobs while Joe the engineer or commo guy is riding shotgun in a convoy?

One problem here is that I don't think that DoD ever counted on facing an insurgency of this magnitude ANYWHERE. It is one thing to call up tens of thousands of Guard and Reservists and keep the OPTEMPO high for the AD side when you are fighting off the 9th Mongolian Horde or retaking Seoul. Psychologically and politically it is another when those same troops are in a place like Iraq. We here may understand the need, but Joe and Jane Soccer parents will not; they will accept it if there is some grand life-or-death struggle for humanity like WWII, but I don't think they are too keen on something shadowy like terrorism.

[Solid]

The question is- now that the US is in this situation, how will it extricate itself or make do?

Out of curiousity- does anyone have a map of Iraq showing the extent to which insurgency has spread? It's hard to build an image based on what information the media provides.

Thank you,


Solid

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

There are a lot of good thoughts here and most of them have not been missed by Pete Schoomaker. He basically seems to understand that everyone in the Army has to be a soldier first. They have been trying for a while now to infuse the warrior ethos into the Army but when you have folks coming in, and I mean both officer and enlisted here, for the main purpose of getting money for college or some leg up on a technical skill you are never going to make lemonade out of lemons. Having spent time in different kinds of units, and having even commanded a Personnel Service Company (but that is another story), from my limited experience in the military I am of the opinion that if your heart is not in it you are not going to be able to carry off the combat arms mission requirements. Now that does not mean that a support guy/gal won't rise to the occassion but they would be the exception not the rule and I am not willing to bet the farm on the exception. Just a thought.

Jack Moroney

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally posted by Solid
The question is- now that the US is in this situation, how will it extricate itself or make do?

Out of curiousity- does anyone have a map of Iraq showing the extent to which insurgency has spread? It's hard to build an image based on what information the media provides.

Thank you,


Solid

Maps taken from DoD briefing slides can be seen here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...m-ops-maps.htm

There haven't been any new slide briefings since April, so the fact that the insurgency has actually narrowed since then (mainly due to the defeat of Sadr's uprising) isn't reflected in those slides.

Other than the now-mostly-quieted Sadr uprising, the main areas of enemy activities aren't actually much different than in the attached November 2003 briefing slide, except that the Kirkuk-Sulaymaniyah area is somewhat quieter now. The main incidents this past week have been in Baqubah, Ramadi, Baghdad, Mosul and Fallujah.

[Guy]

Nejaf!

"The the Kirkuk-Sulaymaniyah area is somewhat quieter now"...because the Kurds are reclaiming territory that was originally theirs or so they say.

[Solid]

Do we 'own' the deserts, or is the illicit trade/transport that went on shortly after the invasion was finished still ongoing?

Thank you,

Solid

[Guy]

Originally posted by Solid
Do we 'own' the deserts, or is the illicit trade/transport that went on shortly after the invasion was finished still ongoing?

Thank you,

Solid

Are illegal immigrants...still crossing the USA borders from the north and south transporting drugs and other paraphernalia!

What do you think?