US Troops to face punishment for Criticising Administration

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-07-18 09:10am

How long have these troops been in theatre? if these troops have been there since befor the start of the war should they not be replaced by fresh units? Soldiers they might be, but they are also human, not robots.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-18 09:51am

Stuart Mackey wrote:How long have these troops been in theatre? if these troops have been there since befor the start of the war should they not be replaced by fresh units? Soldiers they might be, but they are also human, not robots.

Most of the troops have been in theater since well before the war other, Third Infantry has had a brigade in Kuwait for years As for replacements, there aren't many available at the moment. Though I think at least the Third Infantry could be replaced and it has been there the longest by far.

Last I heard the Army was considering rotating individual battalions home.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-07-18 12:59pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Last I heard the Army was considering rotating individual battalions home.

Several battlions (IIRC) were supposed to be sent home, but as I'm sure everyone knows the decision was made to keep the 3rd ID in Iraq for an 'indefinite' period.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-18 01:07pm

Vympel wrote:
Several battlions (IIRC) were supposed to be sent home, but as I'm sure everyone knows the decision was made to keep the 3rd ID in Iraq for an 'indefinite' period.

I'm still hearing that since that was announced, I'll see if I can find the article again.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2003-07-18 05:17pm

How long have they been there for? In other words, how many months?

If I remember, combat started sometime around March (though I don't recall how long before they originally arrived). That's about four months. As I recall, Navy ships routinely go on deployment for six months or more. So why's the Army whining? Yeah, it's no fun to be away from home, but that's life in the service for you. And in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, etc, they had combat tours of one year (some maybe more, not counting going back in again later for another tour). They've been in combat for about one-third the time past soldiers have been in it. Seems they're just getting whiney and soft to me.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-18 06:02pm

RogueIce wrote:How long have they been there for? In other words, how many months?

If I remember, combat started sometime around March (though I don't recall how long before they originally arrived). That's about four months. As I recall, Navy ships routinely go on deployment for six months or more. So why's the Army whining? Yeah, it's no fun to be away from home, but that's life in the service for you. And in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, etc, they had combat tours of one year (some maybe more, not counting going back in again later for another tour). They've been in combat for about one-third the time past soldiers have been in it. Seems they're just getting whiney and soft to me.

The 3ID has been in the theatre for more than a year now, though, and they're in a situation of low intensity combat, where you could conceivably not see an enemy your entire patrol and then get shot when you go off to take a leak (which is more often than not in a piddle-pack and not a real toilet). That kind of stress will demoralize any fighting unit.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-19 01:39am

It's a little more difficult for a soldier to restrain his opinions, nowadays, with reporters putting a camera and microphone on him and asking, "How do you feel about being told you're going home and then, a week later, being told you're staying?"

Media entrenchment doesn't just change things for the civilian populace viewing the war; it changes things for the soldiers, as well. The American people want a clear picture of what's going on over there. They're not going to get it if soldiers being interviewed just blow smoke up their asses and say, "Oh yeah, I love Rumsfeld, even though he reneged on his promise to get me out of this fucking sandbox and send me home to my wife and kid."

So, either enforce a strict "No comment" policy amongst soldiers or bar reporters from interviewing them.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-19 01:54am

RogueIce wrote: If I remember, combat started sometime around March (though I don't recall how long before they originally arrived). That's about four months. As I recall, Navy ships routinely go on deployment for six months or more. So why's the Army whining? Yeah, it's no fun to be away from home, but that's life in the service for you.

Not to defend a bunch of Army pukes, but I'd rather be on a ship for six months just pulling my shifts than sleeping in the dirt and being shot at for four months.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2003-07-19 09:38am

While i agree, that soldiers give up some of their rights willingly and swear loyality and to obey their orders, i think they can expect the same from their superiors.

Loyality, honourable service and so on are no one-way-door.

Especially if the commander-in-chief defended America against the Vietcong with the National Guard in Texas. Clinton was at least honest enough to refuse military service.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-19 10:11am

Iceberg wrote: The 3ID has been in the theatre for more than a year now, though, and they're in a situation of low intensity combat, where you could conceivably not see an enemy your entire patrol and then get shot when you go off to take a leak (which is more often than not in a piddle-pack and not a real toilet). That kind of stress will demoralize any fighting unit.

No one in the Third Infantry has been in theater longer then nine months. The division has had one of its brigades in Kuwait for years. However the other two maneuver brigades and its aviation brigade where only alerted for deployment January first of this year and arrived over the next 45 days or so. The vast majority has been there for about six months.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-07-19 03:52pm

FTeik wrote:While i agree, that soldiers give up some of their rights willingly and swear loyality and to obey their orders, i think they can expect the same from their superiors.

Loyality, honourable service and so on are no one-way-door.

Especially if the commander-in-chief defended America against the Vietcong with the National Guard in Texas. Clinton was at least honest enough to refuse military service.

FYI, according to the National Guard Association of the United States, during the Vietnam War, 102 Air National Guard units, consisting of 10,511 personnel mobilized. This included four tactical fighter squadrons. So serving in the Texas Air National Guard was never any kind of guarantee that one would not be sent over to Vietnam, and Bush knew this.

Sorry, but you are simply not going to make Clinton's draft dodging look like a virtue. It never ceases to amaze me how desperately Bush's opponents try to paint him as some kind of draft dodger, while simultaneously lionizing a real draft dodger.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2003-07-20 10:21am

Changes nothing, that he was never at the front himself. And would he have seen combat, if he had been ordered to go?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-07-20 10:56am

Perinquus wrote:
FYI, according to the National Guard Association of the United States, during the Vietnam War, 102 Air National Guard units, consisting of 10,511 personnel mobilized. This included four tactical fighter squadrons.

So serving in the Texas Air National Guard was never any kind of guarantee that one would not be sent over to Vietnam, and Bush knew this.

It's a leap of logic to argue that because four ANG units were mobilized therefore there was no guarantee that he wouldn't be sent to Nam. The deployment of such units could've easily been the same for years on end, with no sudden change expected.

Sorry, but you are simply not going to make Clinton's draft dodging look like a virtue. It never ceases to amaze me how desperately Bush's opponents try to paint him as some kind of draft dodger, while simultaneously lionizing a real draft dodger.

Bush was a coward and a poor serviceman irrespective of Clinton. His Daddy fixed it (so I hear) so he could defend freedom in Vietnam from TEXAS, and he couldn't even hack that cushy post- he went AWOL, remember? Not to mention his mediocre service record.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-20 11:04am

Vympel wrote:
Bush was a coward and a poor serviceman irrespective of Clinton. His Daddy fixed it (so I hear) so he could defend freedom in Vietnam from TEXAS,

When you join the NG you join in a specific state. He happened to be living in Texas at the time.

and he couldn't even hack that cushy post- he went AWOL, remember? Not to mention his mediocre service record.

AWOL is a serious crime in the United States military, no charges where ever filed against Bush. Unless charges are filed he was not AWOL.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-07-20 11:23am

Sea Skimmer wrote: When you join the NG you join in a specific state. He happened to be living in Texas at the time.

And this has what to do with anything I said?

EDIT: incidentally, he requested a transfer to an Alabama unit with no planes and minimal work- I guess he found the Texas ANG too stressful for his delicate sensibilities.

AWOL is a serious crime in the United States military, no charges where ever filed against Bush. Unless charges are filed he was not AWOL.

Does that mean Clinton gets to say because he was never nailed for draft-dodging, he never dodged the draft?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-20 11:30am

Vympel wrote:
And this has what to do with anything I said?
His Daddy fixed it (so I hear) so he could defend freedom in Vietnam from TEXAS,
Your claiming that he needed his daddy to serve in his own state national guard.

EDIT: incidentally, he requested a transfer to an Alabama unit with no planes and minimal work- I guess he found the Texas ANG too stressful for his delicate sensibilities.
Maybe he didn't like flying one of the deadliest US jet fighters ever, for the crew. Who knows.

Does that mean Clinton gets to say because he was never nailed for draft-dodging, he never dodged the draft?

With the draft you can be granted an exception. Clinton didn't get one. In the military and especially the National Guard you can get long leaves of absence. The fact that no charges where fired suggest he had such.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-07-20 11:34am

Sea Skimmer wrote: Your claiming that he needed his daddy to serve in his own state national guard.

He did. The Boston Globe broke the story in May 2000. He didn't have the test scores, so he jumped the waiting list.

Maybe he didn't like flying one of the deadliest US jet fighters ever, for the crew. Who knows.

The Boston Globe. He wanted to run a political campaign in Alabama so he put in for light duties.

With the draft you can be granted an exception. Clinton didn't get one. In the military and especially the National Guard you can get long leaves of absence. The fact that no charges where fired suggest he had such.

There's no evidence of such leave of absence, and Bush himself has claimed that he did indeed show up for duty- the problem is that noone- not even his commanding officers, recall him ever showing up, nor is there any paper work to that effect.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-07-20 02:20pm

Vympel wrote:It's a leap of logic to argue that because four ANG units were mobilized therefore there was no guarantee that he wouldn't be sent to Nam. The deployment of such units could've easily been the same for years on end, with no sudden change expected.

Leap of logic my ass. ANY unit in the armed forces, and this includes the National Guard units, is subject to deployment according to the needs of the military. There is no guarantee he wouldn't be sent to Vietnam because there are no NG units that are understood to be non-deployable. You join the NG or the reserves, you take the risk of being sent somewhere in wartime.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-20 02:47pm

Vympel wrote:Does that mean Clinton gets to say because he was never nailed for draft-dodging, he never dodged the draft?

Clinton can loudly and proudly proclaim that he dodged the draft all he wants. All draft-dodgers were given a presidential pardon.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-20 03:00pm

Perinquus wrote:
Vympel wrote:It's a leap of logic to argue that because four ANG units were mobilized therefore there was no guarantee that he wouldn't be sent to Nam. The deployment of such units could've easily been the same for years on end, with no sudden change expected.
Leap of logic my ass. ANY unit in the armed forces, and this includes the National Guard units, is subject to deployment according to the needs of the military. There is no guarantee he wouldn't be sent to Vietnam because there are no NG units that are understood to be non-deployable. You join the NG or the reserves, you take the risk of being sent somewhere in wartime.

However, Bush's chances of being deployed were extremely low, as his unit was a Fighter-Interceptor Squadron tasked with defending the North American continent from Soviet bombers.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-07-20 03:15pm

Anyone know if this is accurate:

4. Assigned to a safe plane -- the F-102 -- that was being phased out.
As Bush has been quick to note, National Guard members do face the chance of being called up for active duty, though few actually did during the Vietnam war. So what a lucky break for Bush that he was assigned to fly the F-102 Delta Dagger, a plane already being phased out. In fact, the Air Force had ordered all overseas F-102 units shut down as of June 30, 1970 -- just 3 months after Bush finished his training. Since training is so airplane specific, Bush was guaranteed from the beginning to be safe from combat.

Source.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-07-20 03:52pm

Iceberg wrote:However, Bush's chances of being deployed were extremely low, as his unit was a Fighter-Interceptor Squadron tasked with defending the North American continent from Soviet bombers.

That I'll grant you. But extremely low chance and no chance are not the same thing. A large number of people joined the military during the Vietnam War, and were not sent over, even active duty members. Joining the Texas Air National Guard certainly meant little chance of being sent over, but it was still not a guarantee.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-07-20 04:01pm

Sir Sirius wrote:Anyone know if this is accurate:
4. Assigned to a safe plane -- the F-102 -- that was being phased out.
As Bush has been quick to note, National Guard members do face the chance of being called up for active duty, though few actually did during the Vietnam war. So what a lucky break for Bush that he was assigned to fly the F-102 Delta Dagger, a plane already being phased out. In fact, the Air Force had ordered all overseas F-102 units shut down as of June 30, 1970 -- just 3 months after Bush finished his training. Since training is so airplane specific, Bush was guaranteed from the beginning to be safe from combat.
Source.

AFAIK, the ANG probably would have sent him to be retrained on another aircraft.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-20 08:33pm

More likely, he would be kept in the interceptor community. If we retired the C-130 tomorrow, you wouldn't see all of the C-130 crews learning the F-16.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-07-20 09:40pm

Howedar wrote:More likely, he would be kept in the interceptor community. If we retired the C-130 tomorrow, you wouldn't see all of the C-130 crews learning the F-16.

He'd probably be sent to one of the F-106 squadrons, they weren't retired for awhile. They both had some specialized equipment to hook into the US air-defense network that other planes didn't.