The Never ending military training of foreign troops ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • JB White
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2009
    • 13371

    #16
    Originally posted by clintonhater
    The Kurds are BY FAR the best friends we have in the area, yet we abandon them to the aggression of Erdogan?
    CIA Instructions for Kurds: Use. Abuse. Hang to dry. Repeat as needed.


    I can't help but wonder about how many Syrian troops might be ISIS-ish sympathizers? Sit tight. Lie low. Learn what you can. Wait for the heat to pass.
    Wouldn't be the first time we unwittingly trained enemies.
    2016 Chicago Cubs. MLB Champions!


    **Never quite as old as the other old farts**

    Comment

    • IditarodJoe
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2009
      • 1529

      #17
      Here's an honest question - no agenda or preconceptions on my part:

      If, one year from today, all US military personnel have been removed from the middle east and, three years from today, all US military aid has been discontinued . . . then looking forward to five years from today, 21 December 2023, what do forum members guess would be the state of affairs in that region? Militarily, politically, economically?

      There are some knowledgeable people on CSP and I'd be truly interested in the (non-sophomoric) responses.
      "They've took the fun out of running the race. You never see a campfire anywhere. There's never any time for visiting." - Joe Redington Sr., 1997

      Comment

      • m1ashooter
        Senior Member
        • May 2011
        • 3220

        #18
        I believe that five years from now the picture will look about the same. Syria will be a broken up country and Lebanon will continue to be a proxy state of Iran.
        To Error Is Human To Forgive Is Not SAC Policy

        Comment

        • clintonhater
          Senior Member
          • Nov 2015
          • 5220

          #19
          Originally posted by m1ashooter
          We have been training the Afghani's far too long, its a waste of time.
          What we asked for when we armed the rebels against the Soviets; had we minded our business, it would be the Russians still fighting there--and probably no 9/11. But long before that, Afghans had acquired the reputation among surrounding nations as "most treacherous people on earth."

          Comment

          • togor
            Banned
            • Nov 2009
            • 17610

            #20
            Forecast for tomorrow's weather: a lot like today's. Most of the time that forecast is right. But sometimes it is not. Anyhow, here is an op-ed from the J-post that endeavors to see upsides that may outweigh the obvious downsides to this decision. We should bookmark it and revisit in 6 months or 12.

            Last edited by togor; 12-21-2018, 04:53.

            Comment

            • Clark Howard
              Senior Member
              • Sep 2009
              • 2105

              #21
              In so many cases, the "troops" that we are training belong to some local faction that wants weapons and boots. We assume that the people that we train will serve some national interest, while the truth is that they possess very little national identity. The high point of the training cycle is the chow hall and payday. Regards, Clark

              Comment

              • JB White
                Senior Member
                • Aug 2009
                • 13371

                #22
                Originally posted by togor
                Forecast for tomorrow's weather: a lot like today's. Most of the time that forecast is right. But sometimes it is not. Anyhow, here is an op-ed from the J-post that endeavors to see upsides that may outweigh the obvious downsides to this decision. We should bookmark it and revisit in 6 months or 12.

                https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Column...egacies-574988
                Glick's comments rely on what should be going on in their minds as well as her own. A good analogy would be your own reference to weather forecasting. On the upside, at least someone is thinking outside the box instead of flogging the same old camel.
                If they are going to put portions of that to a trial test I prefer they do it small scale and keep it over there. Those people are so...fickle for lack of a better word at the moment. No telling how they wake up on any given day.
                2016 Chicago Cubs. MLB Champions!


                **Never quite as old as the other old farts**

                Comment

                • blackhawknj
                  Senior Member
                  • Aug 2011
                  • 3754

                  #23
                  The Army I served in 1967-1971 was pretty much nothing but a Detail Force, training was taken care of AFTER the details. In my year in the 12th Engineer Battalion in Germany 1970-71 training was like holidays-noted for its infrequency. The VOLAR that followed was worse since they were constantly cutting back on school training. Yes, these are still tribal societies, these nations have boundaries drawn for the benefit of the colonial/mandate powers, the inhabitants have no more loyalty to them than the inhabitants of the GDR did.

                  Comment

                  • Vern Humphrey
                    Administrator - OFC
                    • Aug 2009
                    • 15875

                    #24
                    Originally posted by blackhawknj
                    The Army I served in 1967-1971 was pretty much nothing but a Detail Force, training was taken care of AFTER the details. In my year in the 12th Engineer Battalion in Germany 1970-71 training was like holidays-noted for its infrequency. The VOLAR that followed was worse since they were constantly cutting back on school training. Yes, these are still tribal societies, these nations have boundaries drawn for the benefit of the colonial/mandate powers, the inhabitants have no more loyalty to them than the inhabitants of the GDR did.
                    GOOD units train constantly. Often budgetary constraints cause reduced Optempo, but they train nevertheless. I used to run the Battalion Training Management System, and introduced it to the 2nd Infantry Division.

                    Remember -- a unit that concentrates only on INDIVIDUAL training cannot be considered combat ready. Individual training is only preparation for Collective Training, which can only be done in units.

                    Comment

                    • togor
                      Banned
                      • Nov 2009
                      • 17610

                      #25
                      Regular turnover also affects readiness as experienced people rotate out. This is why I hope the next SecDef brings back the US-ROK joint exercises in 2019, instead of agreeing to continue the sham appeasement of Kim by cancelling them again.

                      Comment

                      • clintonhater
                        Senior Member
                        • Nov 2015
                        • 5220

                        #26
                        Originally posted by togor
                        Regular turnover also affects readiness as experienced people rotate out. This is why I hope the next SecDef brings back the US-ROK joint exercises in 2019, instead of agreeing to continue the sham appeasement of Kim by cancelling them again.
                        What's wrong with a "sham appeasement," considering the fact acknowledged by all military authorities that the force Kim could bring to bear against S. Korea (using only conventional weapons, not nukes) could not be stopped by combined US & ROK forces, short of unleashing our own nukes? Present state of affairs is not good, highly unstable, liable to go off a cliff without warning, but STILL, better than the horrible mess pre-Trump.

                        Comment

                        • togor
                          Banned
                          • Nov 2009
                          • 17610

                          #27
                          Originally posted by clintonhater
                          What's wrong with a "sham appeasement," considering the fact acknowledged by all military authorities that the force Kim could bring to bear against S. Korea (using only conventional weapons, not nukes) could not be stopped by combined US & ROK forces, short of unleashing our own nukes? Present state of affairs is not good, highly unstable, liable to go off a cliff without warning, but STILL, better than the horrible mess pre-Trump.
                          You don't know any of that. Just opinion and I doubt you think you're actually qualified to make decisions. Vernon points out the importance of regular training. I agree with him and point out that it matters on the Korean peninsula.

                          Comment

                          • clintonhater
                            Senior Member
                            • Nov 2015
                            • 5220

                            #28
                            Originally posted by togor
                            You don't know any of that.
                            I know this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmc.../#7181d6e3317e

                            When ROK chose to keep its capital in Soule as a gesture of defiance (after it had been leveled in the first N. Korean onslaught), it created the vulnerability that makes effective defense impossible without resort to nukes, or a hugely expanded US force.

                            Comment

                            • togor
                              Banned
                              • Nov 2009
                              • 17610

                              #29
                              Yes Seoul would get heavily damaged in a shooting war on the Korean peninsula. Therefore, according to your logic, we shouldn't train. That makes as much sense as saying firefighters shouldn't train because the blaze will win anyways. Logic fail.

                              Comment

                              • S.A. Boggs
                                Senior Member
                                • Aug 2009
                                • 8568

                                #30
                                There is no need to fight 21st century conflicts with 20th century logic. Boots on the ground is to hold onto the ground, do we want to do this in the countries? We can see from miles up with satellite, missiles launched from submerged subs. Why put a person on the ground when we have this capability? If we spot a training camp from space why send in troops to destroy it when a missile can do just as well?
                                Sam

                                Comment

                                Working...