PDA

View Full Version : National Guardsmen Say They Are Poorly Trained



Nickdfresh
11-25-2004, 08:03 AM
November 25, 2004

Guardsmen Say They're Facing Iraq Ill-Trained
Troops from California describe a prison-like, demoralized camp in New Mexico that's short on gear and setting them up for high casualties.

By Scott Gold, Times Staff Writer


DOŅA ANA RANGE, N.M. — Members of a California Army National Guard battalion preparing for deployment to Iraq said this week that they were under strict lockdown and being treated like prisoners rather than soldiers by Army commanders at the remote desert camp where they are training.

More troubling, a number of the soldiers said, is that the training they have received is so poor and equipment shortages so prevalent that they fear their casualty rate will be needlessly high when they arrive in Iraq early next year. "We are going to pay for this in blood," one soldier said.

They said they believed their treatment and training reflected an institutional bias against National Guard troops by commanders in the active-duty Army, an allegation that Army commanders denied.

The 680 soldiers of the 1st Battalion of the 184th Infantry Regiment were activated in August and are preparing for deployment at Doņa Ana, a former World War II prisoner-of-war camp 20 miles west of its large parent base, Ft. Bliss, Texas.

Members of the battalion, headquartered in Modesto, said in two dozen interviews that they were allowed no visitors or travel passes, had scant contact with their families and that morale was terrible.

"I feel like an inmate with a weapon," said Cpl. Jajuane Smith, 31, a six-year Guard veteran from Fresno who works for an armored transport company when not on active duty.

Several soldiers have fled Doņa Ana by vaulting over rolls of barbed wire that surround the small camp, the soldiers interviewed said. Others, they said, are contemplating going AWOL, at least temporarily, to reunite with their families for Thanksgiving.

Army commanders said the concerns were an inevitable result of the decision to shore up the strained military by turning "citizen soldiers" into fully integrated, front-line combat troops. About 40% of the troops in Iraq are either reservists or National Guard troops.

Lt. Col. Michael Hubbard of Ft. Bliss said the military must confine the soldiers largely to Doņa Ana to ensure that their training is complete before they are sent to Iraq.

"A lot of these individuals are used to doing this two days a month and then going home," Hubbard said. "Now the job is 24/7. And they experience culture shock."

But many of the soldiers interviewed said the problems they cited went much deeper than culture shock.

And military analysts agree that tensions between active-duty Army soldiers and National Guard troops have been exacerbated as the war in Iraq has required dangerous and long-term deployments of both.

The concerns of the Guard troops at Doņa Ana represent the latest in a series of incidents involving allegations that a two-tier system has shortchanged reservist and National Guard units compared with their active-duty counterparts.

In September, a National Guard battalion undergoing accelerated training at Ft. Dix, N.J., was confined to barracks for two weeks after 13 soldiers reportedly went AWOL to see family before shipping out for Iraq.

Last month, an Army National Guard platoon at Camp Shelby, Miss., refused its orders after voicing concerns about training conditions and poor leadership.

In the most highly publicized incident, in October, more than two dozen Army reservists in Iraq refused to drive a fuel convoy to a town north of Baghdad after arguing that the trucks they had been given were not armored for combat duty.

At Doņa Ana, soldiers have questioned their commanders about conditions at the camp, occasionally breaking the protocol of formation drills to do so. They said they had been told repeatedly that they could not be trusted because they were not active-duty soldiers — though many of them are former active-duty soldiers.

"I'm a cop. I've got a career, a house, a family, a college degree," said one sergeant, who lives in Southern California and spoke, like most of the soldiers, on condition of anonymity.

"I came back to the National Guard specifically to go to Baghdad, because I believed in it, believed in the mission. But I have regretted every day of it. This is demoralizing, demeaning, degrading. And we're supposed to be ambassadors to another country? We're supposed to go to war like this?"

Pentagon and Army commanders rejected the allegation that National Guard or reserve troops were prepared for war differently than their active-duty counterparts.

"There is no difference," said Lt. Col. Chris Rodney, an Army spokesman in Washington. "We are, more than ever, one Army. Some have to come from a little farther back — they have a little less training. But the goal is to get everybody the same."

The Guard troops at Doņa Ana were scheduled to train for six months before beginning a yearlong deployment. They recently learned, however, that the Army planned to send them overseas a month early — in January, most likely — as it speeds up troop movement to compensate for a shortage of full-time, active-duty troops.

Hubbard, the officer at Ft. Bliss, also said conditions at Doņa Ana were designed to mirror the harsh and often thankless assignments the soldiers would take on in Iraq. That was an initiative launched by Brig. Gen. Joseph Chavez, commander of the 29th Separate Infantry Brigade, which includes the 184th Regiment.

The program has resulted in everything from an alcohol ban to armed guards at the entrance to Doņa Ana, Hubbard said.

"We are preparing you and training you for what you're going to encounter over there," Hubbard said. "And they just have to get used to it."

Military analysts, however, questioned whether the soldiers' concerns could be attributed entirely to the military's attempt to mirror conditions in Iraq. For example, the soldiers say that an ammunition shortage has meant that they have often conducted operations firing blanks.

"The Bush administration had over a year of planning before going to war in Iraq," said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has acted as a defense lawyer in military courts. "An ammunition shortage is not an exercise in tough love."

Turley said that in every military since Alexander the Great's, there have been "gripes from grunts" but that "the complaints raised by these National Guardsmen raise some significant and troubling concerns."

The Guard troops in New Mexico said they wanted more sophisticated training and better equipment. They said they had been told, for example, that the vehicles they would drive in Iraq would not be armored, a common complaint among their counterparts already serving overseas.

They also said the bulk of their training had been basic, such as first aid and rifle work, and not "theater-specific" to Iraq. They are supposed to be able to use night-vision goggles, for instance, because many patrols in Iraq take place in darkness. But one group of 200 soldiers trained for just an hour with 30 pairs of goggles, which they had to pass around quickly, soldiers said.

The soldiers said they had received little or no training for operations that they expected to undertake in Iraq, from convoy protection to guarding against insurgents' roadside bombs. One said he has put together a diary of what he called "wasted days" of training. It lists 95 days, he said, during which the soldiers learned nothing that would prepare them for Iraq.

Hubbard had said he would make two field commanders available on Tuesday to answer specific questions from the Los Angeles Times about the training, but that did not happen.

The fact that the National Guardsmen have undergone largely basic training suggests that Army commanders do not trust their skills as soldiers, said David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. That tension underscores a divide that has long existed between "citizen soldiers" and their active-duty counterparts, he said.

"These soldiers should be getting theater-specific training," Segal said. "This should not be an area where they are getting on-the-job training. The military is just making a bad situation worse."

The soldiers at Doņa Ana emphasized their support for the war in Iraq. "In fact, a lot of us would rather go now rather than stay here," said one, a specialist and six-year National Guard veteran who works as a security guard in his civilian life in Southern California.

The soldiers also said they were risking courts-martial or other punishment by speaking publicly about their situation. But Staff Sgt. Lorenzo Dominguez, 45, one of the soldiers who allowed his identity to be revealed, said he feared that if nothing changed, men in his platoon would be killed in Iraq.

Dominguez is a father of two — including a 13-month-old son named Reagan, after the former president — and an employee of a mortgage bank in Alta Loma, Calif. A senior squad leader of his platoon, Dominguez said he had been in the National Guard for 20 years.

"Some of us are going to die there, and some of us are going to die unnecessarily because of the lack of training," he said. "So I don't care. Let them court-martial me. I want the American public to know what is going on. My men are guilty of one thing: volunteering to serve their country. And we are at the end of our rope."

DEMON CUNT
11-26-2004, 01:24 AM
DIE FOR OIL, BITCH!

Nickdfresh
11-26-2004, 09:12 AM
Ha hah, actually it's not funny. They could at least give these guys the proper training to deal with the threats they face! How much does 5.56mm ammunition cost anyways?!?

They can't even get a day off for Thanksgiving. This NM Guard commander sounds like a real mindless, chicken-shit prick.

DEMON CUNT
11-27-2004, 12:37 AM
It's because they really don't give a shit about the soldiers. It's about OIL and CASH.

Notice how none of the Bible thumping Bush-tards have not responded to this thread?

blueturk
11-27-2004, 04:27 AM
It's pretty fucking bad when families have to buy body armor for soldiers.You'd almost think that Dubya doesn't know anything about being in a war....

BigBadBrian
11-27-2004, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by blueturk
It's pretty fucking bad when families have to buy body armor for soldiers.You'd almost think that Dubya doesn't know anything about being in a war....

Go research the military appropriations system. That leads you back to the Clinton Administration. :gulp:

Cathedral
11-27-2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
DIE FOR OIL, BITCH!

I suppose you walk everywhere, or ride a bike?
Do you own anything made of plastic?
The list goes on, but the fact is, if you are a consumer of petroleum products, you cannot wage that argument without being a hypocrite.

I agree that our involvement in the middle east has a bit to do with oil.
But not to steal the oil that belongs to those nations.
I believe it was the Democrats who suggested we take oil to pay for the war in Iraq, not the Republicans, who in fact said that we would not make Iraq pay us back for the liberal proposed "Loan" as it were.

I'm a tax payer, and i have no beefs with my contribution going to help Iraq become a free and productive nation. I am also aware that there are those who oppose it, and it is your right to do so.

We have to protect our interests over-seas unless you want a gallon of gas to cost you $10.00.

Personally, I'd like to see our dependance on oil eliminated. but the problem is that it is big business and that will apparently not happen until the worlds supply is all but depleated, which by the way isn't Liberal or Conservative, it's just a fact of life in America.

Cathedral
11-27-2004, 09:51 AM
On topic:
I think our National Guard should be utilized here at home to protect the homefront.
They are ill-trained to be thrust into a battle of such massive proportions without extensive re-training efforts being undertaken.

LoungeMachine
11-27-2004, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Go research the military appropriations system. That leads you back to the Clinton Administration. :gulp:

Oh for CHRIST'S sake.

What a fucking idiotic defense.


Drink the kool ade B3

LoungeMachine
11-27-2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
On topic:
I think our National Guard should be utilized here at home to protect the homefront.
They are ill-trained to be thrust into a battle of such massive proportions without extensive re-training efforts being undertaken.


It's all Clinton's fault

-BigBadBrian

Cathedral
11-27-2004, 10:01 AM
When the blood is spilling, blame means so little to me. We need to fix that which places our troops at a disadvantage.

John Ashcroft
11-27-2004, 10:09 AM
Uh, training has always been an issue in all branches of the military (whether they be active or reserve). Anytime the pace of operations increases, training gets put on the back-burner. It's just a simple fact. And it's also a necessary one. Regardless, they are still much better trained than any other military on the planet. Period. And it has nothing to do with whether or not the military commanders "care about" their soldiers. To make a statement like that shows just how clueless you are to military matters.

BigBadBrian
11-27-2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Oh for CHRIST'S sake.

What a fucking idiotic defense.


Drink the kool ade B3

The mention of the word "Clinton" has the liberals whining at his defense. Shameful and funny at the same moment. :D

Nickdfresh
11-27-2004, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
It's all Clinton's fault

-BigBadBrian

Come on, he's only been out of office four years now! Of course it's still his fault!

BigBadBrian
11-27-2004, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Come on, he's only been out of office four years now! Of course it's still his fault!

I figured you wouldn't understand. :gulp:

Nickdfresh
11-27-2004, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I figured you wouldn't understand. :gulp:

No, I understand all too well.

Viking
11-27-2004, 06:13 PM
Pissing and moaning aside, I think the National Guard ought to be on our fucking BORDERS, stopping the influx of non-Hispanic (READ: ARAB) illegals, not guarding communal shit pits outside of Tikrit. The president needs to invoke the National Defense Act of 1916 and secure the integrity of the 'ol homestead. Either that, or border states should bolster their state militias, and pick up the slack. And NO, I don't mean 'militia' in the sense of a gaggle of toothless rednecks in army surplus BDU's, brandishing deer rifles and AK-47's - I mean the state government-sanctioned military forces that are usually under the dominion of the governor or secretary of state. Most states DO have their own defense force or militia, believe it or else.

http://www.sgaus.org/
http://www.sgaus.org/States.htm

Nickdfresh
11-27-2004, 06:52 PM
We shouldn't be in Iraq to begin with. She should have snuffed out al-Qaida in Afghanistan, invested the funds we're flushing into that gaping Iraqi wound to shore up homeland Security, especially where ports are concerned. But that's splitting hairs I suppose.

blueturk
11-27-2004, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Uh, training has always been an issue in all branches of the military (whether they be active or reserve). Anytime the pace of operations increases, training gets put on the back-burner. It's just a simple fact. And it's also a necessary one. Regardless, they are still much better trained than any other military on the planet. Period. And it has nothing to do with whether or not the military commanders "care about" their soldiers. To make a statement like that shows just how clueless you are to military matters.

Sorry,but training means a hell of a lot more now than it used to.Almost half of the soldiers in Iraq right now are from The National Guard.In Vietnam,1 out of every 300 came from the Guard.Which explains why Dubya was (kind of) a National Guardsman.

John Ashcroft
11-27-2004, 07:43 PM
Dude, you don't have to convince me on the merits of training. I was a flight instructor/evaluator for most of my time in the Air Force. I've always bitched and moaned about training and the importance of it. But at the end of the day, the U.S. military is still head and shoulders above the rest. I have complete confidence in their ability to carry out the mission at hand. Any mission for that matter.

And as a side note, I can tell you that funding for training and everything else has increased dramatically since President Bush took office. Hell, if I were still in the military I think I'd actually be making more money than I am now. If not, damn close. I served during the Clinton years, and I saw first hand the cuts he instituted. And I'm sorry if you guys don't like it, but the military is still recovering from it. It's not politics, it's the truth. Any military person above the rank of E-6 will tell you. Hell, they've been handing out promotions like candy to fill the vacancies of the Clinton era. Again, no politics, just facts. For instance, in AWACS three years ago the promotion from Captain to Major was friggin' 95%! And I'm not exaggerating! Not the slightest bit!

But again, and I can't say this enough, our military is more capable than any other on the planet in the entire history of mankind. That's also a simple fact.

blueturk
11-27-2004, 08:13 PM
I'm not debating the capability of our military forces.I'm saying that this is a very different scenario than any other war we've fought.Bush is calling up everybody who is even remotely available,often at the last moment.Of course Bush has increased funding for the military.What other choice does he have?

John Ashcroft
11-27-2004, 08:21 PM
He increased funding prior to any or our engagements.

Nickdfresh
11-27-2004, 08:31 PM
I think to be fair, during the Clinton Administration a little thing called the Cold War had finally ended for good, so budgetary priorities had to be realigned. We weren't lining up against superpower that outnumbered us in men and tanks any longer.

By the way, if those military budget cuts were so "to-the-bone," why didn't the Republicans that had your much ballyhooed "majority" in congress by 96' not stop the "bleeding?"

Seshmeister
11-27-2004, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Regardless, they are still much better trained than any other military on the planet. Period.

It's nice you are all patriotic and stuff but saying your reservists are better trained than every other countries regulars is just bollocks.

To be honest I haven't heard great things about your regular infantry either.

Cheers!

:gulp:

John Ashcroft
11-27-2004, 08:33 PM
Yeah, they could and should of. But like you said, the Cold War was over, and most from both houses lacked the forsight to envision future threats.

Nickdfresh
11-27-2004, 08:36 PM
For this much money, we better have the best in the world!

Last of the Big Time Spenders:
U.S. Military Budget Still the World's Largest, and Growing
HIGHLIGHTS TOPLINE WEAPONS BMD UAV DISCRETIONARY GLOBAL

Updated March 19, 2003

Selected Countries Military Budget
($Billions)
United States 399.1

Russia* 65.0

China* 47.0

Japan 42.6

United Kingdom 38.4

France 29.5

Germany 24.9

Saudi Arabia 21.3

Italy 19.4

India 15.6

South Korea 14.1

Brazil* 10.7

Taiwan* 10.7

Israel 10.6

Spain 8.4

Australia 7.6

Canada 7.6

Netherlands 6.6

Turkey 5.8

Mexico 5.9

Kuwait* 3.9

Ukraine 5.0

Iran* 4.8

Singapore 4.8

Sweden 4.5

Egypt* 4.4

Norway 3.8

Greece 3.5

Poland 3.5

Argentina* 3.3

United Arab Emirates* 3.1

Colombia* 2.9

Belgium 2.7

Pakistan* 2.6

Denmark 2.4

Vietnam 2.4

North Korea* 2.1

Czech Republic 1.6

Iraq* 1.4

Philippines 1.4
Portugal 1.3
Libya* 1.2
Hungary 1.1
Syria 1.0
Cuba* 0.8
Sudan* 0.6
Yugoslavia 0.7
Luxembourg 0.2

Figures are for latest year available, usually 2002. Expenditures are used in a few cases where official budgets are significantly lower than actual spending. The figure for the United States is from the annual budget request for Fiscal Year 2004.

* 2001 Funding

Table prepared by Center for Defense Information.

Nickdfresh
11-27-2004, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
It's nice you are all patriotic and stuff but saying your reservists are better trained than every other countries regulars is just bollocks.

To be honest I haven't heard great things about your regular infantry either.

What have you heard about them and from who?

Cheers!

:gulp:

blueturk
11-27-2004, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
He increased funding prior to any or our engagements.

OK,good point.But even with these spending increases some Guardsmen are still criticizing their own readiness for this war.The fact is that Dubya seriously misunderestimated (I couldn't help it) what this conflict would require in terms of troops needed,among other things.The National Guard is already sounding alerts about low recruiting numbers.I won't even mention the D-word,since Dubya already PROMISED that would not happen.And if anybody knows about selective service,it's Bush.

John Ashcroft
11-27-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
It's nice you are all patriotic and stuff but saying your reservists are better trained than every other countries regulars is just bollocks.

To be honest I haven't heard great things about your regular infantry either.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Ahhh... Who've you been talking to? Could it be those fine british soldier's are displaying a bit of their jealousy???

Really though, I can tell you for a fact that there are forces around Europe in particular that rival any on the planet. In fact, best any on the planet. But the simple fact is, your government's don't have the stomach to follow such things through. So what good are your elite forces?

That's really the question. I went to Electronic Warfare College in Belgium with a bunch of Nimrod and Brit-AWACS airmen. They were simply amazing. I'm not kidding! These folks were fucking awesome. I learned alot from them. But they're also under funded and under-appreciated by your government. Face it, most of Europe relies on America to foot the bill in military matters. Both in actual currency, and in blood. Please don't mistake this as criticism of your fighting forces. They're dying just like our forces. Their blood is as red as ours. But your government is just now catching up a bit. And what does Tony Blair get for it??? A bunch of misguided Euro-weenies criticizing his every move. So much for doing what's right.

Interesting that there wasn't nearly as much outrage with Bosnia in Northern Europe. No U.N. charter, went in to dispose a sitting leader in the name of stopping genocide. Not much difference there than in Iraq if you ask me. But for some reason your public has gone off the deep end this time. Could it be because we have a non-socialist President? One who doesn't kiss ass? Face it, the press corps around the world are at least socialist sympathizers. And America has gone and elected a friggin' Conservative! He must be taken out at all costs!

It's the press that's driving public sentiment in Europe (and therefore alot of opportunism out of European politicians). I've been there during the last war. I've seen the reporting on this one. It's entirely different. They loved Clinton. They hate Bush. It's a similar war, with similar objectives, but with completely different coverage from the "independent" press.

Seshmeister
11-27-2004, 09:58 PM
I was talking about infantry rather than airforce. In the world of high tech toys the US is gonna win hands down due to the ludicrous spending. Also although the Harriers did well in the Falkland war as far as I can tell our airforce's policy of flying outdated fighter bombers really low is pretty dumb.

As regards Bosnia I think it was an entirely different situation. The people who we were trying to help were systematically being wiped out. They were happy to take collateral damage and are still grateful for what we(more directly you) did. It was a just action and wasn't born out of self interest as there patently was none. Within weeks of the conflict ending Blair was cheered through the streets. I never saw him walking about in Bagdhad last year...

The public sentiment certainly wasn't press driven here. Only 1 newspaper came out against the war prior to it and only a couple of fringe political parties did.

I sat (in a bar surprise surprise :) ) here before the war started and watched a protest march go by for over 4 hours.

People here did prefer Clinton to Bush of course because, although he may have been a little sleazy, on foreign policy he was intelligent, thoughtful and articulate.

He came within a hair's breadth of getting a Palestinian settlement(the core of all this shit) and helped in Nothern Ireland.

I've been acused of sticking my nose into US affairs a few times on these boards but I'm interested in foreign policy and how it affects me.

As Thatcher was very friendly to the US she is seen as good over there; the fact that she was an absolute disaster for Scotland domestically won't come into the equation for people in the US.

In the same way Clintons blow jobs or dodgy pardons on leaving office are irrelevant to us.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Seshmeister
11-27-2004, 10:12 PM
Interestingly I listened to a debate the other night when all of the elder statesmen of Thatchers government stood up and said the Iraq war was a terrible mistake.

I don't see how anyone can argue against that viewpoint now.

John Ashcroft
11-27-2004, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
People here did prefer Clinton to Bush of course because, although he may have been a little sleazy, on foreign policy he was intelligent, thoughtful and articulate.


Well, we could certainly debate this forever... And maybe forever will start tomorrow, I'm going to bed. :D

I'll give you a preface to tomorrow's debate though... Clinton never had a "thoughtful" or "articulate" moment in his entire Presidency. He appeased, and bombed when it provided a "clever" distraction from his personal woes. And it amazes me that others in the world don't realize this. Again, the press in action.

Oh well, I'm sure I'll have plenty more to say tomorrow.

Have a good evening though. And BTW, congrats on the twin news! You're in for a world of hurt though, you know this right? :D

Yep, get the sleep while you can! I can't even imagine having two infants at a time... Good luck! :D

Seshmeister
11-27-2004, 10:36 PM
It's gonna be 3 under 2.

I'm very afraid...

Nickdfresh
11-27-2004, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
I was talking about infantry rather than airforce. In the world of high tech toys the US is gonna win hands down due to the ludicrous spending...
Cheers!

:gulp:

Actually, the U.S. infantry got quite a good review from the Taliban and al-Qaida pricks they captured in Afghanistan. The most notable comment was that "if these were Soviet soldiers (during the Soviet occupation) we could stop them by shooting their officers" whereas the U.S. troops kept coming even if only privates were left leading the battle.

Seshmeister
11-27-2004, 10:44 PM
They caught Al-Queda terrorists in Afghanistan?

Never knew that...

Nickdfresh
11-27-2004, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
They caught Al-Queda terrorists in Afghanistan?

Never knew that...

Learn something everyday:D . Definitely not the right ones!

Seshmeister
11-27-2004, 10:59 PM
Ha maybe there were a few.

I need to put up the TV interview I have on tape with Cheney where he shows a diagram of the Al Queda 'James Bond villain style' multi level cave complexes in Tora Bora with hundreds of rooms, training facilities, air defence systems, artillary and stuff.

Very funny shit...:)

Cheers!

:gulp: