There's No Such Thing as a "Support" troop.

[Exilednight]

Either you're a soldier, airmen, sailor, Marine, or you're not.

In the Army, every soldier goes through basic training. In basic, every soldier, no matter what their job, learns how to fire an M-16 rifle, M-60 machine-gun, LAW (light anti-tank weapon), throw a grenade, and bayonet training.

To get promoted to E-5 (Sergeant), you must attend PLDC (Primary Leadership Development Course). The course mostly surrounds training and motivation of subordinate, it also teaches leadership in combat, including: navigation, combat patrols, combat movement, ambushes, and setting up defense perimeters with overlapping fire and proper place of weapons.

NO ONE on this board bought the difference when Bush tried to sell us a difference between "combat" and "support" troops, so why are so many buying it now?

Everyone on this board also understood that "private contractors" was just code for "privatized combat army". As of today, the current level of "private contractors" is 3500, but the Obama administration has said that they will need to double that to around 7,000 to make up for the lost troops.

Total: 57,000 combat trained "troops", or the equivalent of two full divisions.

I would also point out that some are running around and comparing troop numbers to Germany, Japan and South Korea. It's sad because that was a McCain talking point, and votevets.org even made a commercial and called him out on it.

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2008/01/mccain-nh-would-be-fine-keep-troops-iraq-hundred-years

Obam campaigned against him on it. What did Obama have to say about McCain? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OelzPz781MI&feature=related

[FreakinDJ]

1. REMF = Rear Echelon Mother Fucker

sorry but if YOU had ever been where the bullets are flying - YOU would sure as Hell understand the difference

[Exilednight]

3. I was in Operation Just Cause and the first Gulf War.

and to be honest, REMFs are no longer part of the equation. Supply, cooks, clerks and the rest of REMF jobs have been outsourced to private corporations.

[FreakinDJ]

7. Outsourcing the military should be Unconstitutional

Our next war will be fighting the Army of Mercenaries we have assembled in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When I got back to the States I was on KP so much they asked me if I wanted to become a cook

[Exilednight]

17. Remember when Haliburton can nailed for charging for meals they didn't serve? ......................

And sadly, Obama has kept these companies in place to provide the same services.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=aWq.XoaVqS4U

[derby378]

9. That needs to change, too

We need a self-sufficient military instead of one that is at the mercy of folks like Halliburton, KBR, and Pizza Hut.

God bless the REMFs.

[mcollins]

46. They had to outsource the support jobs once the repubs cut the military. nt

[Old Troop]

66. Anyone who was 1 meter or more behind my position was a REMF!

:rofl:

[dmallind]

2. Yep - all those soldiers in Germany and Japan are shooting everybody left and right

Not to mention dozens of other countries where US military personnel are not engaged in any fighting beyond the occasional Saturday night bar brawl.

[Exilednight]

4. Germany and Japan is not nearly as hostile as Iraq.

Spin it anyway you want, but the reality of Iraq is much different than Germany or Japan.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Iraq isn't nearly as hostile as you'd like it to be.

Furthermore, our troops are being kept out of the dangerous spots. Have for many months now, since you're obviously not paying attention.

[dmallind]

21. But that does not change the nature of the military, only their environment

I am pretty sure if a bunch of people started firing on our military contingent in Germany they would shoot back. Are they combat troops now because they would do so?

[Arctic Dave]

20. I dont recall the US invading japan and germany under false premise,

did I miss something in my history class? Our being there was part of the surrender agreements, did Iraq surrender to our hostile invasion and occupation?

[dmallind]

24. Since when does history determine current status of orders?

And sorry but I am pretty sure we killed about thirty or forty times the number of US lives lost in this "war" under false premises in Japan.

[Arctic Dave]

32. Not sure what you are saying.

[mkultra]

47. ouch. That was a knockout punch to this crappy OP.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Just like when we mercilessly invaded Haiti after the earthquake.

And slaughtered thousands.

[Arkana]

13. I do not know why this made me laugh, but it did.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. It's probably because the whole thread's patently absurd.

[Arkana]

16. The NYTimes headline: "President Obama: I'VE SLAUGHTERED MILLIONS"

[Exilednight]

19. You're seriously trying to compare aid to Haiti and our invasion of Iraq to be the same?

We didn't drop bombs on Haiti and destroy their infrastructure.

How did Iraq's infrastructure get destroyed?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. The support troops in Iraq are bombing nothing and are destroying no infrastructure.

I'm just taking your ridiculously false claim that there's no such thing as support troops and extending it to an obviously humanitarian mission.

The best thing you could do for yourself right now is just admit that you're wrong, and apologize. I don't expect you to though. You'll likely continue with the logical fallacies.

[sandnsea]

6. Well see, Obama IS NOT Bush

and therefore, some of us have seen the difference in the number of deaths in Iraq in the last year, the continued drawdown as promised, and now the transition from combat to support.

In other words, Obama has done what he said he would do, unlike Bush who always did the opposite.

Obama IS NOT Bush.

[gateley]

10. Here's the difference according to Richard Engel: If there is trouble or an

uprising in Baghdad, they're on their own whereas previously our combat troops would swoop in.

Seems like a BIG difference to me. They're not saying those remaining haven't been trained in combat (they're in the military, after all) but that it's no longer our operation. They're not calling them 'support troops ' -- they're saying the troops remaining will be there in a 'support capacity'.

[Exilednight]

12. Did you read the NY TImes today?

To help "keep the peace", Obama said he will double the amount of "private contractors".

Alright, let's say we're not using US soldiers, but we are using a para-military force - whose deaths do not count against our combat troop death totals.

[gateley]

25. According to Biden (who I always tend to believe) we're also providing them

with engineers and others to help them get up and running. (The video is in Political Videos - Joe and Jill welcoming home the 2nd Stryker Brigade). I don't think we're going provide a full-blown "army", and I would have been disgusted and ashamed if we'd just cut and run after raining down so much destruction on their country so I'm okay with the private contractors. We were screaming about our men and women in the military and we're working on bringing them home. How can you find fault with that?

[Exilednight]

29. I understand about the engineers and such, but ...........

Obama is doubling the size of "armed" private contractors to make up for the drawn down forces.

[gateley]

33. If that's accurate I don't think they're there to launch combat missions, are they?

Are they armed with offensive weapons? Tanks, stuff like that?

There is a a very real need for help there, so much violence and probably more to come. As I mentioned, I'd be ashamed if we just left them high and dry and if it takes hiring contractors so we can extricate our troops so be it. I know others don't agree with me on that, but it's how I feel :shrug:

I can't believe what Rumsfeld and Cheney have wrought just for fucking oil. Richard Engel was saying that Iran carries a lot of weight in Iraq these days -- wonder if they foresaw that or if they'd even care. They'll only care if Iran gets ahold of that oil.

[Exilednight]

34. Let me get this right .........

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you think using private contractors are okay?

You do know that private contractor is just another word for mercenaries?

[gateley]

37. It's not as though I think it's a wonderful idea, but what are our other options?

Leave and pull the plug? Keep sending more of our troops? What would you do?

Are you saying that these "contractors" have been hired to go "fight the war"? What is it you think their role will be?

I'm of the mind that they ARE there in a support position, to give the Iraqi government and police space to get it together. These mercenaries also protect our personnel there.

So yes, I understand private contractor is a euphemism for mercenaries, but I think mercenaries can play many different roles and I don't think they're there for combat. They're not the French Foreign Legion.

And again, what would you do?

On the mercenaries topic, I heard Lawrence O'Donnell discussing the "private contractors" with Keith yesterday saying the new company/companies (I THINK he used the word company) were very aware of the the criticisms and troubles of the 'previous' contractor and knew it/they would be closely monitored, so essentially it's going to be a different type of situation. Is there really a different company other than Xe? I was rolling my eyes when I heard O'Donnell but then I read where Erik Prince has moved to Dubai and is focusing on providing services to other countries and less to the U.S. I understand they'll take money from anywhere and won't turn ours down, but it made me wonder if there is indeed a new/different company? Kind of OT to our discussion, but thought you might know?

[Exilednight]

52. Their role, according to the administration is to ....................

to provide security to the general population. Think of them as a police force on steroids.

[Ikonoklast]

65. Link, please.

I want to see proof other than your say-so that Obama is doubling armed contractors in Iraq.


Support services provided by contractors are not manned by armed personnel.

[TheKentuckian]

35. Only Congress may raise an army and has oversight responsibility for such

I view the mercenaries as unConstitutional so no they sure as hell aren't acceptable.

[doc03]

11. You don't know what you are talking about a clerk, cook,

mechanic, trainers etc. are support troops. Yes everyone trains with a weapon in Basic but you have a primary MOS of cook for instance and a secondary MOS of infantry.

[Exilednight]

14. Read up thread, I covered that already. There's no such thing as a military cook ..........

clerk or supply. Most of those jobs have been outsourced to private corporations. Haliburton, not military cooks, feed the US Army. They also do most of the maintenance on vehicles, clerk jobs, and supply jobs.

Remember the big scandal of Haliburton charging for meals they didn't deliver?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&refer=columnist_carlson&sid=aWq.XoaVqS4U

[doc03]

18. What are those 80000 or so troops in Germany? The only

combat I ever saw was a fight at the EM club.

[Exilednight]

22. Combat troops. They're put there as ..............

a deter hostile force from attacking Germany. According to their surrender agreement, Germany is not allowed to raise a standing force larger than "x" I don't know the exact number) amount.

Japan had even harsher restrictions. They're not even allowed to raise a standing army. They're allowed a national defense force, but again it is limited in size.

And, to be fair, it has been discussed to lift the restrictions on both and pull out even more of our troops - possibly even leaving Japan all together.

[doc03]

26. Well I was a clerk and I would have been about as dangerous

as my 90 year old mother.

[doc03]

27. The Germans had a post just a few blocks from

ours with the same combat vehicles we had.

[Exilednight]

28. I am sure they did, and we probably gave them those vehicles ..........

Germany does have a standing Army, but it's limited in size.

[KakistocracyHater]

61. didn't W release or relax the Japanese restritictions? I thought I had read

about that.

[ProSense]

30. There most definitely are support troops.

Not every solider is or can be on the front lines.

Jessica Lynch was a support troop. They have not disbanded the Quartermaster Corps.

[Exilednight]

31. Quartermaster has a very small, if any, roll in Iraq. Read up in prior posts and you .............

will find a link I supplied showing how a Haliburton spin-off is bringing in most of the supplies and distributing them.

Or did you forget the big scandal involving Haliburton charging for meals and supplies that were never given to soldiers?

[ProSense]

39. They have a role. Here is the

title of your OP: "There's No Such Thing as a "Support" troop."

[alsame]

36. Last night on MSNBC Colonel Jack Jacobs said that when he was

sent to Viet Nam as a 'support troop', after the war was officially over, there was combat almost every day.

[LAGC]

63. I think THIS is what a lot of the people claiming "Mission Accomplished (Again!)" fail to realize...

Iraq is much more analogous to Vietnam after "combat forces" pulled out than it is to Germany or Japan.

Should the fragile political situation deteriorate, even if full-blown civil war doesn't ensue, all those 'support troops' could very well find themselves coming under daily fire...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. As usual, you have it wrong...

Let’s start with the fact that there are thousands of non-combat personnel in Iraq, as even a cursory Google search will confirm – via dozens of articles about National Guard Quartermaster Corps units either being deployed to Iraq or coming back from deployment. That’s in addition to regular army personnel from the CSSG’s that have been rotating in and out of Iraq for years. A visit to the US Army Sustainment Command’s website will confirm this.

And that would include the 507th Maintenance Company – nine of whom were killed in action early in the conflict. So minimizing the importance and contribution of support personnel is pretty fucking stupid.

But then there are all of the Halliburton employees who are dishing up shit on a shingle and charging the taxpayers for filet mignon. And there are the local subcontractors who get hired for a few bucks a day. Guess what? Unlike the CSSG units – those that have weapons and know how to use them – these civilian personnel require security. So there are thousands of combat-ready troops in Iraq to do just that.

And then there’s the fact that many of the troops remaining in Iraq are there to provide combat training to the Iraqi military. Who do you think provides that training, the friggin’ Marine Corps Band? Of course there are going to be combat-ready troops in Iraq. It doesn’t mean that their mission is to engage in combat – any more than the combat troops stationed in Germany are engaging the enemy.

And then there’s the fact that Iran is just across the border with a few hundred thousand troops of its own. For the foreseeable future, there needs to be a combat presence in Iraq, if for no other reason that to prevent Iran from getting any ideas.

[Exilednight]

51. Thanks for proving my point for me ......

And that would include the 507th Maintenance Company – nine of whom were killed in action early in the conflict. So minimizing the importance and contribution of support personnel is pretty fucking stupid.

You have to be a combat zone in order to get shot at, especially if the death toll is nine.

Secondly, I never minimize anyone's role in the military. Each job has a specific importance, but everyone's job also includes combat.

[Phx_Dem]

40. Support is a role, not a person. It's used as a verb, not noun.

[old mark]

41. Support troops function to SUPPORT combat troops or others - they really do exist.

They are transportation and service companies, fuel supply points, etc, that make it possible for other units to function. It is a real designation, has been for many decades.


mark

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

42. But....but they ALL go through basic training

So, you know, what's the difference between a Navy SEAL and an aircraft mechanic?

[LostinVA]

44. You belittle the death of many brave Americans, including Lori Piestewa

During this invasion.

It has sickened me to watch this on here the past 24 hours, posters belittling people who served their country, and have died and been disabled because of it. There IS no difference between a Navy SEAL and a 19-year-old quartermaster PVT named Jessica Lynch.

Lots of people, including members of Congress cackled and hooted at the thought of a memorial to military nurses adjacent, almost hidden next to the The Wall. They compared them to K-9 troops. Same mentality. It disgusts me.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

49. Talk to the OP

Who basically says that there are no CSSG's in country and that there's no difference between combat and support troops because they both went through Basic Training.

I have a great deal of respect for anyone who serves their country in any capacity.

[old mark]

45. Special forces such as SEALS do a lot of functions in small units,

mainly recon and disruptive actions in enemy territory. SEALS operate on Sea Air and Land, from high altitude parachuting to undersea operations;
Mechanics are mechanics, and probably have not fired a weapon since basic training.
They are both military, but have vastly different functions and vastly different personalities.

FWIW, I am assuming many of the instructors left in Iraq are Army Special Forces. They are generally highly intelligent and proficient in several different specialties, and many are multilingual. They frequently function as trainers and leaders of indigenous troops and police agencies.
The SEALS tend to be more on the shoot and loot side.

mark

[LostinVA]

50. There is no difference between a SEAL an a mechanic

Don't be patronizing, you know I know what they do. I also have family members who have served in the Special Forces. But there is no difference between a SEAL and a mechanic, and you know it, especially in a hostile zone.

[old mark]

56. I was not being patronizing and did not expect you to be so angry....

FWIW, my brother was a tank mechanic in the US Army in Germany the early 1970's. He really had very little in common with what I did in the Army which was more in the infantry line.

mark

[cherokeeprogressive]

59. SEALS = Shoot and Loot? Really?

Or did I read that wrong?

[cliffordu]

43. apparently that's why there are combat MOS's and then the other, support

MOS's

[Exilednight]

53. So, is a combat medic a support troop, or a combat troop? n/t

[cliffordu]

55. I dunno, what does the DOD classify them as?

Your arguments are kind of specious. Really.

[mkultra]

48. I was 76V, shipping and supply

I was support.

[Exilednight]

54. That MOS no longer exists. It was folded into MOS 92A ........

along with 76C and 76P.

I was a 91B, but every 91 series MOS has been folded into 91W (combat medic) and additional skill identifiers (ASI) have taken the places of specialties (no more 91D dental tech, now it's 91W with a skill identifier that says the soldier is also proficient in dental care along with combat medicine).

[mkultra]

58. Then you should know.

[Joe Chi Minh]

57. Someone on here tried to pull that one on me in relation to the mercenaries in Iraq.

I pointed out that being called 'private contractors', since their job was to support the mercenary soldiers, makes them no less mercenaries, themselves, since every army consist of a 'support arm', as well as a 'teeth arm'.

[4lbs]

60. So, what was Private Jessica Lynch? She drove the supply fuel trucks, and didn't engage in active

combat. Not like, say, the 1st Armored Division.

She wasn't a 'combat' troop, but a 'supply' troop.

[No Passaran]

62. As a veteran of OIF I and III

I guess I shoul: weigh on this. You are partially correct. During combat operations there really was not that much of a difference between a grunt and a supply sergeant. Both risked their lives on the road, dodging IEDs daily. Right now there are no combat operations anymore and those same support units don't have to leave the safety of the camp and be eye to eye with enemy

[Rosa Luxemburg]

64. I thought the UN did that sort of thing?

would save us some money