National Guard Going To Iraq Doesn't Have Rifles Or Equipment

[Psychoblues]

Maybe they are just not serious enough about actually taking on an enemy force?


The Pentagon is planning to send more than 14,000 National Guard troops back to Iraq next year, shortening their time between deployments to meet the demands of President Bush’s buildup, Defense Department officials said Wednesday. ...

"We're behind the power curve, and we can’t piddle around," Maj. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, said in an interview. He added that one-third of his soldiers lacked the M-4 rifles preferred by active-duty soldiers and that there were also shortfalls in night vision goggles and other equipment. If his unit is going to be sent to Iraq next year, he said, "We expect the Army to resource the Guard at the same level as active-duty units." ...

Capt. Christopher Heathscott, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, said the state's 39th Brigade Combat Team was 600 rifles short for its 3,500 soldiers and also lacked its full arsenal of mortars and howitzers.


More: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/washington/22military.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


I dunno. Maybe you can figure it out.

[manu1959]

Maybe they are just not serious enough about actually taking on an enemy force?


The Pentagon is planning to send more than 14,000 National Guard troops back to Iraq next year, shortening their time between deployments to meet the demands of President Bush’s buildup, Defense Department officials said Wednesday. ...

"We're behind the power curve, and we can’t piddle around," Maj. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, said in an interview. He added that one-third of his soldiers lacked the M-4 rifles preferred by active-duty soldiers and that there were also shortfalls in night vision goggles and other equipment. If his unit is going to be sent to Iraq next year, he said, "We expect the Army to resource the Guard at the same level as active-duty units." ...

Capt. Christopher Heathscott, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, said the state's 39th Brigade Combat Team was 600 rifles short for its 3,500 soldiers and also lacked its full arsenal of mortars and howitzers.


More: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/washington/22military.html?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin



I dunno. Maybe you can figure it out.

gen wyatt better fill out the forms....he has a year

[pegwinn]

The thread title is a bit of mythdirection. The first unit is short on M4's and the second unit is short of other stuff. Neither of which logically leads to the assumption that they will deploy without the gear.

Being short on M4's also doesn't mean that they don't have enough M16's.

And, if I read it right, isn't there a full year for workups? Seems like a non issue to me.

But that's just my opinion.

[Mr. P]

The thread title is a bit of mythdirection. The first unit is short on M4's and the second unit is short of other stuff. Neither of which logically leads to the assumption that they will deploy without the gear.

Being short on M4's also doesn't mean that they don't have enough M16's.

And, if I read it right, isn't there a full year for workups? Seems like a non issue to me.

But that's just my opinion.

Just another Psycho drive-by.

[avatar4321]

What the heck does it matter? You liberals have made it clear that the national guard isnt really part of the military. So why should they get military equipment?

[CockySOB]

What the heck does it matter? You liberals have made it clear that the national guard isnt really part of the military. So why should they get military equipment?

More to the point, the Democrats have indicated a willingness to knot the purse-strings in Congress, which would mean that the Democrats don't want our soldiers to have any weapons anyway. Of course, when one realizes that doing such in an attempt to "convince" POTUS/CIC to NOT deploy the troops is actually EXTORTION, it becomes clear just how traitorous and criminal our Democrats have become.

[Dilloduck]

Just another Psycho drive-by.

Agreed---there are gettin to more "drivers by" all the time it seems. Allegation after allegation :lame2:

[Yurt]

More to the point, the Democrats have indicated a willingness to knot the purse-strings in Congress, which would mean that the Democrats don't want our soldiers to have any weapons anyway. Of course, when one realizes that doing such in an attempt to "convince" POTUS/CIC to NOT deploy the troops is actually EXTORTION, it becomes clear just how traitorous and criminal our Democrats have become.

This is the crux and the nail in psychoblues post. You complain, yet vote down every $$ we need to give them. You complain, yet vote down a troop surge. You complain we don't have enough troops, yet vote down a troop surge.

I don't get it.

[jillian]

This is the crux and the nail in psychoblues post. You complain, yet vote down every $$ we need to give them. You complain, yet vote down a troop surge. You complain we don't have enough troops, yet vote down a troop surge.

I don't get it.

Funding HASN'T been cut yet. So that argument is a bit specious. And even Paul Reikoff at IAVA.org says the troops we already have should be taken care of before they start talking about sending more.

[avatar4321]

Funding HASN'T been cut yet. So that argument is a bit specious. And even Paul Reikoff at IAVA.org says the troops we already have should be taken care of before they start talking about sending more.

"Yet" is the key word here. You don't think complaining about troops not having supplies and at the same time advocating to cut the supplies to the troops isn't alittle hypocritical?

[jillian]

"Yet" is the key word here. You don't think complaining about troops not having supplies and at the same time advocating to cut the supplies to the troops isn't alittle hypocritical?

I think we both know that funds to troops on the ground aren't going to be cut. The cut has to do with allowing more troops to be sent. So using that as an excuse for why current troops might be inadequately supplied isn't a very good argument.

[Mr. P]

I think we both know that funds to troops on the ground aren't going to be cut. The cut has to do with allowing more troops to be sent. So using that as an excuse for why current troops might be inadequately supplied isn't a very good argument.

Right out of the democratic playbook. They use this same BS every budget.

[avatar4321]

I think we both know that funds to troops on the ground aren't going to be cut. The cut has to do with allowing more troops to be sent. So using that as an excuse for why current troops might be inadequately supplied isn't a very good argument.

who was pointing out any excuses? I was pointing out the disengeniousness of those making the accusations.

[Yurt]

Funding HASN'T been cut yet. So that argument is a bit specious. And even Paul Reikoff at IAVA.org says the troops we already have should be taken care of before they start talking about sending more.

How many dems have voted "no" on spending? What about your ol friend Kerry for starters...

[CSM]

I think we both know that funds to troops on the ground aren't going to be cut. The cut has to do with allowing more troops to be sent. So using that as an excuse for why current troops might be inadequately supplied isn't a very good argument.

Current troops imadequately supplied???? Just how long do you think equipment lasts under combat conditions? Do you realize that stuff gets broken and lost and needs replacement? When you take a unit out of theater, they need time to reconstitute, that is retrain, repair and replace items etc. If the decision is made to deploy them ahead of schedule then that reconstitution needs to be acclerated...and that is what the General is saying. As for the M4 rifles preferred by active duty soldiers, as has already been pointed out, that does not mean the Guard unit does not have rifles nor that the rifles they have are ineffective or inoperative. The M16 and M4 are essentially the same rifle but the M4 has a shorter stock, making it easier to employ inside a vehicle (that means you can shoot it from inside easier). Night vision equipment is another item that civilians do not understand...not every soldier NEEDS night vision equipment. Only those soldiers who are conducting operations AT NIGHT need them.

I would point out that the tactics currently being used by the Democrats are the same used by the Continental Congress prior to the decision to make the POTUS the CIC...I suspect the results will be the same....if you want to know how that all worked out, go read some history and just remember, the Founding Fathers decided that ONE Commander in Chief was far better than a Congress full of them.

[trobinett]

Another "drive by" , great stuff Dilloduck.

[Roomy]

The British army still goes to war on horses carrying shields and swords, the lads were buying better desert equipment from you yanks out of their own pockets(boots and stuff).

[avatar4321]

The British army still goes to war on horses carrying shields and swords, the lads were buying better desert equipment from you yanks out of their own pockets(boots and stuff).

What kind of swords? They make some really sweet ones nowadays.

[Roomy]

What kind of swords? They make some really sweet ones nowadays.

Cutlass' or sabres, the high ranking officers can be identified by the colours of the parrots on their shoulders.:laugh2:

[pegwinn]

Current troops imadequately supplied???? Just how long do you think equipment lasts under combat conditions? Do you realize that stuff gets broken and lost and needs replacement? When you take a unit out of theater, they need time to reconstitute, that is retrain, repair and replace items etc. If the decision is made to deploy them ahead of schedule then that reconstitution needs to be acclerated...and that is what the General is saying. As for the M4 rifles preferred by active duty soldiers, as has already been pointed out, that does not mean the Guard unit does not have rifles nor that the rifles they have are ineffective or inoperative. The M16 and M4 are essentially the same rifle but the M4 has a shorter stock, making it easier to employ inside a vehicle (that means you can shoot it from inside easier). Night vision equipment is another item that civilians do not understand...not every soldier NEEDS night vision equipment. Only those soldiers who are conducting operations AT NIGHT need them.

I would point out that the tactics currently being used by the Democrats are the same used by the Continental Congress prior to the decision to make the POTUS the CIC...I suspect the results will be the same....if you want to know how that all worked out, go read some history and just remember, the Founding Fathers decided that ONE Commander in Chief was far better than a Congress full of them.

Bolding is mine. I was gonna rep the SgtMaj for beating me to the obvious point about Need to Have, Good to Have, and Nice to Have. But he beat me to it. Y'all pay attention now y'hear?

[avatar4321]

Bolding is mine. I was gonna rep the SgtMaj for beating me to the obvious point about Need to Have, Good to Have, and Nice to Have. But he beat me to it. Y'all pay attention now y'hear?

You'd think a veteran like Psycho would know better.

[pegwinn]

You'd think a veteran like Psycho would know better.

Perhaps. Then again who knows what has befalled him? He could be in need of help.

[Psychoblues]

Maybe, but I know I have been short changed by the PTB (Powers That Be) on more than one occassion due to their opinions that I didn't need the equipment and then had to do some serious improvisation and scrounging (stealing) to make up for the shortfalls of the management.


You'd think a veteran like Psycho would know better.

You would think that veterans like some of those posting here would have already brought that up. So much for experience I guess you might say? Correct?

[pegwinn]

Maybe, but I know I have been short changed by the PTB (Powers That Be) on more than one occassion due to their opinions that I didn't need the equipment and then had to do some serious improvisation and scrounging (stealing) to make up for the shortfalls of the management.



You would think that veterans like some of those posting here would have already brought that up. So much for experience I guess you might say? Correct?

There is a realistic difference between need to have, good to have, and nice to have.

Need to have is absolutely mission essential. Without it, you physically cannot get the job done. Example would be food or ammunition.

Good to have is an enhancement of your ability to accomplish the mission. Meaning you can get it done, but the GTH stuff will make is easier. Example is a Mattock when the mission calls for fighting holes to be dug. An E-Tool will get it done, slowly, with blisters and a sore back, but it gets done.

Nice to have for the above mission would be a cratering charge..... NTH simply isn't needed and doesn't effect the final result of the mission.

[Gaffer]

You'd think a veteran like Psycho would know better.

He don't know better because he's a drive by wishIwas.

[Gunny]

Maybe, but I know I have been short changed by the PTB (Powers That Be) on more than one occassion due to their opinions that I didn't need the equipment and then had to do some serious improvisation and scrounging (stealing) to make up for the shortfalls of the management.



You would think that veterans like some of those posting here would have already brought that up. So much for experience I guess you might say? Correct?

Yo would think that a certain veteran of every engagement the US has fought in from Chosin to Kuwait would be a little bit brighter than you.

If they issue it, you have to hump it. If I can't kill with it or eat it, YOU hump it. It slows me down.

[Gunny]

He don't know better because he's a drive by wishIwas.

Judging by his list of "credits," he doesn't evenknwo what he wishes he was.:laugh2:

[avatar4321]

Notice, he hasnt explained at all why he cares about whether the National Guard has rifles when he clearly doesn't believe the National Guard is a legitimate branch of the military.

[CSM]

Notice, he hasnt explained at all why he cares about whether the National Guard has rifles when he clearly doesn't believe the National Guard is a legitimate branch of the military.

Which is really strange since he was in it!

[Psychoblues]

The periods betwwen 1966 and 1972 are commonly referred to as the draft dodger years by many National Guardsmen and Reservists, csm. Certainly not all of them were draft dodgers. Those that refused to follow orders but were otherwise ignored and were released from duty with honorable discharges at first opportunity were certainly draft dodgers.



Which is really strange since he was in it!


My National Guard time was from 1983 to 1991. During this time I was involved in the Grenada Operation, Operation Just Cause in Panama and the straw that broke the old camel's back was Desert Storm and it's idiotic aftermath. I joined the active duty Air Force in 1968.

You got something else to say? Say it out loud!!!!!!

[manu1959]

wow.... just wow.....three tours in vietnam with the air force...then the National Guard from 1983 to 1991...Grenada Operation, Operation Just Cause in Panama and Desert Storm and it's idiotic aftermath...:salute:

[Gaffer]

That's what I say wow. three tdy tours in nam. 30 days each I bet.

1966 to 1972 was the years that many used the guard and reserve to get out of the draft. I had two uncles who are my age who did exactly that. There was one stipulation psicko left out. If you missed too many reporting dates you were subject to be activated to active duty. So there wasn't a lot of skipping drills during those years.

While the Air National Guard might have been involved in many of those operations they were used strickly in a support level. Flying mostly C-126 and C-130 aircraft delivering supplies. So my guess is psicko was a crewchief or a loadmaster on one of these transport planes. A hectic job but not combat related.

[CSM]

You got something else to say? Say it out loud!!!!!!

I say "SO WHAT?" that "loud" enough for ya?

[Gunny]

The periods betwwen 1966 and 1972 are commonly referred to as the draft dodger years by many National Guardsmen and Reservists, csm. Certainly not all of them were draft dodgers. Those that refused to follow orders but were otherwise ignored and were released from duty with honorable discharges at first opportunity were certainly draft dodgers.





My National Guard time was from 1983 to 1991. During this time I was involved in the Grenada Operation, Operation Just Cause in Panama and the straw that broke the old camel's back was Desert Storm and it's idiotic aftermath. I joined the active duty Air Force in 1968.

You got something else to say? Say it out loud!!!!!!

I haven't noticed anyone saying anything that wasn't posted in black and white. You a mind-reader, or something, among your myraid other "accomplishments?"

[Psychoblues]

Just the facts, gunny, just the facts. You got a problem with the facts?


I haven't noticed anyone saying anything that wasn't posted in black and white. You a mind-reader, or something, among your myraid other "accomplishments?"

I'm gald you noticed.