| Author |
Message |
Ntypical
Lieutenant
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 136
Location: North Carolina
|
 Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:01 pm |
|
| PrankishSmart wrote: |
Maybe instead of throwing them paint ball guns and copper coins they should be getting unlimited arms & support as fast as possible and get out as soon as is possible. |
Well here is the deal as I understand it.
We can only dedicate so many people to training them, as we still need people to maintain security, and conduct combat ops. So that slows things down. Then you have to deal with the other things that come up. Then you have to deal with logistics. You can not solely send weapons and stuff to them, then we would run out of food, armor, clothing, trucks, rounds, for our guys. Their regular military uses mainly non U.S. arms IE AK, RPK, SVD, PGM. They are not bad weapons by any means. But they are the ones chosen by their government, and it takes time to get them trained to use them effectively. It takes years to put together a well organized well trained unit from scratch. And a lot of the guys we are training are literally straight off the street, and that can be a problem sometimes because the bad guys can get in and tip off their friends. Then we have to deal with them, and that adds to time. It is not a quick process by any means.
Then some idiot decides they have to push harder here, so we have to dedicate people there, and so on. Then our leaders have to refocus their attention at home because someone that does not see the whole picture, or have all the information, holds up a sign, and starts talking about something that does not even matter anymore (even though it is wrong information in the first place). Then we have to pull people back home to make someone else happy.
You can only do things so quickly.
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:54 am |
|
Then why don't they bring their to-be-trained personnel out of the combat area to be trained?
|
|
|
Ntypical
Lieutenant
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 136
Location: North Carolina
|
| Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:39 am |
|
There is no area large enough to do that within Iraq. To pull them out of the country and train them in a non hostile environment would cost way to much money for both parties. Also, what would that solve? We would still have to have people over there to handle the nations security while their forces were trained up.
The places where we train them is not exactly in direct combat. We get them as ready as we can inside the FOBs. Then when they get to a certain point we move them into conducting operations jointly. So on and so forth.
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:48 am |
|
Temporary nation security should not be as high of a importance as a long-term plan IMO. If the resources and/or budget is limited then the focus should be a long term solution so that the allied forces can depart as quickly as possible.
Many say that the current security of Iraq is in question at the moment, and that the nations security can never be 'handled' just by having troops there. And, if the budget for Iraq lowers and lowers that problem will grow meaning a long term plan fast more important than ever.
|
|
|
Ntypical
Lieutenant
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 136
Location: North Carolina
|
| Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:24 am |
|
IMHO what we are doing is for a long term fix.
Maybe I did not explain myself well the first time.
We are, right now providing short term security, while training them. So they can take care of themselves in the long term. If we do not provide this short term security while training them, then they would have to provide a majority of their own security, and would not have as much time to train. Meaning we would be there even longer.
I believe that by doing things as we are now, we are attempting to give something to each side of the fence. Things would go much more smoothly if we had a bit more help from the rest of the world. But right now they would rather sit back and reap the rewards of our efforts. Why would they do anything to help when they get the same thing by doing nothing?
Does that make sense to you?
|
|
|
Debra
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 444
|
| Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:04 am |
|
In my opinion, this isn't worth the fighting over. Rather the war is right or wrong, wars are going to happen rather we want to or not
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:47 pm |
|
Are you calling over 4 years short term? And the current situation there 'secure'?
|
|
|
Ntypical
Lieutenant
Joined: 20 Oct 2007
Posts: 136
Location: North Carolina
|
| Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:38 am |
|
Yes. In regards to how long they have been having problems It is very short term. And it is more secure now than it was several years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
