Pentagon gone mad! Wrong troops to wrong places

This is clear evidence the administration has utterly ruined a fine military. You want more torture, more killings of prisoners, more loss of American lives, you got it, right here.

From the LA Times.

WASHINGTON -- Straining to find ground troops to maintain its force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has begun deploying thousands of Air Force personnel to combat zones in new jobs as interrogators, prison sentries and gunners on supply trucks.

Air Force personnel? Lemme tell you flip side.

Air force personnel - and I was one for four years - are, with damn few exceptions, techno-wusses. I don't say that with disrespect, but to point out that they joined the Air Force in technical support roles. They are NOT hard cases or tough guys or gals. Most of us joined that particular branch for training, a chance to travel, exercise our brains.

We were specifically not looking for physical confrontation with other folks.

During one recent class, an Army instructor was giving his Air Force pupils an overview of interrogation "approaches" designed to get prisoners to talk. He spent the better part of an hour describing such psychological ploys as "fear up" and "pride and ego down," which are designed to prey on prisoners' anxieties and feelings of inadequacy.

But many students were still struggling with more elementary aspects of the job, such as how to manage the physical space of an interrogation booth.

Yep, struggling to do something they are not psychologically or physically suited to do. And while struggling to manage prisoners in an interrogation booth in Afghanistan or Iraq, they're going to be terrified, and it will show. And from that, people will be hurt badly or killed.

Then the coverups start. And none of the high-ranking officers who made these criminally stupid decisions will be charged. Nope, they'll burn a few Airmen on the front pages and wash their hands of it.

Comments?

•  Brownie Rumsfeld?

  by lecsmith on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:17:02 AM PDT

  •  That was a bit flippant about a serious

    subject. The way this administration has used, abused, and undercut the military is appalling.

    by lecsmith on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:18:14 AM PDT

•  This has been going on for close to a year

  We have heard about this. Airmen were being put in tanks, without any training, and I have heard about sailors guarding some of the prisons.
  My husband is AF. They have a different mission and therefore a different type of person serving for the most part. Why is this happening? Because the Air Force is not hurting like the other services. Their recruitment numbers, from what I have seen reported, don't look as bad as the Army's.
  It is a complete break down of our military thanks to a bunch of Chicken Hawks. They have used the resources of it, abused the people who pledged to serve and then screw them over if they get injured and take away benefits for both veterans AND active duty.
  This administration will go down as the worst ever headed up by a president who doesn't understand that the resources of the US are not legos he can build, destroy and rebuild. He sees these people in the military as fodder to use for pictures and abuse for his daddy to make more money.
  WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

  by melthewriter on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:26:17 AM PDT

•  And we are not even close to real war yet.

  And the war in Iraq is just basically fighting against clever insurgencies instead of real army.  Once a third party start supplying  the insurgency the game will be entirely different. It'll be soviet in Afghanistan or Israel in Lebanon all over again.

  Secondly, we are training expensive technicians to run complicated machinaries, and now we are using them as sentry? wtf?

  by fugue on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:30:12 AM PDT

  •  Wholly Agree

    but don't for a moment think the resistance isn't being supplied from outside, I'd give good odds that there are Russian, Syrian, Turkish, Iranian and possibly Chinese "advisers" on the ground already, and there is any numb er of specialists developing and testing new ways to deal with American technological superiority, and getting in a few licks while they are at it.

    I'd go further, the global war on America has already started and it is being fiught in Iraq where the US is outnumbered, surrounded, out-thought, trapped and increasingly helpless.

    by Deep Dark on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:36:35 AM PDT

    •  not yet

      For some reason, I only can think of Iran as the only player right now who has real urge to supply Shia. Probably small/untraceable light weapons, some training, nad political advices.

      Things that will seriously alter the game:

      • more advance electronic devices (It'll ruin our very few advantage)

      • night google

      • high power rifles that can penetrate body armor

      • advance RPG that can penetrate anything up to light tank (Russia has this. I bet Iran is thinking about licensing them)

      • Cheap SAM. (this is the most dangerous equipment. Just about any advance country make them. China, Ukraine, South Korea and Russia)

      • Intel and military advise.

      • Flooding Iraq with cheap drug (heroine from Afghanistan)

      Any of these start entering Iraq, things will change significantly. It'll be high pace urban warfare, with us supplying troop far deep inland. It's an absolute logistic nightmare.

      by fugue on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 06:02:54 AM PDT

      •  And don't forget Cheney & Halliburton's...

        ...connection in Iraq. I recall a TV report (I think it was Brian Ross on ABC), about how they attempted to interview officials at some Iraq company that claimed to no longer be part of Halliburton--and they had to wait UNTIL THE COMPANY GOT PERMISSION FROM HALLIBURTON.

        I call it treason.

        by daulton on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 06:40:32 AM PDT

      •  I've been amazed

        that the US 50 caliber Heavy Sniper rifle they profiled on 60 Minutes last year hasn't somehow made it's way to insurgents in Iraq. These guns are fucked up -- could easily lay waste to our guys AND their humvees, especially if the snipers were coordinated with IEDs and RPG/Mortar fire.

        I bet the arms dealers are going nuts in Iraq -- anyone see that new movie Lord of War?

        by Benito on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 07:20:05 AM PDT

    •  And you thought they read Clancy

      ...Russian, Syrian, Turkish, Iranian and possibly Chinese "advisers" on the ground already, and there is any number of specialists developing and testing new ways to deal with American technological superiority,

      from time to time, my husband and I discuss how strategically disastrous Iraq will be for america for a long time to come, but we hadn't arrived there yet.   Jeez, upon reading it, your point is obvious and the implications are beyond frightening.

      From the beginning in our house, the U.S. military campaign in Iraq has been analogous to the scene in Red October where upon losing his game of chicken with Ramius, the 'evil' submarine captain's XO turns to him and says, "you arrogant fool, you've killed us"

      Thanks

      by huttotex on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 07:01:51 AM PDT

      •  Sorry About that

        but wherever there is an existing war there is a perfect opportunity to test new methods and weapons.

        The US did it in Afghanistan against the Russians, the Chinese didn't support the Koreans and the Vietnamese just out of altruism and the same applies in  Iraq, in GW1 for the US and now for everyone with a grudge. In the midst of chaos there is opportunity, but not for those up to their asses in alligators.

        The thing is not to overplay the hand, armour-piercing roadside bombs with shaped charges are incremental on IED's, so its not impossible to find them there, new ammo like the round that went through an M1A1 Abrams and buried itself 6 inches in the steel on the way out hasn't been seen since the first couple of months, its too much of a giveaway if tanks are regularly taken out with sniper rifles.

        The same with SAMs. Paradoxically, not being able to attack choppers and low flying planes is not a problem because the resistance knows it can close down the roads any time it wants and when it does its goodnight nurse for those on the end of the long, fragile supply lines. There aren't enough aircraft in the US military to maintain the whole force in everything for any length of time. As they foundmout last November when the Green Zone was down to MRE's and bottled water.

        So not showing their hand by shooting planes down willy nilly is not a huge disadvantage.

        The thing that has always spooked me is that Rummy announced in advance that he expected troop numbers to be down to 30k within a few months, and given the configuration of US forces, and the neocon plan to roll into phase 2 in Iran or Syria, it made perfect sense.

        But the resistance in Iraq didn't just wait for the US to drop its profile before putting it into a world of pain, they started fighting back immediately.

        Somebody wants all those US troops in country, somebody wants Iraq to be a target-rich environment full of US assets; they know that if they can keep the US there and grind it to bits, they wont have to deal with it anywhere else for a loooong time.

        by Deep Dark on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 04:45:36 PM PDT

  •  Comptroller hubby

    He can tell you down to the dollar how much it costs to train people and this makes him sick. For anyone who is not in the military, enlisted get reenlistment bonuses. DH's career field they are pretty pathetic. Money men may control the money, but the people who work it don't get crap. So, instead of paying the high enlistment on people who are trained, why not send someone with little to no training in? Save money, and they are fodder anyway.
    This goes back to before Hitler. Hell, Santa Anna used Indian slaves to use up the ammo of the defenders of the Alamo. Stick them out there, keep the enemy busy, and then we attack. If this is where we are, we are in even bigger trouble than most ostriches in the US will be able to face.

    by melthewriter on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:45:25 AM PDT

•  They'll have to be fast

  "Nope, they'll burn a few Airmen on the front pages and wash their hands of it."

  Not going to happen. If the airforce people are as hapless as you say, they will get burned by their enemies, and probably hanged from a bridge for good measure.

  Just as Hitler had to put old men and young boys in the line at the end to be slaughtered by the allies, so the crumbling Bush military is being served up to its enemies on a platter.

  But this is only the beginning of the endgame because these people will not only get themselves killed, they will need protecting by the real soldiers who are still in the game, and they will pull those real soldiers into more and more impossible situations and get them killed as well.

  2,000 dead troops is just the downpayment on the full account that the US has yet to face.

  I wouldn't want to be in America on the day that it wakes up to the reality of this.

  by Deep Dark on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:32:57 AM PDT

  •  Don't think for a minute

    that AF boys are out there for fodder.  They don't just pluck them from the comfort of a base and sent to the desert.  Airmen get thorough training at Camp Bullis of mission specific tactics.  And I'd take my chances with Airmen who can think on their feet than some of the good ole Army boys, or worse, out of place National Guardsmen that I've encountered in my career.

    by The Nazz on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:54:23 AM PDT

    •  hmm, I think there are a couple

      of Airmen that could prove you wrong on that, but why would one do that.

      by mimi on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 06:14:20 AM PDT

      •  prove me wrong on what? n/t

        by The Nazz on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 06:16:26 AM PDT

        •  oh, I think I misunderstood you

          I wanted to say that Airmen are sent out from the comfort of their bases to the desert and that they have been also easy fodder or targets on the ground in Iraq.

          I thought you doubted their capabilities, but I think I misunderstood your comments.

          by mimi on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 06:37:52 PM PDT

    •  Training

      But they did not enlist to fight in the army. That is what is important. And you have to understand, that in the Army positions, they may be considered trained, but I bet there is something in the AF-Army system that screws up their pay. This is another sign that the Army is being asked to handle a war they are not equipped to handle due to under funding.
      This admin sees everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE in the military as Fodder. They could care less about them. I am not putting down the AF, but this is an abuse of the Pentagon's powers once again. The Pentagon is run by civilians, we saw it coming when Rummy took over. Summer of 2001 many people returned from meetings at the Pentagon saying we were screwed. They believe the military is theirs to use. They die, well too damn bad. They signed up and were too stupid to get out of their duty. Their mindset not mine.
      The infrastructure of the military is falling apart. Positions that used to be held by senior enlisted are often times held by civilians, and those civilians do not help make a coesive military family. I think in a lot of cases, from what I saw as a child, this structure might have been what saved the military after Vietnam. I might be wrong. But without it, I worry that many of our troops have no one to go to, no person to guide them.
      Even after we kick the jackasses out, and we bring our people home, we have a long road to recovery. I am just glad that more of the anti war movement seems to be centered on the mantra of BRING THEM HOME. Maybe, just maybe, we will be able to heal as a nation. I just hope it isn't too late.
      sorry for the rant, just something that irritates the living hell out of me. Military folk deserve better than they are getting from these chickenhawks.

      by melthewriter on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 06:54:33 AM PDT

      •  Bush, Cheney & Rummy

        would see them as fodder, yes.  But my response was in regard that the post seemed to give an impression that Airmen weren't up to snuff, which is not the case, see my post downthread.

        by The Nazz on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 09:47:27 AM PDT

•  Kiel Mutiny, American-Style?

  n/t

  by rgilly on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:43:44 AM PDT

  •  something could happen

    You have a depleted military, overused, overdeployed, underpaid. You have them going into situations for which they are not trianed to handle and not equipped to take on. Then, you also have a jackass president who is talking about deploying them within the US?
    That could be the last straw IMHO. He has lost credibility with most people in the military, including many generals.
    Let's hope for a take back of Congress in 06, because that might be the only thing that saves thousands of lives.

    by melthewriter on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:49:48 AM PDT

•  First hand

  My brother just came back last month from Iraq as a truck commander/gunner for the Army, the catch is that he is USAF.  It's getting bad too.  Army is resenting USAF for "getting the good jobs" of riding on supply convoys for KBR and Army, while soldiers are getting sent into the field.  Plus to make it worse, the Airmen are doing excellent jobs making the Army guys who did the work before look bad.  This situation is creating a lot of friction between Army/USAF and USAF working for Army/USAF doing support because USAF working for Army gets better treatment from all sides essentially.  Either way you cut it, the Army can't keep up the work load because they are running short of troops and are having to "recruit" Airmen to fill in.  A little part of me is happy that I am a disabled vet and the Army hadn't started doing this when is was separated.  I don't think my mother could handle two sons in Iraq!

  BTW, I agree with perro that I did exercise my brain in the Air Force (PMEL), but don't think for a minute that I or my brother can't kick some ass!

  Hoorah Air Force!

  by The Nazz on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:46:25 AM PDT

•  Yellow Elephants

  Yep, anything  to avoid drawing from the great personpower pool of Yellow Elephants.  They must consider the future of the Republican Party.  Where will future Republicans come from if they've all been to war?

  by TarheelDem on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 05:57:52 AM PDT

•  how long

  how much longer til we send the cub scouts over?

  by threecents on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 06:43:00 AM PDT

  •  They get sent

    before the Hitler Youth....er, I mean Young Republicans.

    by Benito on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 07:24:18 AM PDT

•  Air Force and Navy Recruiting

  Up to now, Air Force and Navy Recruiting hasn't declined during the Iraq War.  Simply reason is that nobody thinks they're going to have to fight on the ground in Iraq and face a much greater risk of death and injury there.  To an extent they are right.

  38 Navy and Naval Reserve sailors have been killed in Iraq.  
  20 Air Force and Air National Guard airmen have been killed in Iraq.  587 Marines and Marine Reservists have been killed.  
  1325 Army, National Guard, and Army Reserve soldiers have been killed in Iraq.  

  However, if more and more Air Force and Navy personnel are serving on the ground in Iraq and people hear about that, I can't imagine that it won't have an effect on their recruiting efforts.  That's not good for the long-term of the Air Force or Navy.

  by ortcutt on Tue Oct 11, 2005 at 07:23:13 AM PDT