Pages: 1

 

2007-06-28 13:17:58
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7088
didnt want this to get stuck on page 16 of some other thread.


Why the hell is it called a surge of force projection in Iraq?  When I was in country, we had 20,000 more US military personnel than we do now, and we're calling THIS a surge?  do people really have that short of a memory to realize that this is no dramatic raise of the troop levels at all.  In fact, all it really was was an extension of troops' time in country and a hurry on brigades that were on the deployment schedule anyways.

surge? lol.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-06-28 13:18:47)

2007-06-28 13:18:53
Miller
IT'S MILLER TIME!
+271|7200|United States of America
We're dealing with people who don't see logic in anything but only chaos.
2007-06-28 13:19:00
Noobeater
Northern numpty
+194|6891|Boulder, CO
political spin.
2007-06-28 13:42:08
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7045|132 and Bush

How much personnel was there when your were in Iraq?

I would imagine the term surge applies to certain areas... like around Baghdad. I would also hope that the total troop numbers would include the Iraqi's that have been trained and not just US deployment.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-06-28 15:12:52
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7216|PNW

Miller wrote:

We're dealing with people who don't see logic in anything but only chaos.
https://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/unnamednewbie13/chaos.jpg is https://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/unnamednewbie13/263ufrn.jpg

(sorry if you don't get it )

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-06-28 15:13:17)

2007-06-28 15:24:38
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7088

Kmarion wrote:

How much personnel was there when your were in Iraq?

I would imagine the term surge applies to certain areas... like around Baghdad. I would also hope that the total troop numbers would include the Iraqi's that have been trained and not just US deployment.
I believe the number for American personnel in theater during OIF II was at or nearly at 170,000 troops.   Not including other multinational forces.  This was when we had the majority of partner nations still members of "the coalition of the willing" like Japan and Spain as well as the fact that the Brits had way more troops than they have now.    As far as I know, the surge only puts troop levels at 150-160 thousand from the this years earlier numbers of 130,000. 

That whole combat post deal is new to me, but then again we were pretty much doing the same thing with something called "patrol bases" that the Iraqi Army ran and we would post up for 24-48 hours doing patrols in sector from inside sector instead of going in and out of the FOB

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-06-28 15:24:55)

2007-06-28 15:55:55
prc10149
Member
+1|6593
the surge of 20000 to the upper 100000's doesnt really make much sense to me either. 20000 only makes the military stronger in a few regions, causing terrorists to go elsewhere until the surge relocates or ends. even with 500000 troops back in vietnam, it wasn't enough to hold on to the nation. eventually, i think something big has to change in iraq policy such as pullout or mass escalation of the occupying force.
2007-06-28 16:18:00
chittydog
less busy
+586|7279|Kubra, Damn it!

The word "surge" is for the average schlep back home who has no idea what's going on over there. Saying that makes him feel like we're adding a more men on the ground and we're about to make serious progress.
2007-06-28 16:28:57
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7045|132 and Bush

chittydog wrote:

The word "surge" is for the average schlep back home who has no idea what's going on over there. Saying that makes him feel like we're adding a more men on the ground and we're about to make serious progress.
Depending on what side of the fence you are on. The opposition labels it an escalation.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-06-28 16:32:17
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7088
escalation......how do you do the rolly eyes smiley thingy
2007-06-28 16:32:20
Liberal-Sl@yer
Certified BF2S Asshole
+131|6900|The edge of sanity
They try to make it sound like thier doing something important when they arnt. Typical goverment ploy.
2007-06-28 16:33:43
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7088

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

They try to make it sound like thier doing something important when they arnt. Typical goverment ploy.
all they did was piss off a bunch soldiers who got extended from a 12 month tour to a 15 month tour and a maximum of 12 months back home before the next trip to the box.
2007-06-28 16:41:52
S3v3N
lolwut?
+685|6962|Montucky

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Liberal-Sl@yer wrote:

They try to make it sound like thier doing something important when they arnt. Typical goverment ploy.
all they did was piss off a bunch soldiers who got extended from a 12 month tour to a 15 month tour and a maximum of 12 months back home before the next trip to the box.
And people wondered why I didn't re-enlist.
2007-06-28 16:47:42
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7088

S3v3N wrote:

And people wondered why I didn't re-enlist.
I second that emotion.   I loved being deployed and doing my job as Infantryman, especially after all those years of training.  But god damn,  can I finish school.   Even though, soldiers during WW2 were gone away from home for handfuls of years at a time, they were not exposed to combat as much as today's Iraq War fighter.  In fact, todays deployed soldier/marine is in harms way more so and more often then we were in any other war prior.  24/7 combat ops for a period ranging anywhere between 6 months to 18 months with a 2 week R and R vacation in between.  Was not like this at all in the wars of the past.  Not to mention a quick ticket back 12 months later to start the process again.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-06-28 16:52:51)

2007-06-28 16:52:48
chittydog
less busy
+586|7279|Kubra, Damn it!

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

And people wondered why I didn't re-enlist.
I second that emotion.   I loved being deployed and doing my job as Infantryman, especially after all those years of training.  But god damn,  can I finish school.   Even though, soldiers during WW2 were gone away from home for handfuls of years at a time, they were not exposed to combat as much as today's Iraq War fighter.  In fact, todays deployed soldier/marine is in harms way more so and more often then we were in any other war prior.  24/7 combat ops for a period ranging anywhere between 6 months to 18 months with a 2 week R and R vacation in between.  Was not like this at all in the wars of the past.
Agreed. If the clowns in charge really cared about the troops, they wouldn't run them into the ground like this.
2007-06-28 16:55:06
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7088

chittydog wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

And people wondered why I didn't re-enlist.
I second that emotion.   I loved being deployed and doing my job as Infantryman, especially after all those years of training.  But god damn,  can I finish school.   Even though, soldiers during WW2 were gone away from home for handfuls of years at a time, they were not exposed to combat as much as today's Iraq War fighter.  In fact, todays deployed soldier/marine is in harms way more so and more often then we were in any other war prior.  24/7 combat ops for a period ranging anywhere between 6 months to 18 months with a 2 week R and R vacation in between.  Was not like this at all in the wars of the past.
Agreed. If the clowns in charge really cared about the troops, they wouldn't run them into the ground like this.
shit, they still got me though, the reserves this time.



on another note, it really pisses me off to hear people like Joe Leiberman calling for another war to send the youth of his constiuents off to.
2007-06-28 18:10:36
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7045|132 and Bush

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

chittydog wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

I second that emotion.   I loved being deployed and doing my job as Infantryman, especially after all those years of training.  But god damn,  can I finish school.   Even though, soldiers during WW2 were gone away from home for handfuls of years at a time, they were not exposed to combat as much as today's Iraq War fighter.  In fact, todays deployed soldier/marine is in harms way more so and more often then we were in any other war prior.  24/7 combat ops for a period ranging anywhere between 6 months to 18 months with a 2 week R and R vacation in between.  Was not like this at all in the wars of the past.
Agreed. If the clowns in charge really cared about the troops, they wouldn't run them into the ground like this.
shit, they still got me though, the reserves this time.



on another note, it really pisses me off to hear people like Joe Leiberman calling for another war to send the youth of his constiuents off to.
You guys might enjoy these two stories by Ralphy
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04222007/po … peters.htm
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172007/po … htm?page=1

Ralph Peters wrote:

In conversations with officers, a consistent theme emerged: The recent announcement by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that Army tours in Iraq would be extended from 12 to 15 months was a body blow to morale.

We'll have to wait to see the hard numbers, but anecdotal information suggests that, the day after the announcement, officers were "lined up" to put in their I've-had-it paperwork.

They don't lack courage. Their belief in the importance of what we're doing hasn't faltered. We've just worn these officers and their families out. While we've been living high on the hog, they've been living through hell.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-06-28 21:12:41
CaptainSpaulding71
Member
+119|6801|CA, USA
Well i for one definitely appreciate your service and sacrifices, gentlemen.  Thank you!
2007-06-29 00:45:19
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6999
The whole idea was ridiculous - secure Baghdad and peace will come. Pathetically naive. The militants just clear out to other outlying areas and wait for the enemy to have to decentralise their troops out of Baghdad again. It's not rocket science.
2007-06-29 00:49:05
RedTwizzler
I do it for the lulz.
+124|6981|Chicago

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

escalation......how do you do the rolly eyes smiley thingy


: plus rolleyes plus :
2007-06-29 14:40:44
GATOR591957
Member
+84|7071
I have a friend in Camp Pendleton now, they just returned from their desert testing prior to deployment.  They are scheduled for a 15 month tour.  I don't believe the surge has hit as of yet.
2007-06-29 14:48:19
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,992|7076|949

Not only are they increasing tours, I have read that they are actually shortening the amount of R&R time in between missions.  I think it used to be two weeks off, now its like 4 days?  Let me see if I can find the article.

Here is an article that talks about it, I'll see if I can actually get some real numbers.

http://www.slate.com/id/2163107/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 02143.html

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-06-29 14:54:33)

2007-06-29 17:14:11
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6849|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

chittydog wrote:

The word "surge" is for the average schlep back home who has no idea what's going on over there. Saying that makes him feel like we're adding a more men on the ground and we're about to make serious progress.
Depending on what side of the fence you are on. The opposition labels it an escalation.
*shrugs* Spin is unfortunately a large component of all this.

Personally, I don't care what word or phrase is used, although "futile continuance of expense" would be what I would call it.

Who knows?...  Maybe the surge will eventually work, but let's hope we don't go bankrupt first....

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard