Air Force Ground Troops?
- Thread starter roy reali
- Start date
- Status
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Nothing, as long as we're willing to admit that such people (who, again, are not the bulk of the Army, but are absolutely essential to it) didn't necessarily volunteer to go fight and die so much as they volunteered to not live a dead-end life in the ghetto..."
Uhm...
So, what, then?
The United States should abolish the total military structure and simply hand everyone in the United States wads of cash for nothing?
I remember people saying this during Gulf War I, including more than just a few people IN the military...
"I didn't join the military to fight! I joined the military to learn XXXX"
Somehow I just can't work up a lot of sympathy for that position.
Uhm...
So, what, then?
The United States should abolish the total military structure and simply hand everyone in the United States wads of cash for nothing?
I remember people saying this during Gulf War I, including more than just a few people IN the military...
"I didn't join the military to fight! I joined the military to learn XXXX"
Somehow I just can't work up a lot of sympathy for that position.
I would bet that the AF guys are volunteering for these duties. There were many of us when I was in (oh, son of an M.D. by the way) that would have loved to go out and do that sort of thing just to do something more interesting. My first AFSC (or career field) was Munitions Maintenance. If you think screwing bomb fuses into bombs all day long doesn't get old? I got news for you...
Also, there is no way that this indicates we are in trouble. They are just shifting forces around so they don't have to do things that are politically distasteful like activating more Guard and Reserver folks or going with a draft. If they do that, THEN we are in trouble.
Oh, and...
I think we only kicked half an @ss in that one!
Quite likely, or by very seasoned AF guys. They aren't going to be sending them out like fodder. AF guys would frown upon that.
Also, there is no way that this indicates we are in trouble. They are just shifting forces around so they don't have to do things that are politically distasteful like activating more Guard and Reserver folks or going with a draft. If they do that, THEN we are in trouble.
Oh, and...
I think we only kicked half an @ss in that one!
Quite likely, or by very seasoned AF guys. They aren't going to be sending them out like fodder. AF guys would frown upon that.
JuanCarlos
New member
Hey, I'm a liberal...I don't come up with solutions, just point out problems!
Though yeah, I think that alleviating poverty, or at least many of the problems associated with poverty, would probably be a good thing and make it less likely that people would be pushed (hate using "forced," even in quotes) into the military for socioeconomic reasons. How to do that in a way that a majority of people would accept? Heck if I know.
I don't disagree. For instance, anybody complaining because they just joined the military to pay for college needs to get over it. It's the military, not your local financial aid office.
The only people for whom this gets any traction from me would be reservists...seriously, those folks are getting screwed. Pre-9/11 six year contracts were fairly common in the Guard (and I'm guessing the Reserves as well), so you have people to this day whose initial enlistment was prior to 9/11 (including myself...I re-enlisted into the Guard out of active duty about two months prior to that).
But I know of quite a few people who have spent upwards of half their Reserve/Guard enlistments deployed. This becomes an issue because unless they manage to do 24 consecutive months they still only qualify for Reserve education benefits...and even the new Ch. 1607 benefits are only good while still in the Reserves. I don't feel for somebody who thinks they shouldn't have to fight because they just joined to pay for college...but it might be nice if for those who are sent to fight the military would actually, you know, pay for their college. When somebody on a six-year Guard enlistment finds it hard (or impossible) to even get eight semesters of benefits (to complete a four-year degree) because of their deployment schedule, something is wrong.
Not speaking from self-interest here...like I said, my active duty time qualified me for benefits that are more than decent. But there are reservists who've spent more time on active duty than I spent earning those benefits (so not counting my deployment time), and basically getting the shaft.
So what good would a draft do for the military?
1. It would put warm bodies in uniforms
2. Most would not want to be the military
3. A lot would probably have bad attitudes
4. would you want to sare a foxhole with a soldier who only wanted to do his time or was a problem child?
my answer would be no.
1. It would put warm bodies in uniforms
2. Most would not want to be the military
3. A lot would probably have bad attitudes
4. would you want to sare a foxhole with a soldier who only wanted to do his time or was a problem child?
my answer would be no.
JuanCarlos
New member
You think there aren't any soldiers who just want to do their time already? [EDIT: Check out page 12. The rest is interesting, too. PDF, if that's an issue.] Besides, it's not generally about sharing foxholes in places like Iraq, and often when the SHTF (or anytime you're outside the wire) it's largely about self-defense and I trust even the lowliest draftee to care just a little about that.
Bad attitudes are an issue, but unfortunately when you take on a mission that requires 500,000 troops, and you don't have 500,000 troops to send, then having an extra 350,000 troops who have bad attitudes may well be better for the mission than having only 150,000 who believe wholeheartedly in the cause. Regardless of how good a soldier's attitude is, he still can't be in two places at once or patrol/work more than 24 hours a day.
Besides, the UCMJ works wonders for dealing with soldiers with bad attitudes. The only thing worse than being stuck in the Army is still being stuck in the Army except working more hours for less pay.
Last edited:
JuanCarlos
New member
Note, however, that I don't necessarily think a draft would do all that much good at this point in the game. But back it 2003 it was probably one of the few options available to achieve the desired outcome. We didn't have the manpower needed, and weren't willing to wait for international support (if it would ever have been provided) to bridge the gap. That pretty much leaves a draft or not going to war. We chose...neither.
And really, if we aren't ever going to draft people we may as well do away with the Selective Service system altogether. I think the situation we're in now is about the best argument for a draft short of the next World War. We've got personnel from our branches spending half the time or more deployed, a situation that seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future. We've got reservists spending a third to (in some cases, though no not commonly) half their time deployed. We're having to throw insane bonuses at people to get them to re-enlist. And all of this to maintain a level of manpower in theatre that isn't even sufficient to accomplish the mission, by either our own doctrine or common sense. Oh, and this whole "training Air Force troops for ground operations" thing...almost forgot what thread I was in.
If this isn't (or more appropriately wasn't) the time to look long and hard at a draft, I don't know what is.
And really, if we aren't ever going to draft people we may as well do away with the Selective Service system altogether. I think the situation we're in now is about the best argument for a draft short of the next World War. We've got personnel from our branches spending half the time or more deployed, a situation that seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future. We've got reservists spending a third to (in some cases, though no not commonly) half their time deployed. We're having to throw insane bonuses at people to get them to re-enlist. And all of this to maintain a level of manpower in theatre that isn't even sufficient to accomplish the mission, by either our own doctrine or common sense. Oh, and this whole "training Air Force troops for ground operations" thing...almost forgot what thread I was in.
If this isn't (or more appropriately wasn't) the time to look long and hard at a draft, I don't know what is.
jhgreasemonkey
New member
It is my understanding that up to this point we normaly had up to 2500 airforce combat controllers, forward observers, pararescue type ground troops serving at any given time. Mostly embedded with army units. It sounds like they must be doubling the number unless they have created a whole different unit of troops. By the way these guys mentioned above are highly trained. Something like 2 years of training before being sent over. At least that is my understanding.
JuanCarlos
New member
Link to the story.
Sounds to me like these are average Air Force "Joes" (or whatever you guys call them) retraining to aid the Army in general Army operations. Sounds like the program is not particularly new, but rather that it's being stepped up.
It's true. NPR in this case was on the spot. We've had airmen training at our ranges on Fort Carson. Training like we soldiers train even. Some of them have said that it was the first time that they've even fired a rifle since their basic training.
The last time my unit was in Iraq we had airmen accompany us on our patrols.
The last time my unit was in Iraq we had airmen accompany us on our patrols.
targetshootr
New member
In my humble opinion, NPR is the only thing on radio worth listening to. Even above blues-rock.
USAF Security Forces, PJs, Combat Controllers, etc have been involved in ground combat role for the duration of Iraq and Afghanistan. That means out there hunting bad guys. SF has been training in air base ground defense for many years which involves being deployed away from bases, setting up DFPs and perimeters, and active patrol missions. I retired as a SF commander in 2000. Guys from my former unit have been rotating in and out since the beginning of the battles. Last year one of my guys, a MSgt, got the Bronze Star with V for crossing an old Russian mine field to rescue an Afghani who had stepped on a mine while the unit was engaged. Others of my guys have been out with Rangers and other units doing actual hunting missions.
More clarification - this is an Air National Guard unit.
Here's the write up on his BSw/V. I've blocked out his name and location of incident as he's back over there again, for the 3rd time, and on his 5th overseas deployment since 9/11. His civilian job is a fireman but since 9/11 he's been more active duty than fireman. Also, he was in GW-I.
More clarification - this is an Air National Guard unit.
Here's the write up on his BSw/V. I've blocked out his name and location of incident as he's back over there again, for the 3rd time, and on his 5th overseas deployment since 9/11. His civilian job is a fireman but since 9/11 he's been more active duty than fireman. Also, he was in GW-I.
Air Force Dad
Both my children are in the Air Force (they are smarter than I was, I was Army), my daughter enlisted the week before 9/11. She is currently a Staff Sgt, and is stationed in Texas.
My son is a Senior Airman, and until a month ago was in Arizona. Today he is in Baghdad. He volunteered to go to Iraq. Currently he is performing escort duties on the airbase. He says his M16 is "a part of him".
I support the war, and I certainly support our troops. I am not fully confortable with the conduct of the war, it could be handled better.
If Airforce troops are being trained for ground combat because of a need for them, then things are not being run right. If they are being trained to provide a pool for back up security, then I am ok with that.
I take leave to doubt NPR's accuracy on the actual use of the troops. Lots of times troops get trained for something, and never actually do it, doing something else instead. Until I see something else in print or hear differently from my "inside sources", I will doubt the reports from NPR. I will not dicount them entirely, but neither will I blindly believe.
Both my children are in the Air Force (they are smarter than I was, I was Army), my daughter enlisted the week before 9/11. She is currently a Staff Sgt, and is stationed in Texas.
My son is a Senior Airman, and until a month ago was in Arizona. Today he is in Baghdad. He volunteered to go to Iraq. Currently he is performing escort duties on the airbase. He says his M16 is "a part of him".
I support the war, and I certainly support our troops. I am not fully confortable with the conduct of the war, it could be handled better.
If Airforce troops are being trained for ground combat because of a need for them, then things are not being run right. If they are being trained to provide a pool for back up security, then I am ok with that.
I take leave to doubt NPR's accuracy on the actual use of the troops. Lots of times troops get trained for something, and never actually do it, doing something else instead. Until I see something else in print or hear differently from my "inside sources", I will doubt the reports from NPR. I will not dicount them entirely, but neither will I blindly believe.
Guess you never read my post nor the newspaper article I included with my post. Security Forces guys from my former unit, an Air National Guard unit, have been out there in the netherlands hunting for the BGs along side the USA counterparts. Not every USAF type does that mission but there are some AFSCs whose role is to be outside the wire.
Do a web search of Combat Controllers and see what their jobs entail. They're right out there in the thick of it with alongside the Spec Ops boys. Also do some reading on the PJs. They'll be right out there too.
In the mid-90's both the president and congress just couldn't wait to get their greedy hands on "The Peace Dividend" resulting from the perceived collapse of the soviet union. The peace dividend was created by cutting back the military and IIRC the Army was reduced by 40%.
Seemed like a good idea at the time. Seems like a bad idea now. What is bothering me is both congress and the president are strangely quiet about the need to expand ground forces. It is all about doing more with less. Well, at some point more boots have to be authorized or cut back on the mission. Army and Marine commanders are complaining about operations tempos and wear and tear on equipment with nothing in the pipeline to fix either problem.
Congress and the president have been warned.
Seemed like a good idea at the time. Seems like a bad idea now. What is bothering me is both congress and the president are strangely quiet about the need to expand ground forces. It is all about doing more with less. Well, at some point more boots have to be authorized or cut back on the mission. Army and Marine commanders are complaining about operations tempos and wear and tear on equipment with nothing in the pipeline to fix either problem.
Congress and the president have been warned.
Last edited:
when i entered the Air Force on 20 November 1985 the training regimen was 30 training days. we DID have a more stringent rifle qualification than was mentioned earlier. we were required to fire a certain score out of a possible 400. i missed expert by 6 points...
also our physical fitness test was a mile and half run in 12-1/2 minutes not 16...
the Air Force several years ago added what they call Warrior Week which is where the recruits spend a week in the field. im not sure what all is involved in this other than being issued a rifle, sleeping in the field, performing rudimentary guard duty and similar activities...
the Security Police (Security Forces now) are trained at Camp Bullis Tx (a Marine installation) and are taught combat skills. they also have a school in Arkansas for Air Base Ground Defense...
i would surely hope and pray that those Airmen get some intensive training. I belonged to an Ad Hoc 'OPFOR' team in Cali where we would take the Hospital troops out to the field to set up a MASH unit while the Civil Engineers (electricians, carpenters, pipefitters etc) would provide security along with the SPs. We gave training courses on navigation, fieldcraft, setting out warnings (flares etc) and providing guard duties...
alas that was a long time ago in a place far away...
david
also our physical fitness test was a mile and half run in 12-1/2 minutes not 16...
the Air Force several years ago added what they call Warrior Week which is where the recruits spend a week in the field. im not sure what all is involved in this other than being issued a rifle, sleeping in the field, performing rudimentary guard duty and similar activities...
the Security Police (Security Forces now) are trained at Camp Bullis Tx (a Marine installation) and are taught combat skills. they also have a school in Arkansas for Air Base Ground Defense...
i would surely hope and pray that those Airmen get some intensive training. I belonged to an Ad Hoc 'OPFOR' team in Cali where we would take the Hospital troops out to the field to set up a MASH unit while the Civil Engineers (electricians, carpenters, pipefitters etc) would provide security along with the SPs. We gave training courses on navigation, fieldcraft, setting out warnings (flares etc) and providing guard duties...
alas that was a long time ago in a place far away...
david
- Status