Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink

Rebuilding a fallen giant...

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 11th November 2005

  Hi All,
  
  The rebuilding of the American military in the period between the end of Vietnam and the mid 80s is an incredible feat indeed. Their situation in 1973, where the army was utterly demoralised, almost vilified at home, with veterans feeling betrayed by the very country they thought they were fighting for, with instances of wounded GIs returning home to be met with shouts of "baby killer" and spat at by civilians was utterly disgraceful. The whole army was on its knees. Drug taking was rife, there were bases in Europe that were run more by barrack-room gangs than by the army, where officers could not enter an enlisted mens barrack room without an armed guard.
  
  The process by which this almost spent force reorganised and rebuilt into the armoured juggernaut that smashed through Saddam's army in Desert Storm has to be one of the all time military success stories. How they reorganised the army into an integrated force including regular, reserve and national guard units acting as one, and rebuilt their NCO corps which was decimated by Vietnam is to say the least an impressive tale, even if you just look at the example of their equipment planning-the "Big Five", The M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, Apache Gunship, Blackhawk transport, and Patriot Air Defence, which we all saw to massively destructive effect in Desert Storm. This integrated approach is without doubt, the most effective rebuilding of an army ever seen.
  
  So I have a couple of questions on this (Tas and Expat, your comments would be greatly appreciated). What effect did this have on American society as a whole? IMO it seemed that, with the victory parades in the US after Desert Storm, there was a huge act of reconciliation between the US public and the Armed Forces, almost that the Army was returning home, after many painful years in the wilderness. Was this indicative of US society, or am I reading too much into it?
  
  Secondly, at the same time that the US Armed Forces was literally on its knees, the Warsaw Pact was in the opposite position. Their military was in comparison, a highly motivated machine, thoroughly politically indoctrinated, and at a high state of readiness. How is it that the Soviets never acted, when their most powerful adversary was so weakened? It was surely their best chance to win the cold war by force.
  
  Thanks
  DL

  Link to this forum: Rebuilding a fallen giant...

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Friday, 11th November 2005

  
  ...How is it that the Soviets never acted, when their most powerful adversary was so weakened? It was surely their best chance to win the cold war by force...
  
  Μύ
  
  More than likely a consequence of the nuclear threat of mutually assured destruction. Besides, by the mid-70s the Soviet economy had already started going into decline.
  
  When do you consider the US army started going into decline? Does it predate Vietnam, or was it as a consequence? Drug taking, I gather, was rife whilst Vietnam was in full swing.
  
  Also, do you agree with the claim that I've heard from some British servicemen that their American allies are somewhat less well-trained/experienced, due to the average US soldier being on a shorter contract? (Four years, is it?)

  Link to this forum: Rebuilding a fallen giant...

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 11th November 2005

  Hi Mike,
  
  IMO the US Army's decline began in earnest at the same time as the rise in anti-war protesting in the US. This will have utterly destroyed the morale of the troops, particularly those who were drafted. Drug taking was rife during Vietnam, but that was a result of combat stress more than anything else. As a rule, soldiers under severe stress from combat conditions will turn to shall we say "substances" as a means of emotional support. In previous wars, alcohol has always been the soldier's drug of choice (and still is), but the availability of other substances on a large scale (as they were in Vietnam) would lead them to other means of getting out of it!
  
  From my own experience, I don't know many soldiers who didn't hit the booze after being in a war situation.
  
  With regards to the Soviet economy, not too sure on that one Mike, but its military were by no means in decline at that time.
  
  With regards to the training levels, this is relative to the unit really. I couldn't tell you the minimum enlistment period for the British army at the moment, though in my day it was 3 years, so not really a great deal of difference. However for any sort of specialised role, the initial engagement period increased to 6 years or more. Again, I am not up to date on current terms of engagement.
  
  With regards to experience and training levels, if we were to use Iraq as an example, I must admit to being unimpressed by the current US policy of sending National Guardsmen into combat. They are an integrated part of the US army granted, but they are not full time professional soldiers, and as such IMO they have no business in a combat zone. The British Army also have sent Territorial Army soldiers into Iraq, but not in a frontline combat role (as far as I'm aware), so in this instance, the experience and training of these National Guardsmen is not only inferior to British Troops deployed in Iraq, it is insufficient for them to safely do their job (hence the high casualties being suffered by the US).
  
  Speaking from my own experience, I have worked alongside US regular troops on many occasions, and found the enlisted men to be well educated, professional and efficient, their senior NCOs to be outstanding leaders, but their officers (at least at a junior level) to be lacking in imagination tactically, and unwilling to change their minds. As a result, in many exercises with the US, their inflexibility led to massive (simulated) casualties. So, do I agree with your statement on training/experience levels, yes and no. In some instances, then yes British troops are better trained, but not all. However, I don't really want to start this argument up again, it will run and run and run.......
  Cheers
  DL

  Link to this forum: Rebuilding a fallen giant...

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Friday, 11th November 2005

  Thanks for your considered reply DL. I was under the impression that most British soldiers sign up for 6 years these days - but I may have that wrong.
  
  The impression I have been given of the US in Iraq is that the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing half the time - but perhaps that's the norm for an operation on that sort of scale! One also has to bear in mind that British soldiers may have an ever-so-slight bias

  Link to this forum: Rebuilding a fallen giant...

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 11th November 2005

  Hi Mike,
  
  6 years could well be the minimum engagement time now, when I first joined up it was only 3 years for basic soldier, but 6 for more technically demanding jobs (more training involved, so more time needed)
  
  I've already said a great deal on the US's policy in Iraq, and to sum it all up, I don't feel that National Guard troops have any place in a combat zone, they are neither trained for the job, nor suitable as occupation troops in a hostile area. I recently watched a documentary called "Off to War" about an National Guard unit from Arkansas and their deployment to Iraq. They were part-time Engineer soldiers back in the US, and yet they were being used as front line infantry, doing vehicle patrols, foot patrols, and even a raid to seize Iraqi insurgents at one point, which to me was just madnedd. Not only were they not regular troops, who should IMO be the only troops deployed into actual combat, they weren't even infantry, they were engineers, used to being called out to help with tornado damage, and there they were, on patrol in Baghdad. Needless to say, they were taking casualties almost daily, under mortar fire regularly, being sniped at and shot at left right and centre. It just left you feeling that they were being used as cannon fodder.
  
  Yes I am biased at times, since I am an ex-soldier and am naturally proud of my old units, and US regular troops are pretty excellent soldiers, but however you look at it, part-time weekend warrior engineers should NOT be driving around Baghdad locked and loaded in Humvees and AFVs! That isn't their job! The result is that these poor guys get very angry and start popping off rounds at anything, out of fear and wanting revenge for their injured and dead mates (the programme included an incident where a roadblock did just this, they got very twitchy after being shot at, and ended up machine-gunning a car which had a family of 5 in it) and the result is dead US troops, dead Iraqi civilians, and the civilian casualties no doubt cause more Iraqis to fight against the Americans. Its catch-22.
  A horrible situation which has no clear solution, other than don't send weekend warrior engineers to man roadblocks in Baghdad!
  
  
  DL

  Link to this forum: Rebuilding a fallen giant...

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 11th November 2005

  Hi DL,
  
  One of your better posts.
  
  The total systems integration of the Army, Air force, and Navy is also a factor. Also by the mid 70's the racial problems that eroded military readiness were somewhat neutralized with Affirmative Action, and race relation classes, which permeated all thru the armed forces. The drug problem was addressed head on. Even now our forces are uranalyses tested at irregular intervals on a regular basis for prohibited substance abuse. If you come back positive and are an officer or NCO regardless of service, you're out.
  
  There was no magic bullet that made America proud again of its military. The civilian attitude to Vietnam returnees’ was very much out of step with the relationship Americans normally have with their armed forces. It was in my opinion a reflection of the times.
  
  The Soviet Union never had enough leverage to take advantage of the Army situation because they were not concerned with a land war to begin with. If anything our Air Force came out of Vietnam even stronger than when we went in. The same is true for our Navy, especially our naval air capability. Our Massive Nuke arsenal was unaffected by a bad attitude of the Army rank and file.
  
  Cheerz

  Link to this forum: Rebuilding a fallen giant...

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Friday, 11th November 2005

  I've already said a great deal on the US's policy in Iraq, and to sum it all up, I don't feel that National Guard troops have any place in a combat zone, they are neither trained for the job, nor suitable as occupation troops in a hostile area. I recently watched a documentary called "Off to War" about an National Guard unit from Arkansas and their deployment to Iraq. They were part-time Engineer soldiers back in the US, and yet they were being used as front line infantry, doing vehicle patrols, foot patrols, and even a raid to seize Iraqi insurgents at one point, which to me was just madnedd. Not only were they not regular troops, who should IMO be the only troops deployed into actual combat, they weren't even infantry, they were engineers, used to being called out to help with tornado damage, and there they were, on patrol in Baghdad. Needless to say, they were taking casualties almost daily, under mortar fire regularly, being sniped at and shot at left right and centre. It just left you feeling that they were being used as cannon fodder.Μύ
  
  DL,
  Our National Guard soldiers get the exact same training as the regular army. The same schools, The same instructors, even the same location. They must meet the same standards and qualifications as a regular soldier.They are soldiers in every sense of the word. Are they are WELL trained as our regular army, I fear not. That of course is because they do not train full time.
  
  It does not matter if they are engineers or cooks. They are all infantrymen first and formost. As are our regular army. Once again are they as well trained as an everday grunt, of course not. So why are they being deployed.
  
  Our military was cut back to the bone after the fall of the Soviet Union, just like yours was. The pay an average soldier gets cannot compare to what can be earned as a civillian., but they want to serve. So they join the Guard. We are fat on technology and poor on boots on the ground. Our young guys are not so much interested in a military career. The incentive for them is cash bonuses and very nice educational benifits after discharge. Thats still not enough to meet our regular army recruting goals.
  
  To serve in the guard, especially in some of our smaller towns is almost a tradition. It's not at all that unusual for a very wealthy individual to be a lower ranking soldier in the guard. It is honerable service and we are proud as heck of them all.
  
  Just another quick input on your rebuilding the giant thread. You have shown an uncanny grasp and understanding of our inner workings, congrats.
  
  Cheerz.

  Link to this forum: Rebuilding a fallen giant...

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Saturday, 12th November 2005

  Morning Expat,
  
  Another point I think is the recruiting effort (referring to the rebuilding process). The US military had basically lost the attraction it needed in recruiting people with at least a high school diploma, and they did manage to turn this around.
  Secondly, your educational benefits programme (along with the treatment of combat vets as well) is outstanding and should (but doesn't) embarrass our government. The college funding on diacharge is something I wasn't even aware of until spending a night duty with a couple of US lady soldiers who both told me all about their plans for the future. They were from poor families and couldn't afford to pay for their own education, so had enlisted purely for the purpose of completing their education (although one of them had decided to stay in the army since). In our Army, you get nothing. OK fair enough you get a pension for the time you serve (or in instances where injury in the line of duty forces discharge which is my situation), and your VA healthcare system is second to none, whereas ours in non-existent. Once you're out, you're out in our Army.
  
  It seems to me that the National Guard, with its local tradition is similar in some ways to our infantry battalions, with areas of the country having its local regiment (sadly diminished these days due to cuts) You are spot on with the "soldier first, tradesman second" attitude, this is the case in our forces too. But it goes without saying, a cook isn't going to be as good a combat soldier as a time served grunt under any circumstances (no matter what Steven Segal's movies say), and IMO non-combat troops are the last resort for combat, and shouldn't be sent into combat. As you put it, the US is fat on technology, but not in boots on the ground, but this has always been US military doctrine going back to the end of the Civil War. Better to expend millions on weapons and equipment, than on coffins. A lesson the British government has yet to learn.
  
  Many thanks for your comments, a compliment? shocked!!!!
  DL

  Link to this forum: Rebuilding a fallen giant...

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by jberie (U1767537) on Monday, 14th November 2005

  Hi All,
  
  The rebuilding of the American military in the period between the end of Vietnam and the mid 80s is an incredible feat indeed. Their situation in 1973, where the army was utterly demoralised, almost vilified at home, with veterans feeling betrayed by the very country they thought they were fighting for, with instances of wounded GIs returning home to be met with shouts of "baby killer" and spat at by civilians was utterly disgraceful. The whole army was on its knees. Drug taking was rife, there were bases in Europe that were run more by barrack-room gangs than by the army, where officers could not enter an enlisted mens barrack room without an armed guard.
  
  The process by which this almost spent force reorganised and rebuilt into the armoured juggernaut that smashed through Saddam's army in Desert Storm has to be one of the all time military success stories. How they reorganised the army into an integrated force including regular, reserve and national guard units acting as one, and rebuilt their NCO corps which was decimated by Vietnam is to say the least an impressive tale, even if you just look at the example of their equipment planning-the "Big Five", The M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, Apache Gunship, Blackhawk transport, and Patriot Air Defence, which we all saw to massively destructive effect in Desert Storm. This integrated approach is without doubt, the most effective rebuilding of an army ever seen.
  
  So I have a couple of questions on this (Tas and Expat, your comments would be greatly appreciated). What effect did this have on American society as a whole? IMO it seemed that, with the victory parades in the US after Desert Storm, there was a huge act of reconciliation between the US public and the Armed Forces, almost that the Army was returning home, after many painful years in the wilderness. Was this indicative of US society, or am I reading too much into it?
  
  Secondly, at the same time that the US Armed Forces was literally on its knees, the Warsaw Pact was in the opposite position. Their military was in comparison, a highly motivated machine, thoroughly politically indoctrinated, and at a high state of readiness. How is it that the Soviets never acted, when their most powerful adversary was so weakened? It was surely their best chance to win the cold war by force.
  
  Thanks
  DLΜύ
  DL,
  Two things are main contributors to the US attitude about the military and patriotism in general. On was Ronald Reagan. Reagan set the tone for American pride. He did this through his speeches and attitude (He also put the US in debt. I was not a Reagan supporter).
  
  The other factor is the volunteer military. The military leadership does not want to revert to a draft, even though the US is short on personel. The volunteer military means that those who are in the armed forces want to be there--thus morale is a lot better than if some stoner got drafted.
  
  I am afraid that the current war in Iraq will have a negative effect on America's fighting force--there is no clear objective--much like Vietnam. Why are we there?
  
  The shortest term one can enlist for is 2 years. My son just got out of the Army, but he can be "called up" for up to 4 more years.

  Link to this forum: Rebuilding a fallen giant...

  Report message9

Back to top