WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines When will they be ready?

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#1
New recruits in the US military go to basic training for 6-8 weeks, and then they are "ready" to fight anywhere in the world.

We have been training the Iraqi army for 3 years.

Do we think they will ever be ready?
 

jamesp

In Memory...
1,714
1
0
#2
I think that they are not ready because they dont have to be. The marines are still fighting the bad guys after all.
 

ReiMeishin

Dreaming to live
585
0
0
#3
The Iraqi army won't get "$40,000 after a four year tour for college" or "learn skills that can help them in civilian life." They are looking to get career soldiers there who have no garuntee of getting any pay. It's a tough sell.
 

Slacker

Postaholic
3,735
317
127
#4
jamesp said:
I think that they are not ready because they dont have to be. The marines are still fighting the bad guys after all.
Ditto that.
 

Nailbomb

I'm just really nice.
4,475
2,799
332
#5
voiceofreason said:
New recruits in the US military go to basic training for 6-8 weeks, and then they are "ready" to fight anywhere in the world.
6-8 weeks? Nice job pulling statistics out of your ass. The time training through basic changes by miltary branches, but I don't think any of them are THAT short.
 

jamesp

In Memory...
1,714
1
0
#6
Nailbomb said:
6-8 weeks? Nice job pulling statistics out of your ass. The time training through basic changes by miltary branches, but I don't think any of them are THAT short.
Nope, he's right, basic training is only 8 weeks, but you continue learning new things and new training exercises throughout your military career.
 

Nailbomb

I'm just really nice.
4,475
2,799
332
#7
jamesp said:
Nope, he's right, basic training is only 8 weeks, but you continue learning new things and new training exercises throughout your military career.
Check your facts. I know I'm looking forward to at least 13-14 weeks of basic, and my friend in the Air Force went through I think 9 or 10 weeks.
 

jamesp

In Memory...
1,714
1
0
#8
Nailbomb said:
Check your facts. I know I'm looking forward to at least 13-14 weeks of basic, and my friend in the Air Force went through I think 9 or 10 weeks.
Well, guess what, Navy homes, kinda know what Im talking about.
 

Nailbomb

I'm just really nice.
4,475
2,799
332
#9
So basic training for the Navy is only 8 weeks? Hmm...either way, it differs by branch. My point was he's saying any part of the military only takes 6-8 weeks to go through basic.
 

jamesp

In Memory...
1,714
1
0
#10
Nailbomb said:
So basic training for the Navy is only 8 weeks? Hmm...either way, it differs by branch. My point was he's saying any part of the military only takes 6-8 weeks to go through basic.
Well, technically he is wrong, but he had the right idea.
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#11
Nailbomb said:
6-8 weeks? Nice job pulling statistics out of your ass. The time training through basic changes by miltary branches, but I don't think any of them are THAT short.
Pardon me it's 9 weeks, Got me there, aren't you smart?
 
685
0
0
#12
Jesus christ why don't you bicker about something that makes sense?
The Navy has the shortest training - excluding the Coast Guard - at 8 weeks. The Army and Air Force come in right behind that. The Marine Corps recruits go through 13 weeks of boot camp. But you know what, none of that has anything to do with this thread.
VOR's point was that America seems to pump out battle-ready troops in relative short order, especially when compared to how long it is taking us to 'train' the ISF..or Iraqi Security Forces.
While the basis of VOR's argument is valid, the premise is faulty. Even at 13 weeks, a fresh Marine is nowhere near combat ready. As a rule, basic training for all the services (or boot camp if you're a Marine) only teaches you enough to indoctrinate you into military life. You get military history and general knowledge pumped into you, you learn about military law, and you learn about structure. Mostly it's about changing the person from civilian to military more than it's about getting them ready for war.
Speaking from experience, it takes another 9-12 months of combat-related training beyond basic or boot camp before someone is 'ready' for combat.
Also speaking from experience, the reason that the ISF seems to suck so badly is because they...well...suck really bad. But that's not their only fault.
For example, we train them in a 3-4 week basic training camp; however our focus isn't on military history and total immersion into the military lifestyle. No, we skip that (a foundational building block in the American military) and focus on things like marksmanship, patrolling, and running security checkpoints. There is no continuing training after their basic...they are thrust directly into their respective roles as active Iraqi military. They literally have only enough training and knowledge to be dangerous...both to themselves and the civilians around them.
Another thing that I saw a lot of is that the Iraqis recruit locally; which means that the Iraqi National Guard (their army) employs a Guardsman in the same area from which they were recruited. This is a problem because Arabs are a very community-oriented culture...it's only a matter of time before the local insurgents or those sympathetic to them find out who you are and where you live. Only so many people can come home to find their families killed and beheaded before the entire local ISF contingent begins to not really care so much about quelling the insurgents. They're more interested in keeping their families alive.
The ISF don't have the same level of loyalty to their country that American troops have...and they won't for some time now. They are more motivated by personal gain than by patriotism. They are more interested in providing food and shelter for their families than in dying for some abstract ideal...because at this point that's all a unified and free Iraq is.

My point is that there is more going on than our seeming inability to train the Iraqi troops. There are quite a few other contributing factors, but I think that the above two examples will do in this instance.

VOR: You're right...they should be trained better...they should be more effective. The thing is that not many people in the States know exactly why they're not.
 

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
1,329
0
0
#13
One of the reasons they aren't being trained is that we don't give then weapons.


It's going so poorly there, we are afraid they will just turn it on us...

LINK
 
685
0
0
#14
Truthfully, I don't think that should change any time soon; at least not for the entire ISF. I saw plenty of weapons 'stolen' from the local ISF headquarters that would later be recovered after a firefight...in the hands of someone that had been shooting at us.

I don't think I'd be equipping the Iraqis with weapons that we use while we were still there in force. Yeah, a lot of them are corrupt, a lot of them are ineffectual. Worse, there are still plenty of insurgents who use the Iraqi National Guard or the Iraqi Police as cover. It's still a very fucked up situation.
 

Nailbomb

I'm just really nice.
4,475
2,799
332
#15
FlipTheState said:
Jesus christ why don't you bicker about something that makes sense?....blah blah blah...everything Jamesp and I said hours ago...same old crap...
Funny how you put down the argument then join in right away. Besides, Jamesp already pointed out that I should have written what I meant more clearly.
 
685
0
0
#16
Nailbomb said:
Funny how you put down the argument then join in right away. Besides, Jamesp already pointed out that I should have written what I meant more clearly.
I didn't join in...it obviously needed to be clarified, since I'm fairly positive that your "I'm about to join" status doesn't equate into "knowledge of how it works". So as far as I'm concerned, you're not even a Boot yet, which means you know far less about the military - specifically the Marine Corps - than you let on. "About to join" might give you some clout with the rest of the High School kiddies, but not with someone who's done the deed for over 10 years.
If the shoe fits, wear it. Which means that if you didn't get anything out of the post, then it wasn't meant for you.
As for WHY I felt inclined to include the "How long is basic training" info: it layed the foundation for the other 8 paragraphs that you forgot to read...unless you're saying that you already knew all of that as well. In which case I should congratulate you on your first-hand experience with the ISF. So before you get so wrapped up in the first two sentences and attempt to take the high-ground...maybe you should read the rest of the post.
If that's all you got to say after reading that post, then you've basically disqualified yourself from making further comments.
 

Nailbomb

I'm just really nice.
4,475
2,799
332
#17
FlipTheState said:
I didn't join in...it obviously needed to be clarified, since I'm fairly positive that your "I'm about to join" status doesn't equate into "knowledge of how it works".
You think the Marines were the only branch I checked into? Of course not. I asked different recruiters from different branches (as well as some other sources), and the shortest time I was told was 9-10 weeks. So that info is coming from people who "know how it works."

FlipTheState said:
So as far as I'm concerned, you're not even a Boot yet, which means you know far less about the military - specifically the Marine Corps - than you let on. "About to join" might give you some clout with the rest of the High School kiddies, but not with someone who's done the deed for over 10 years.
I never claimed to have this magic knowledge of all things military. Seems you pull just as much information out of your ass as VoR does. By the way, I'm a graduate. If you're gonna try to joke about shit like that, get it right.

FlipTheState said:
...it layed the foundation for the other 8 paragraphs that you forgot to read...unless you're saying that you already knew all of that as well. In which case I should congratulate you on your first-hand experience with the ISF.
Once again, if you're gonna try shit like that, make sure you know what you're talking about. "You must not have read the whole thing" is a weak argument to begin with, but considering I wasn't talking about the Iraqi Armed Forces, it's got no base at all. Of course they're taking longer to train, any middle school dropout could tell you that.
 

void

Banned - What an Asshat!
4,126
1
0
#18
on topic..


number of iraqi troops that have been 'trained and equipped' according to president bush in april.
150 000.

number of iraqi troops that the us military considers ready to deploy independently.
1500.

percentage of us troop recruitment goal expected to be met in 2006.
9.9%

source. harpers index.


we either need more troops or less wars.. :oogle:
 

shiggy1016

King of Loserville
65
0
0
#19
Nailbomb, STFU

Props to FliptheState.

I would also like to add that of course it's going to take longer to train Iraqi soldiers than Americans. The Iraqi military leadership has to be completely retrained as well. Here, a single troop simply has to be assimilated into an exsisting army (similar, for analogy purposes only, to an employee being trained at a fortune 500 company) there the entire military has to be built from scratch (like founding a company). There are going to be hard times, and there won't be instant success (like making the fortune 500 list, it will take time)