Do any of the military types here have a problem with this?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm a little bit disappointed that our military isn't being given the supplies to get the job done. I'm also disappointed that the Colt M16 and M4's still are unreliable and require high maintenance. Our military should have the best equipment for the lowest price... i.e. most efficient. Perhaps we should rethink this trend towards privatization and using for-profit companies as the main supplier of weapons.

I couldn't disagree more.

Are you suggesting the goverment make weapons

[Dis]

Originally posted by vee4473


First off, It is not unusual at all for troops to perform as infantry regardless of MOS, and that certainly is no indication of being undermanned.

The museum being looted was obviously not good, but to say that indicates that the US doesn't know what it is doing is ludicrous. To say that museum security should have been the priority after invading a country and in the midst of trying to hunt down and kill any enemy soldiers is equally ludicrous.

And that is exactly what you seem to be saying since you say that the museum instance is what was the last straw for you.

And, at present, we aren't undermanned in Iraq, but that could change if more resistance is encountered.

But, the way I have heard it explained by the defense secretary, and i know you bush haters will say that i am digesting lies, but there are 2 reasons that the force strength is at the level it is.

1) Believe it or not, more men aren't needed, because there have only been minor skirmishes encountered (albeit many a day at some points that result in US deaths).

But they are skirmishes that last for a few minutes, with (and I know this sounds harsh) few casualties..They aren't hour/day long grand battles that require more troops. The force strength is, at present, adequate to deal with the enemy threat level. This could of course change.


2) Adding more troops to the point where the country is swarming with them would create a Iraqi dependency on those troops to provide security.

The preferable way of increasing the security is not to send more US troops, but to train more Iraqi police officers as quickly as possible, so that they learn as quickly as possible to provide for their own security, instead of becoming more dependent on foreign troops for security to the point where weening them off of that (and us eventually leaving) would be a problem.


All the while if more troops were indeed needed they would be sent in a heartbeat, rest assured.

This makes sense to me, but i'm sure many of you out there will begin the bashing.

Oh, and as far as the M16 thing goes, it is a sweet weapon. It does jam if very dirty, and dousing it with oil will help, but the accuracy is nothing short of amazing if you really know how to use it.

like I said, I can care less about the museum. And I'm sure the military didn't care about the museum. But you can't deny that looting happened.

And really that wasn't the last straw. The last straw was all the people who escaped to Syria. I realized some of that could have been avoided with a northern front from Turkey. But I still think we should have sealed the borders before taking Baghdad.

And the borders still aren't sealed. Terrorists are streaming into Iraq from all over!! I'm not advocating putting more troops in the middle of the countries in the big cities. They would be targetst there, they aren't needed there. The troops are needed on the borders. Of course what does the U.S. know about borders. They can't stop illegal immigrants from coming into the U.S. on the southern border.

But surely they could have did something to regulate who went in and out of the country. I understand you can't cover every mile of border. But you can at least cover the borders.

Does anyone remember that video of the abandoned Iraqi outpost at the border (I think it was the Syrian border, I can't remember exactly). There was no one there!!. Inexcusable.

All the weapons of mass destruction if there were any has left the country or has been buried or sunk in the river. We could have done something about personnel and material leaving the country, and terrrorists entering the country.

pathetic. I know most of that falls on the military leaders not the bush administration. But Bush is commander in chief. If things are going badly, they need to get some management in there that will do the job right. All of this falls on Bush.

[MRT144]

dissident, you are the lifeblood of a robust sexy democracy

[Ted Striker]

So whatever happened to the Iraqi Army?

Is there some kind of Border Guards or other type of internal security force being created?

I think this makes sense to handle other situations that are overwhelming for the "cop on the beat."

[Ted Striker]

<---- lifeblood of sexy

[CerberusIV]

FWIW a lot of the problems of the early M16's were sorted with the adoption of the SS109 ammunition as NATO standard, rather than the earlier M193? US design. The Belgian designed SS109 has a slightly heavier bullet and slightly better penetrating power.

The reason the ACR program didn't see a new weapon to replace the M16 in service was that none of the contenders, including the G11, offered sufficient improvement in performance, including reliability, to make it worth re-equipping the whole of US forces.

If you want crap, look at the British Army L85. They jam in desert conditions too.