View Poll Results: Which branch and explain?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Army

    19 29.69%
  • Navy

    8 12.50%
  • Airforce

    11 17.19%
  • Marine Corps

    6 9.38%
  • Coast Guard

    0 0%
  • Other

    20 31.25%
Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 133

Thread: Military Branches

  1. #61
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    A marine is like any other service member, except with balls....
    so says an old friend who was a marine aviator. He said Marines flew much closer to the ground than other aviators...
    Say what you will, but it takes balls to jump out of planes the way Army Paratroopers do.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  2. #62
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Military Branches

    I think its an illogical move because each branch is supposed to be a counter if another is stopped

    1. Marines (shock troops) - something needed to be destroyed, captured or liberated yesterday

    2. Army (ground and pound)

    3. Air Force (death from above) - cant go through it, cant go under it, cant go around it so you must bomb it from the sky

    4. Navy - when the enemy is dug in too deep its time to unleash the battleships and shell them like their is no tomorrow
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

  3. #63
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Say what you will, but it takes balls to jump out of planes the way Army Paratroopers do.
    Either having balls or not having brains, either way they are as good as Marines any day....
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  4. #64
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Military Branches

    There might be a lot of money saved by combining forces but I think there is another way.

    Admiral Rickover once had something to say on the issue of the officer to enlisted ratio. He compared the current ratio to that of our peak fighting strength of WWII.
    He showed that we have too many officers performing tasks that enlisteds could do, too many officers sitting at desks given busy work, and too many officers doing even less than busy work....
    Something could be said for the total number of service men and women, as well.
    Of all the duty stations I served in, sea duty was the only type of duty where we might be short of personnel, and that was because you can only house so many people on a ship. Shore duty tended to be the opposite, too many people for the demands of the job.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  5. #65
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGirlNextDoor View Post
    If we were to consolidate our overall military strength to just one branch, which branch should it be and why?

    My apologies for making this a U.S. poll question - feel free to start one that outlines military branches in other countries.
    Army, mostly because I was in the army. I feel that at least the military ranks in general should be streamlined. Ranks in one branch are not the same as another another branch. For example a caption in the army is a o-3 while a capitain in the nay is a o-6 while in the army a O-6 is a Colonel while a sergeant in the army is a E-5 and and sergeant in the airforce is a E-4.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #66
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I think we agree on the use of a different strategy, where the boots are playing beat cop immediately after Baghdad fell. My difference with your statement is I don't think we needed MORE boots on the ground. I think the strategy change with the numbers we had committed would have been enough to effectively fight the insurgency and build local security forces to end the looting. I think we agree that we would be facing an insurgency, no matter what. But we didn't need more boots. At the height of the active insurgency/civil war we only needed 50,000 extra boots with the strategy change. Anbar Awakening helped of course.

    I do think the looting would have happened no matter what and no matter how many boots we had on the ground. To many locations to protect and we didn't know which would get hit. Looting is evidently some sort of tradition over there and much of it was coordinated.

    I would love to read such a post, if you have the time and energy to write one. Note that I think disbanding the Iraqi Army was necessary.
    I emboldened the original sin. You never go in with "just enough." Did we invade Normandy with "just enough" as the wealth of our manpower sat elsewhere entirely useless? As it was, our lack of numbers facilitated the unnecessary future unrest. Not only that, but we were constantly wrapping around our own flanks because their was a lack of numbers to place as protection. It was only thanks to the professionalism of our military that Rumsfeld's "No Plan" wasn't a disaster. Army supply convoys would not have had to pretend to be soldiers (Jessica Lynch) had our numbers been what they should have been.

    1) PLAN. The original plan had been developed since 1991. The living CENTCOM plan had been a working document that dealt with strategic locations, social disparities, and historical significances. It respected the invasion and the occupation. However, as General Zinni reports, the Rumsfeld coven decided to tell Congress that this military engineered plan was "old and stale." Instead, a room full of civilians with absolutely no military experience designed what was to be the "No Plan." In order to sell the invasion, troop numbers had to be lower, the price was going to be cheap, and promises of the Age of Aquarius in Baghdad as soon as the regime was toppled was delivered. In other words, the CENTCOM plan brought up to many probablilities that would make selling the war too difficult. CENTCOM planned for the worst, while Rumsfeld chose to plan for the best.

    2) NUMBERS. There is no such thing as "just enough." If troops are deployed in sufficient numbers at the start of an occupation, it may be possible to draw them down in a matter of months. But stingy deployments that attempt to hold down the political costs at home guarantee that the enemy will not experience an enduring sense of defeat. It was decided by Washington that bypassing entire cities on the way to Baghdad would be best because it would save civilian lives and prevent the media their orgy of blood. However, the result of this was that great parts of the country never even saw an American tank or an American boot. They never felt defeated. The future bases for the insurgency came out of these cities and militias were formed around organized former Hussein loyalists. In the end, Washington sent more troops anyway. No enemy has ever been defeated before they felt defeated. How necessary would a surge have been if the numbers were there to begin with?

    3) RULE OF LAW. This means immediate martial law. Washington politics were absolutely petrified of the prospect because martial law may have appeared inhumane and anti-civil rights. However, did anybody consider how inhumane it was to watch them slaughter each other as pockets of Iraq oppressed their own into submission where American boots were absent? Would itnot have been far more humane to gradually loosen martial law as organization appeared instead of giving the cities to terror? We lost our credibility in Baghdad almost immediately. None of them expected the greatest military in history and the greatest force for good to tolerate the looting and arson spree by criminal elements. We alienated the law-abiding citizens and spent the next 5 years gaining back respect and trust. Of course, we didn't have the numbers to stop any of it in the first place since we went in with "just enough."

    4) CONTRACTORS. Our politicians were quick to point out the looting of the locals on their own cities, but absolutely criminal as they ignored the looting orgy of American contractors. Cheney lavished Iraq with innapropriate contracts. And he merely celebrated the Clinton vision of privatizing our military on every level. When people criticize Iraq because of the cost, this is where they should focus. It would have cost far less to employ Iraqis to fix the systems they knew better than anybody. It would have also employed countless youth who had nothing better to do than to join the local militia or insurgency. And how less likely is it that people will blow up whet they themselves fix or build? The local Sheikh should have been tasked to fix his water system with enough money to offer payroll to his people.

    5) AUTHORITY. Instead of waiting 3 years to recognize that local leadership should have been designated instead of foregoing this important step because we were entirely focused on who the leaders were to be on the national level, we should have tapped into the Sheikhs as soon as possible. Without our recognition, they formed their own local securities (militias) that worked against our efforts. Without our immediate respect, they leaned towards those who at least pretended to offer it, Al-Queda. We would spend years developing a way to earn back their trust and as it stood it was mostly due to Al-Queda's ruthlessness to murder other Muslims that made it happen. Eventually, Al-Queda made us the good guys. Disbanding the Iraqi military was a must (as you agree) because the larger Shia population would not feel the change with the same old brutes and Al-Queda would have had a far easier time establishing themselves under a majority Sunni military. This was a necessary pain in the ass, but immediate re-forming of security forces came far too late (not enough trainers). Many of the disbanded merely sought the closest militia

    6) BEAT COP. Without numbers, the Army was largely confined to bigger "cities" and all Iraqi civilian leadership was preached from within the protected Green Zone. And though the Marine Corps was strategically located throughout the Wild West all the way towards the Syrian border, there wasn't enough numbers to constantly be in every village or town. These were towns and villages used by Al-Queda and the insurgency to launch attacks that hadn't even seen an American boot until 2006 or the surge. Without the beat cops, neighborhoods were in the hands of the gangs and their law. The second Baghdad fell, we should have been in mulitple position to walk the beat, which means that they should have crossed the Kuwaiti border with or right behind the assault. Of course, this means that the assault would have had to go through the larger cities before occupiers rolled right in.

    7) FIGHT. Too many times were out military actions confined to the political mood of Washington. Washington wanted us liked rather than feared and occupying a hostile foreign land must come from having defeated a people's will to fight. Resistance had to be crushed immediately. As it were, the bleeding hearts and an election year managed to convince the Bush administration that Fallujah wasn't worth it. After leaving Fallujah, the few Al-Queda agents and insurgents remaining managed to turn it into the terrorist capital of the world. IED factories were organized and the placegot flooded with our enemies from where to launch attacks. Of course, directly after the 2004 Presidential election the word was given to finish Fallujah (II). In order to beat the news cameras, the Marines rushed through and the death toll was high and the city was wrecked. It was the media, the average bleeding heart, and our politicians that facilitated the existence of Fallujah II. The toll in casualities and human rights would have been far lower in the end than what it was and we would have gained more respect.

    8) DEPLOYMENT SCHEDULE. This is a lesson we had already learned via Vietnam, but refused to heed. We didn't fight the Vietcong once. We fought him 9 separate times. Everytime 12 month veterans left, they were replaced with "green" troops who had to spend months learning lessons that had already been learned. But that was a draft war. We had no excuse come 2003. In a grand display of "supporting the troop" we told him that he wouldn't have to stay in Iraq for a prolonged period of time. We appeased mothers of America and told him that instead of fighting this war fora couple or three years, that he would merely have to disrupt his family repeatedly and deploy numerously. In the mean time, every six months or fourteen months, "green" troops and even veterans had to relearn an ever changing Iraq and tactics as the enemy changed annually.

    The "Lessons Learned" in the Army and Marine Corps circuit all generally agree with the basics. Former intel officers and cultural experts also come to the same basic conclusions. We did not flood Germany or Japan with American contractors. We did not send the "bare minimum" of troops to accomplish a mission. We did not fight in accordance to the mood of reporters and political idealogues. We did not toss out military plans so that non-military civilians could have a chance to prove a radical theory of new war. We facilitated much of the blood shed and the struggle before we even left Kuwait. People complain that Iraq shouldn't have happened because it was soveriegn and cost too much. And of course, Bush's WMD angle left them with narrow vision and shallow excuses. After 10 years of starving out Iraqis and bombing them under a UN mission of containment, a man named Osama Bin Laden would use it as an excuse to drop planes on our soil. This deplorable containment mission had to end. But it should not have cost as much and it should not have come with such bloodshed. This is not to suggest that friction between the Sunni and the Shia wouldn't have happened. The reason we maintained Hussein's manucured throne after the Gulf War was out of fear of sectarian violence. Which leads me to absolutely scoff at the criminality of the same individuals who disregarded this inevitability 12 years later by tossing out the CENTCOM plan for theirs. But the highlights above would have gone a long way to ease a lot of the violence. It would have saved a lot of civilian and military lives. Allowed us to maintain respect in the eyes of the world. And allowed us to put this war behind us years ago. It all goes back to a need for more numbers right from the start.

    Civilian mismanagement cost us respect, treasure, and blood. Can you imagine our White House with a lesser military to carry their safety nets?

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #67
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Army, mostly because I was in the army. I feel that at least the military ranks in general should be streamlined. Ranks in one branch are not the same as another another branch. For example a caption in the army is a o-3 while a capitain in the nay is a o-6 while in the army a O-6 is a Colonel while a sergeant in the army is a E-5 and and sergeant in the airforce is a E-4.
    E-4 is "Senior Airman" in the Airforce... not Sergeant.

    My wife was an E-4 in the Airforce when she got out....

    E-5 is in Air Force is a "Staff Sergeant"
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  8. #68
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    I'm glad to have someone of expertise to discuss this with.

    I was recently chatting with two friends (both former Marines), and we were talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (one served there, one was out of the service before it started, but was in First Gulf War) and we were actually thinking the other way. That further division would be better.

    It was based on this. The overthrow of the Taliban and Saddam's regime were relatively simple compared to what followed. I suggested (and my father was Navy, so I'm familiar - but I didn't personally serve and probably couldn't have even if I wanted to) that we create a "Peace Force" and an "Anti-Insurgency Force" (you can call them what you like).

    The "Peace Force" would be armed but would focus primarily on recovery of the occupied nation, but would be able to respond defensively to attack. The Anti-Insurgency Force would be a fast, mobile force that would squelch and hold regions in turmoil until the "Peace Force" would come in once security is established.

    The reasoning behind this is that the invading force (the current branches) are trained to kill the enemy, which require a degree of dehumanization of the enemy. I think, psychologically, it would be very difficult with the absence of uniforms (and that's going to be just about any conflict we face from here on out) to think one way and then turn on a dime and try to win over hearts and minds once the enemy government is toppled.

    Thoughts?
    This is a trap. Washington analysts and Army tacticians tend to make the same mistake. After every war, they tend to seek to re-organize the doctrinal military into something that is best for the last war. The Army spent an entire Cold War basing its military on the World War II model despite the Vietnams and the Beiruts. Throughout the 90s, the Army was focused on maintaining a military that can fight the Gulf Wars despite the Somalias, Haitis, Bosnias, and so on. When Iraq came around, the Marine Corps was chosen to lead the fight for a reason. It has a history of looking towards the next war and had been preparing for the urban people war of Iraq since Somalia.

    The lesson here is that we have the tendency to prepare to fight the last war. The Iraqs are the future. We saw this with Somalia. No one is ballsy enough to face us in the open desert where collateral damage can't be used against us. The Army has recognized this finally. They have been experimenting with numbers over the last few years andhave been seeking ways to maintain a "big box" Army that is also capable of dealing with COIN and smaller wars. In other words, we have to become even more flexible than we already are. Fine tuning down to a "peace force" or an "anti-insurgency force" and so on cuffs us to strict focus. It's kind of a step backwards. The same Marine or soldier has to be able to feed Somalis, fight warlords, deal with insurgencies, topple dictators, rescue quake victims, referee genocides, perform crowd control, etc. Soldiers and Marines were thrown all over the world during the 90s into situations they were ill equipped and untrained for. They had to learn the hard way by being tossed into the fire. The Cold War was over and our thinkers were clueless as to what was next. They merely relied on a military, which was trained for the Cold War, to cover their for their inadequcies at diplomacy, by dropping it into one humanitarian mission or police action after another.

    The same military that invaded Germany occupied Germany with success. They managed to do this because Germans were, and even more importantly felt, defeated. That was the mistake of Iraq. Not that our military couldn't switch from aggressor to occupier, but that they never felt defeated. No occupation can be successful if there is no base of control. As for dehumanizing the enemy, this has to do with proper education. Killing your enemy has nothing to do wtih dehumanizing anything. Ever been in a fist fight? Did you actually dehumanize him? See him less than human? Army National Guard Reservists in Abu-Ghraib dehumanized people, not an enemy. That band of unprofessional misfits had nothing to do with fighting anything.

    On the professional level, many of our soldiers and Marines spent years not able to identify what our enemy was. Some still can't. All of our enemy is Muslim, yet the vast majority of Muslims are not our enemy.


    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    And I just want to say I've really appreciated most all of what you've posted - even if occasionally (though not often), we've disagreed.
    Well, I tend to work my way into have very bold opinions.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  9. #69
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    When you attack a country that has severe internal problems to start with, you don't take out their military or police. Those must remain in place to keep the peace once the initial fight is over.
    Nothing tells a people that you are there to help them than telling them that the organized band of torturers and rapists in their town are still in charge.


    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    You just use smart bombs and cruise missles to take out their ability to wage war with anything larger than hand held weapons. That way they are at a minimum threat to us.
    Then, meet with the military leaders and have them "govern" until a civilian govt can be formed, if that is even necessary.

    Boots on the ground are just targets, especially in places like the middle east. They may hate each other, but one thing they will have in common, they hate occupiers more.
    This is a variation of Cold War prescription that is long dead. Instead of dropping in a handy dandy dictator to do our bidding we just turn to bombing them out and crossing our fingers? If the goal is regime change for the positive, boots on the ground is a demand. Otherwise we simply continue the cycle. After European colonialism and Cold War dictator support, a temporary occupation to place them on the path they want is necessary. Of course, I don't condone "nation building" across the world, but we made Iraq our business the moment we surrendered total victory during the Gulf War.

    Suggesting that boots on the gound are mere targets is near sighted and extremely Washingtonian. Rumsfeld felt that technology alone would win our future wars. This is why he insisted that "Shock and Awe" would pave the path to the bare minimum of troops waltzing into Baghdad to a surrendering crowd and that democracy was merely a magical speech away. Iraq proved that after thousands of years of warfare across the globe, its nature can't be changed. Rumsfeld was wrong. It was the lack of boots on the ground that emboldened an enemy that convinced itself that it could win. Too many Iraqi civilians and our own military personnel gave their lives to prove this ideology wrong. Without a saturation of boots on the ground, they never felt defeated. Their will to fight was never threatened.
    Last edited by MSgt; 09-06-10 at 07:03 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #70
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Army, mostly because I was in the army. I feel that at least the military ranks in general should be streamlined. Ranks in one branch are not the same as another another branch. For example a caption in the army is a o-3 while a capitain in the nay is a o-6 while in the army a O-6 is a Colonel while a sergeant in the army is a E-5 and and sergeant in the airforce is a E-4.
    While a Captain in the Army may be an O-3 and a Captain in the Navy is an O-6, an O-6 Navy Captain has about the same skills and amount of experience as an O-6 Army Colonel, even if it may be in different areas.

    The name of the rank means very little. The level of the rank (O-1, O-2, O-3, etc.) is what's important.

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •