• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US special forces 'fought Niger ambush alone after local troops fled'

MSgt said:
This comes nowhere near the issue. A soldier's score is good for 24 months for promotion. Marines must qual every year and at a very high standard from distances up to 500 yards on iron sights. Being proficient as possible with your weapon (Expert) should be more than just hoping whatever your score was 23 months ago is good enough for promotion. This is that difference in culture I am trying to explain to you.



The Army, in this very article, explained this away as a product of deployments. But, Marines deploy too. There are no "gaps" in marksmanship, because infantry skills throughout the Marine Corps is expressed as being as important as filing a record or programming a radio. But this issue isn't just about sitting on a rifle range. It's about routine training with crew served weapons in the field, away from primary MOS. It's about routine patrolling and security exercises when on field ops. It's about routine comms courses in and out of the field. It's about creating a culture that understands that "every Marine a rifleman" means that ever Marine could be in a patrol along side a Grunt tomorrow or within a security detachment; and no amount of filing or mechanical know how is going to save his life or the lives of those in the patrol around him.




And this would be the entire problem here. You don't understand the slogan because you see things only through the Army culture you experienced. Our branch prides resonates in all of us, but there comes a point where we have to separate our pride from the reality of things. "Every Marine a rifleman" is not supposed to mean that every Marine is an 0311. It means that at any given time, all Marines must be able to perform next to the 0311. If he can't, then he simply sucks at being a Marine. There is no "oh, he's just admin" when it comes to needing a QRF. He needs to know how to operate a crew served weapon. He needs to know how to conduct himself on patrol. He needs to know that silly little things like body armor and his rifle are the most important thing to him when deployed.

Let me ask you...why do you think that the Marine Corps, with its full support system mixed among the infantry units of one division, spear headed through central and populated Iraq, while the Army with its vast infantry was relegated to the west in the open desert?
Click to expand...
And this is another example of you buying your own hype. I have worked with a number of Marine units that were clueless on tactical matters. Ones that couldn’t shoot worth a dam and had no idea how to do any skill level one soldering tasks like break contact or react to contact.
The problem is you believe the hype over actual reality.
 
braindrain said:
And this is another example of you buying your own hype. I have worked with a number of Marine units that were clueless on tactical matters. Ones that couldn’t shoot worth a dam and had no idea how to do any skill level one soldering tasks like break contact or react to contact.
The problem is you believe the hype over actual reality.
Click to expand...

Comparing Marine and Army wee wee's is getting old.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Comparing Marine and Army wee wee's is getting old.
Click to expand...

Isn't it obvious? USN must have the biggest balls because the Navy is full of seamen.



(I admit to bias as a navy wife)
 
JANFU said:
From the link
Previous reports had the Soldier not wearing body armor and a lack of heavy weapons.
Questions I have if so are why they did not- why the delay in calling for assistance- the Mirages could /would not fire?? Later a chopper with French troops arrived. What and why was this delayed? They waited an hours to request assistance?? This delay resulted in French troops arriving at least 2 hours later
As to the Niger troops deserting, Officer(s) on the ground should have known if the troops are/were reliable.
Why did the Troops not have the capability to ID enemy forces?



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...niger-desperately-called-for-help-sources-say
Click to expand...

Depending on exactly what the team was doing it would not really surprise me if the team didn’t have body armor on. Some mission sets, with recon being one of them, body armor can be more of a hindrance then an asset. On more then a few occasions in Afghanistan my team wouldn’t wear body armor. One of the benefits of being in Special Operations is having the flexibility to tailor your equipment and tactics to the mission at hand.

Stating that the officers on the ground should have been able to tell if the troops were reliable simply shows you really don’t know to much about the topic at hand. First in Special Forces the NCOs on the team work much more hand in hand then the CPT does so if anyone would have known it would have been them. Second leading untested foreign troops into combat is always a chance. Sometimes you may have suspicions one way or the other but very rarely can one actually know. That’s simply reality. Finally when working with foreign troops you as the team on the ground really don’t get a say on who you work with. Niger is not the US so if we want them to work with us then you generally have to take what you can get. It is not up to a US ODA to decide what troops get to serve in the Nigerian unit they were working.

You and I may not like those realities but that’s the real world.
 
MSgt said:
Oh, it's very pertinent if it is true. It would go to state of mind, culture, and how one presents himself as a soft target.
Click to expand...
You have zero idea what you are talking about. It says nothing about culture or state of mind and it certainly doesn’t present anyone as a soft target.

I have worked with both Force Recon and MARSOC guys that didn’t wear body armor on occasion. Does that mean there is a problem with Marine culture and they are soft targets.

You should let go of some of your hate of the Army and stick to talking about things you understand.
 
braindrain said:
Depending on exactly what the team was doing it would not really surprise me if the team didn’t have body armor on. Some mission sets, with recon being one of them, body armor can be more of a hindrance then an asset. On more then a few occasions in Afghanistan my team wouldn’t wear body armor. One of the benefits of being in Special Operations is having the flexibility to tailor your equipment and tactics to the mission at hand.

Stating that the officers on the ground should have been able to tell if the troops were reliable simply shows you really don’t know to much about the topic at hand. First in Special Forces the NCOs on the team work much more hand in hand then the CPT does so if anyone would have known it would have been them. Second leading untested foreign troops into combat is always a chance. Sometimes you may have suspicions one way or the other but very rarely can one actually know. That’s simply reality. Finally when working with foreign troops you as the team on the ground really don’t get a say on who you work with. Niger is not the US so if we want them to work with us then you generally have to take what you can get. It is not up to a US ODA to decide what troops get to serve in the Nigerian unit they were working.

You and I may not like those realities but that’s the real world.
Click to expand...

And if leadership at the Officer /Snr NCO level in that unit was lacking the point about reliability of Niger troops I raised may very well be correct.
It was noted in Iraq and AStan.
No one knows as of yet how well trained the Niger troops were and how battle tested they were.
Next as to equipment carried, would that not be decided at a higher level as to what was the min reuqired?
from what we gather it was a reasonable amount of US/Niger troops and were heavy weapons a requirement?
Were they available?

We do not know how long the US teams were working with these troops.

So till we know more we can only guess at the worst.
I take it the abrev CPT is?? I am a tad unfamiliar with US military terminology.
 
pillars said:
That he volunteered to work with special forces. He was a mechanic with no combat experience attached to a special forces unit. I have seen zero evidence that he signed up to be anything besides a mechanic.
Click to expand...

Ma'am. All four deceased were members of Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA) of 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne) at Fort Bragg. No simple grunt mechanic travels with SOF tabbed operators (Green Berets).

You have to understand that every operator in SFG units has multiple skill-sets.
 
braindrain said:
You have zero idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I believe I already shut you down in regards to your denials, by using the Army voices themselves. Were you less fragile about looking at the realities of what my argument was then and is now, you might be able to climb out of your blind pride garbage and contribute.
 
Last edited:
braindrain said:
Depending on exactly what the team was doing it would not really surprise me if the team didn’t have body armor on. Some mission sets, with recon being one of them, body armor can be more of a hindrance then an asset. On more then a few occasions in Afghanistan my team wouldn’t wear body armor. One of the benefits of being in Special Operations is having the flexibility to tailor your equipment and tactics to the mission at hand.

Stating that the officers on the ground should have been able to tell if the troops were reliable simply shows you really don’t know to much about the topic at hand. First in Special Forces the NCOs on the team work much more hand in hand then the CPT does so if anyone would have known it would have been them. Second leading untested foreign troops into combat is always a chance. Sometimes you may have suspicions one way or the other but very rarely can one actually know. That’s simply reality. Finally when working with foreign troops you as the team on the ground really don’t get a say on who you work with. Niger is not the US so if we want them to work with us then you generally have to take what you can get. It is not up to a US ODA to decide what troops get to serve in the Nigerian unit they were working.

You and I may not like those realities but that’s the real world.
Click to expand...

First, this ambush occurred while they were in convoy. There was no reason not to have their body armor on (if that is the fact). If they weren't wearing their body armor, then it was just more of the same crap everybody saw in 2003 and 2004 from Army units on convoy. This was not a fast building clear during an advance, where the standard body armor for infantry may be cumbersome. And wouldn't Green Berets have plate carriers anyway? Marine special units have them. I wore a plate carrier for twelve months on my ETT and I was a Comm Chief acting as the enlisted team leader and Operations Chief (not a Grunt). Certainly the Army has plate carriers for their SF personnel who are largely Grunts. Plate Carriers are not the type of armor that one would need to drop. And there is never an excuse for not wearing body armor and helmets while on convoy. Not doing so is lazy and it makes you a SOFT TARGET.

Second, why do you always feel the need to tell people that they just "don't know what they are talking about" when the conversation becomes uncomfortable? Also, are any soldiers not in the "Special Forces" or "Special Operations" anymore? It seems that all of you boast "special" credentials and that you and you alone define the entire Army (even with ranking Army personnel contradicting you, eh?).
 
Last edited:
JANFU said:
And if leadership at the Officer /Snr NCO level in that unit was lacking the point about reliability of Niger troops I raised may very well be correct.
It was noted in Iraq and AStan.
No one knows as of yet how well trained the Niger troops were and how battle tested they were.
Next as to equipment carried, would that not be decided at a higher level as to what was the min reuqired?
from what we gather it was a reasonable amount of US/Niger troops and were heavy weapons a requirement?
Were they available?

We do not know how long the US teams were working with these troops.

So till we know more we can only guess at the worst.
I take it the abrev CPT is?? I am a tad unfamiliar with US military terminology.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. Just like in Iraq or Afghanistan it is not up to the US on who serves in the military of foreign countries and it for sure not up to ODAs on what unit they get to work with. If these units were well trained and reliable then we would t need to be working with them. And many times a unit can have decent training and seem to be reliable and a well executed ambush can break their resolve. That’s just how the real world works.

I have never once while conducting any mission had higher even suggest what equipment to take with us let alone order it. Micromanagement like that defeats the entire purpose of having nothing but NCOs on an ODA. That is simply not how things work and not should they.

Yes CPT is the abbreviation for captain and he is the team leader on an ODA. And frankly it’s not even his job to determine what equipment the team takes out. CPTs in SF are responsible for decisions that are up and out. The senior NCOs on teams deal with things like that under the supervision of the E8 team SGT. If one of my team leaders tried to tell me what weapon system to take on a patrol I would tell him to stay in his own lane and my Team SGT would back me up.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Ma'am. All four deceased were members of Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA) of 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne) at Fort Bragg. No simple grunt mechanic travels with SOF tabbed operators (Green Berets).

You have to understand that every operator in SFG units has multiple skill-sets.
Click to expand...

Actually only two were members of an ODA. The other two were attachments. Only people with 18 series MOS can be assigned to an ODA and there are no 18 series that are mechanics or Chem guys. The 18 series people are 18B weapons, 18C engineer, 18D medic, 18E commo, 18F intel, 18Z team SGT, 18A officer and 180A Warrant. Usually if an attachment is going to be with a team the do the predeployment train up with the team but they are not Special Forces Soldiers.

Not that any of that makes their deaths any less tragic but just wanted to clear that up.
 
MSgt said:
I believe I already shut you down in regards to your denials, by using the Army voices themselves. Were you less fragile about looking at the realities of what my argument was then and is now, you might be able to climb out of your blind pride garbage and contribute.
Click to expand...
You have not shut anything down expect maybe in your own mind. In fact the only thing you have proved is that you don’t understand how the military enlisted rank system works. Which is very surprising coming from someone who claims to be a former Marine MSGT.

Well that and prove you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
braindrain said:
...you have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

See what I mean? It's like a default cozy for you. It's a cliche that some of you soldiers have this need to shut your eyes and block your ears (even with Army SgtMajs and Generals agreeing).
 
MSgt said:
First, this ambush occurred while they were in convoy. There was no reason not to have their body armor on (if that is the fact). If they weren't wearing their body armor, then it was just more of the same crap everybody saw in 2003 and 2004 from Army units on convoy. This was not a fast building clear during an advance, where the standard body armor for infantry may be cumbersome. And wouldn't Green Berets have plate carriers anyway? Marine special units have them. I wore a plate carrier for twelve months on my ETT and I was a Comm Chief acting as the enlisted team leader and Operations Chief (not a Grunt). Certainly the Army has plate carriers for their SF personnel who are largely Grunts. Plate Carriers are not the type of armor that one would need to drop. And there is never an excuse for not wearing body armor and helmets while on convoy. Not doing so is lazy and it makes you a SOFT TARGET.

Second, why do you always feel the need to tell people that they just "don't know what they are talking about" when the conversation becomes uncomfortable? Also, are any soldiers not in the "Special Forces" or "Special Operations" anymore? It seems that all of you boast "special" credentials and that you and you alone define the entire Army (even with ranking Army personnel contradicting you, eh?).
Click to expand...

I don’t know the details of this particular raid enough to decide if wearing body armor was or was not appropriate in this instance and neither do you. The difference is you are trying to pretend you do.

I only tell people that they don’t know what they are talking about when they clearly don’t. If you don’t like hearing it then stop talking about things you have no idea about.

It is not me that defines that what I do is Special Forces. That is the US Army after I graduate the Q course. And please quote me as saying anyone else here is special or in special operations or simply stop making crap up. And what Soldier is contradicting me. Be specific.
 
MSgt said:
See what I mean? It's like a default cozy for you. It's a cliche that some of you soldiers have this need to shut your eyes and block your ears (even with Army SgtMajs and Generals agreeing).
Click to expand...
Don’t like it then stop talking about things you are clueless on and there we be no need for me to say it. But until that happens I will continue to point it out.
 
braindrain said:
I don’t know the details of this particular raid enough to decide if wearing body armor was or was not appropriate...
Click to expand...

You know plenty enough. They were in convoy. Thus, no reason to not have body armor or helmets on. Perhaps this nonchalance with body armor and helmets and whether or not they should wear it while riding in vehicles and in turrets is why the Army was synonymous for being a soft target in Iraq.

braindrain said:
It is not me that defines that what I do is Special Forces. That is the US Army after I graduate the Q course. And please quote me as saying anyone else here is special or in special operations or simply stop making crap up. And what Soldier is contradicting me. Be specific.
Click to expand...

We already did that when I presented you Army Sergeants Major and Generals confirming the institutional discipline problem in the Army that they are trying to correct. Your reply was to continue spouting "nu-uh" because you embrace a personal perspective of the Army that relies entirely on your little piece of it. For example, I never "pinned" anybody. But I know that this was a hazing culture within the Marine Corps for almost two decades before being forced to address it in the mid-1990s. But in accordance to my personal experience...it never happened and this unprofessional, frat-boy culture never existed. I would be very wrong.

And I do not challenge you for who you say you are. Only a douche with decide to default to "who you claim to be" simply because somebody has injured their blind branch pride.

It was just a question. It seems that the Army "Special Forces" is a million-man strong anymore. Just about every soldier here appears to be "special" within the Army. Makes the idea of the Special Forces less special, doesn't it? I mean here here we are actually debating on whether or not wearing body armor while on convoy is necessary. I would think the lot of you would have learned from the IED action in Iraq. Anyway, I've been waiting for some of the "special" here to start declaring the time when they got into a tank and dueled against a Soviet Hind. Or jumped on their motorcycle and fired rockets at an enemy combatant.
 
braindrain said:
Don’t like it then stop talking about things you are clueless on and there we be no need for me to say it. But until that happens I will continue to point it out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what do Army Sergeants Majors and Army Generals and the presented history of the Army know about the Army's discipline problem next to braindrain. You, dear solider, are exactly why the problem persists.
 
MSgt said:
You know plenty enough. They were in convoy. Thus, no reason to not have body armor or helmets on. Perhaps this nonchalance with body armor and helmets and whether or not they should wear it while riding in vehicles and in turrets is why the Army was synonymous for being a soft target in Iraq.



We already did that when I presented you Army Sergeants Major and Generals confirming the institutional discipline problem in the Army that they are trying to correct. Your reply was to continue spouting "nu-uh" because you embrace a personal perspective of the Army that relies entirely on your little piece of it. For example, I never "pinned" anybody. But I know that this was a hazing culture within the Marine Corps for almost two decades before being forced to address it in the mid-1990s. But in accordance to my personal experience...it never happened and this unprofessional, frat-boy culture never existed. I would be very wrong.

And I do not challenge you for who you say you are. Only a douche with decide to default to "who you claim to be" simply because somebody has injured their blind branch pride.

It was just a question. It seems that the Army "Special Forces" is a million-man strong anymore. Just about every soldier here appears to be "special" within the Army. Makes the idea of the Special Forces less special, doesn't it? I mean here here we are actually debating on whether or not wearing body armor while on convoy is necessary. I would think the lot of you would have learned from the IED action in Iraq. Anyway, I've been waiting for some of the "special" here to start declaring the time when they got into a tank and dueled against a Soviet Hind. Or jumped on their motorcycle and fired rockets at an enemy combatant.
Click to expand...


And once again we both know you can’t quote me denying that the Army has problems. While I can find quotes of m saying that the Army does have problems with discipline being one of them. You are simply unable to comprehend what you read and to dishonest to admit when you are wrong. So no you can’t point out where a Soldier is contradicting me on what we are talking about. This is just you doing what you do best and being dishonest.

And I fully believed you were who you claim to be right up to the point where you demonstrated that you don’t understand enlisted rank structure. Something very hard to believe from an actual former Marine MSGT.


Funny you keep claiming that there are multiple Soldiers claiming to be special here but yet I have yet to see it. Is this simple just you making things up again. Besides this is rather funny coming from a Marine an entire organization that likes to pretend it is elite or that all its members are riflemen. Neither of which have any grounding in reality.
 
braindrain said:
And I fully believed you were who you claim to be right up to the point where you demonstrated that you don’t understand enlisted rank structure. Something very hard to believe from an actual former Marine MSGT.
Click to expand...

Um...sure. I don't care if you believe me or not. But how fragile must one's pride in branch be, right?

braindrain said:
Funny you keep claiming that there are multiple Soldiers claiming to be special here but yet I have yet to see it. Is this simple just you making things up again. Besides this is rather funny coming from a Marine an entire organization that likes to pretend it is elite or that all its members are riflemen. Neither of which have any grounding in reality.
Click to expand...

The whole thread is full of "special" Army mens. Your misplaced branch pride is why you behave so poorly and are compelled to dismiss cold hard facts as "lies." Work on that disorganized tendency to tantrum and try to represent your branch with more professionalism. You were an officer. I'm sure you can muster some up from somewhere.
 
Last edited:
braindrain said:
You have not shut anything down expect maybe in your own mind. In fact the only thing you have proved is that you don’t understand how the military enlisted rank system works. Which is very surprising coming from someone who claims to be a former Marine MSGT.

Well that and prove you have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

But I am curious about why you keep needing this to be a part of you repertoire. Seems pointlessly desperate. What are you even talking about?

And it is a very sad thing that in my four year absence from this site, the conservatives have become quite extreme; and the military members have become the most nasty to each other as they delve into an ignorant bliss about matters. Who needs the civilians disrespecting, challenging identity, and ridiculing the military crowd when we have braindrain and his lot lashing about from within, right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom