An interesting, if disturbing, post from Phil Carter of Intel Dump; the Army is deploying the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment to Iraq. This regiment usually serves as the opposition force in training exercises intended to toughen new soldiers. He links to this LA Times article, but comments:
The article misses the most important point: deploying the OPFOR is like eating your seed corn. This unit is responsible for training other units and raising their level of expertise and combat readiness. The 11th ACR is being replaced by a National Guard unit. That’s like replacing the Dodgers with a high school baseball team. Sure, they can both play baseball and wear the uniform — but one is a whole lot more proficient and experienced at its job. The OPFOR has a reputation as a tough enemy, and that’s a good thing because it forces units training at the NTC to become better themselves. By replacing this unit with National Guard troops, the Army has hurt its ability to produce good units for Iraq in the future. Suffice to say, National Guard and active units that go through Fort Irwin aren’t going to get the same tough experience they would have with the Blackhorse regiment as OPFOR — and that means they’ll be less ready for combat when they get to Iraq. This is a desperation measure, and I think the Army will come to regret it.
Remind me again about how the best way to ensure we don’t have a draft is to vote for Bush?
{ 17 comments }
Jack Lecou 10.18.04 at 10:49 am
It’s perfectly logical.
It seems evident that Bush will soon be sending all the drill sergeants, etc., to Iraq. Naturally there cannot be a draft if no one is there to run the boot camps…
Sandriana 10.18.04 at 10:51 am
The US has also requested that British troops be mobilised to fill in for US troops south of Baghdad, as the US troops prepare for a final assault on Faluja. Presumably this assault is also the reason for the mobilisation of the 11th Armored Cavalry.
It’s quite obviously a political move: GWB is due to make a “major” address on terrorism/the war this week, and this planned action falls neatly into his election timescale. (Either that, or he will announce that OBL has “suddenly” turned up)
I can’t begin to describe how strongly I feel about our troops being used by the US to further their own domestic partisan political agenda, The fact that Blair hasn’t even had the courtesy to inform Parliament that he is about to potentially have our soldiers killed to advance the Republican election campaign… well, words can’t describe how angry that makes me. It’s cynical, immorral and just downright heartless.
How many more UK soldiers have to die pointlessly in an illegal war to prop up George Bush?
Brett Bellmore 10.18.04 at 11:07 am
“This regiment usually serves as the opposition force in training exercises intended to toughen new soldiers.”
“Usually”, as in during peacetime, perhaps? (Which this isn’t.) I suspect that if they were always deployed in that capacity, you’d have said as much.
Though I will grant you that one of my chief complaints against Bush is that he didn’t respond to 9-11 by increasing the size of our armed forces. If he had, this move wouldn’t have been necessary, we’d have plenty of troops by now.
Only one candidate out there thinks it’s at all plausible that we might need a draft, and that same candidate has come out for manditory “national service”, so we know he doesn’t have any real objection to conscripting a whole generation. I think that pretty much settles the matter of who’d bring back the draft: Kerry.
PaulW 10.18.04 at 11:36 am
Perhaps all the paraplegics who are going to leap out of their wheelchairs during a Kerry/Edwards Administration will show their gratitude by enlisting, thus making a draft unnecessary.
jet 10.18.04 at 12:56 pm
Silly wabbits, jumping to conclusions is for kids.
You know what? I bet if we dug down real deep, looked real hard, we might, just maybe, be able to find some battle hardened soldiers fresh out of a years worth of combat, much more familiar with the enemy’s tactics than the 11th.
Heck, maybe the 11th was being deployed so that it could get some first hand knowledge of the enemy’s tactics.
But keep shouting “D-R-A-F-T” from the rooftops, I’m sure someone will be convinced with that one word arguement. Heck, my cousin was convinced 12 months ago. Just what every 17 year old needs, a liberal lie eating a hole in his stomach.
This draft thing just convinces me that most are retards (for being swayed), and the people spinning the retards are the biggest assholes since the French invented mimes.
AlanB. 10.18.04 at 1:33 pm
Belle, you seem to be misreading the Bush quote you link to. He does not say that voting for him means there will be no draft, he says
“the best way to avoid the draft is to vote for me,”
Frankly I find it refreshing that after all his pronouncements on Middle Eastern politics, stem cells and the U.S. budget, all issues he knows nothing about and refuses to read his briefings on, he is at last offering an opinion on something he is a real expert on, avoiding the draft.
Assume that your goals regarding Nam were to avoid dying and maintain your political viability, which seems to be the case for all the major president types. From worst solution to best.
-Kerry-Could have died! Bad. What’s more, he would have died in a war started by the French, and you know that would come back to haunt him.
-Gore-Not likely to die, but was in Nam, so who knows. Also pussy assignment of reporter looks bad.
Dole, Bush I-Get out of Nam free card, assuming those medals are not fakes.
Clinton-Managed the important thing, saving his tail, but that letter was not a good idea.
-Cheney-Managed the important thing, saving his tail. Better cover than Clinton.
-Kemp-Bad knee. Unable to avoid blitzing VC linebackers.
-Quayle-Not bad, but again a pussy assignment that people can make fun of.
-Bush II-Out of harm’s way and a fighter jock to boot. Cue the carrier!
jet 10.18.04 at 1:40 pm
alanb,
That was hilarious.”Frankly I find it refreshing that after all his pronouncements on Middle Eastern politics, stem cells and the U.S. budget, all issues he knows nothing about and refuses to read his briefings on, he is at last offering an opinion on something he is a real expert on, avoiding the draft.”…Great stuff.
asg 10.18.04 at 1:44 pm
Just as a historical note, it was common practice in WWII for the U.S. to rotate its experienced units in and out of the main theaters of war. This is in contrast to the Japanese, who always used only their most experienced troops in the most dangerous fronts (thereby ensuring that, while they’d be a match for anyone in those battles, they’d get worn down and lose most of their elite forces when fighting a numerically superior foe), and the Soviets, whose system was designed around maximizing raw conscripts’ immediate exposure to combat.
Sebastian Holsclaw 10.18.04 at 4:54 pm
Even if all your suppositions were correct, we still wouldn’t need a draft. We are turning away people right now. We could return to 1991 troop levels (which were considered sufficient to fight the USSR) without much effort. We would have to authorize an increase in troop levels, increase pay somewhat and problem solved.
It would be expensive, but far better than a draft.
Andrew Brown 10.18.04 at 5:05 pm
It’s my understanding that the real opposition to the draft comes form the post-Vietnam army. The troops there now may be increasingly disaffected and disgruntled. But they are in some sense volunteers. A conscript army sent to fight a guerilla war for reasons it can’t believe in is not a good instrument of policy
Nabakov 10.18.04 at 6:35 pm
“authorize an increase in troop levels, increase pay somewhat and problem solved”
And the money comes from where? Surely not from a Government that’s now resorted to raiding its own employee pension funds.
Dan Hardie 10.18.04 at 7:15 pm
On the basic issue of sending the Blackhorse to Iraq: when I first heard of this I thought it would actually be an excellent idea, giving the US Army’s biggest training OPFOR first-hand combat experience to pass on to future trainees, *as long as* it was temporarily replaced at the National Training Centre by a really good, tough unit who could continue to function as a really first-rate ‘enemy’. If, say, they were replaced by one of the veteran regiments from the 101st Airborne (really Air Assault) or from one of the Mech Infantry Divisions which have served in Iraq, then there would be nothing wrong at all with such a policy. The fact that the Blackhorse are being replaced by a National Guard unit just can’t be justified.
The whole point of having a permanent OPFOR was that there would be an infantry unit schooled up to the highest standards constantly ‘fighting’ other US units as the ‘enemy’, and hence that those units would learn potentially fatal lessons at Fort Irwin, not on the battlefield. I’m sorry but a National Guard brigade will be too busy learning, especially in its first few months, to be able to teach its ‘opponents’ all that much.
This is a disgraceful thing to do.
Dan Hardie 10.18.04 at 7:25 pm
‘We are turning away people right now.’
Sebastian, please provide one well-sourced article providing evidence that backs that claim. As a near-obsessive reader of the WaPo and NYT’s military coverage, not to mention the (pretty right-wing, for the most part) stuff by veterans on Soldiers for the Truth, I have read no articles indicating that recruiting is getting easier for the US Armed forces. I’ll reiterate what I said on Brad DeLong’s website: the US Army and USMC ran into severe personnel problems in 1967, before the Tet Offensive, because the Senior NCOs and Warrant Officers in most combat units realised that they were looking at a combat tour of Vietnam every 2-3 years, had already done one or two in most cases, and started to get out in large numbers. I think you were in the military, weren’t you, Sebastian? If so, I’m sure you’d agree that Senior NCOs and Warrant Officers are the ‘institutional memory’ of the military, the guys who are largely responsible for training, discipline and tactical leadership. If they start to go, even if recruitment and retention of other ranks holds up, military units suffer disproportionately.
This isn’t ‘Gotcha’- Sebastian is someone I respect, when he’s not accusing John Quiggin of being responsible for Najaf. It’s just that, by my calculations, most large US Army combat units will have now served or be serving their second tour of Iraq. When SNCOs have a third tour to look forward to, probably around the autumn (‘fall’) of 2005, I would not be at all surprised to see a lot of them go. SNCOs are older than private soldiers and they have families, after all. And when that happens, the US Army and Marines will have problems: not as many as in Vietnam, so long as they maintain an all-volunteer force, but problems none the less.
Dan Hardie 10.18.04 at 7:30 pm
Sorry, just to clarify for Seb: I have read no articles stating that the US Army/USMC are ‘turning away’ qualified recruits, and plenty of articles stating that there is anecdotal evidence that recruting for the National Guard is dropping. I know people have problems with Hackworth, but he knows the military and there are a lot of contributors to the SFTT site, most of them ex- or serving-but-anonymous military.
Adam Kotsko 10.18.04 at 7:35 pm
It’s weird, but when Bush says, “My opponent is the one talking about the draft,” Bush himself is, in effect, talking about a draft.
Also, re: alanb’s comment — I’m pretty sure that right-wing orthodoxy at the present moment is that the Vietnam war wasn’t as bad as it was made out to be and that people protesting it destroyed the very soul of our nation. But I think they’d be better off going with the “French started it” angle and joining the mainstream of American opinion in believing the Vietnam war to be a horrible mistake.
Thus, when John Kerry complains that Bush isn’t consulting allies, Bush could say, “Why would we want to consult the French? They’re the ones who got us involved in Vietnam!” Then the universe would explode from irony overload.
jeff 10.18.04 at 11:06 pm
It’s clear: if you don’t want a draft, DON’T VOTE FOR RANGEL!
Gary Farber 10.19.04 at 12:39 am
Deploying the Blackhorse OpFor isn’t news. It was news back in May when it was, well, news, and lots of blogs discussed it (including Phil Carter’s excellent one), and pointed out the problematic aspects.
The only news now is that this is when they’re actually shipping out, which isn’t more significant news than when they arrive.
I mean, not that I have any problem with renewed attention to this just before the election. Anything that stirs alarm is good. I’m just bemused to see it treated as if it were a surprise, and they suddenly were ordered out this week.
Sandriana says: “Presumably this assault is also the reason for the mobilisation of the 11th Armored Cavalry.”
No, of course not, that’s completely, um, not compatible with the faintest knowledge of the military works. They don’t suddenly pack up and move a training force that has been in place for over eleven years across the ocean on a week’s (or month’s) notice.
“It’s quite obviously a political move: GWB is due to make a “major†address on terrorism/the war this week, and this planned action falls neatly into his election timescale.”
It’s actually completely out-of-play with it. The major assault on Fallujah won’t come unti after the election for the completely obvious reason that sustaining a bunch of U.S. casualties is not typically a useful way to win votes. Sheesh!
Brett Bellmore says “‘Usually,’ as in during peacetime, perhaps? (Which this isn’t.) I suspect that if they were always deployed in that capacity, you’d have said as much.”
Eleven years. Or you could buy a clue of your own. This information is not a state secret.
On the flip side: “I think that pretty much settles the matter of who’d bring back the draft: Kerry.”
The idea that John Kerry, given his Vietnam experience and resultant opinions, is apt to bring back a draft absent being absolutely compelled to, is absolutely ludicrous. (I don’t believe George Bush wants to, either; it would be politically nearly suicidal, absent a nuclear attack or the equivalent; I also don’t believe that his belief in war as a solution, and circumstances less than a nuclear attack, might not conceivably leave him calling for one anyway, though I think the probability remains well in the minority at this time.)
Comments on this entry are closed.