Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Troops Demoralized?  
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2360 times:

There was quite a bit of discussion on this subject in another thread . . .

I think it warrants it's own thread, and further discussion.

Here's my initial contribution:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/7342740p-7254840c.html

"I can't say I was having fun, but deep down inside, I knew this is one of the greatest moments of my life," Frommer explained in an interview at his parents' South Anchorage home. "I felt good 'cause I had all my friends with me. I was just like, this is where I want to be."

Klaus, I'm not picking on you, however, it was your contention in the other thread that US/UK troops are demoralized and exhausted. My contention is that you're correct, they are becoming exhausted - they are not demoralized. I immediately thought of you when I saw this in today's paper.



More  redflag  from the database:
US To Attack Iran In 2006 - "Der Spiegel" by Beaucaire 2005-12-23 19:25:44
US Election 2008: H. Clinton Vs. C. Rice? by Columba 2005-12-27 16:51:25
US Drivers And Tickets In Canada by FSPilot747 2006-01-09 02:32:14
What Does "Support The Troops" Mean? by Tbar220 2005-12-29 23:13:33
US Muslims Radiation Tested by QANTAS077 2005-12-24 07:08:21

110 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2344 times:

ANC - What the hell are you doing showing this crap!? Don't you know better? American troops are so disheartened they are begging to come home. They just don't understand. You see, over there, they can't get watch CNN, or ABC/NBC/CBS nightly news. If ONLY they had access to the New York Times! THEN they would know just how bad it is over there!!!!

The troops are so demoralized they're pracitically going AWOL. Obviously it is a major sign of combat stress when they talk utter nonsense such as your article. They're so shell shocked they don't know what they're even saying. That is why we need to ignore them. Yup, ignore them. After all, what the hell does a grunt know compared to an award winning TV/Newspaper journalist!?

ANC, I thought you knew better.  Wink

Anyway, I'm off to work. Good day y'all!

-UH60


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2338 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter):
they are not demoralized.

 checkmark 

I agree completely. Our troops are NOT demoralized as a whole. The problem is that you have one or two young ones that come home and get the media attention with their negative perspectives. Meanwhile, the rest of the population just assumes that those attitudes reflect the military as a whole.

Simply not true. Our troops couldn't be more solid in their strength and resolve than today. Those who fight this have either never served or never pay attention to anyone who has.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineTNboy From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 1131 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 2):
Those who fight this have either never served or never pay attention to anyone who has.

The comments I have heard from those who are serving in US forces, although limited, all seem to reflect what you say, Usnseallt82. I have worked in and with the media long enough to have little regard or respect for their ability to accurately convey the complete picture of anything more complex than a kitten stranded up a tree.
Bill



"...every aircraft is subtly different.."
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24936 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2317 times:

ANCflyer, I would have thought you were clever enough to work out by now that Klaus is a cheese eating, pink commie surrender monkey  Silly  stirthepot 


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter):
Klaus, I'm not picking on you, however, it was your contention in the other thread that US/UK troops are demoralized and exhausted. My contention is that you're correct, they are becoming exhausted - they are not demoralized. I immediately thought of you when I saw this in today's paper.

Okay, first of all let me apologize for not responding earlier. I initially put it off and then kind of lost track of this issue.

I actually never implied what you and others seemingly had the impression I did. My initial post was the following in the thread Has Bush Weakened Our Military?:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
I don't think the formal cuts of troop strength would necessarily be a problem.

Much, much larger problems are:

a) creating unnecessary wars without any sound cause or strategy which overload the otherwise adequately-sized military

b) cutting support from under the feet of soldiers and veterans

Much worse than a slightly undersized military is a demoralized and exhausted one...

It was actually not necessarily a claim about the current state of the troops; It was a general statement which is, I think, at the very least debatable.

Beyond that, however, the issue of "demoralized" merits some slightly deeper consideration than it has received up to this point.


On the surface of it, "troop morale" among the US soldiers deployed in Iraq appears somewhat strained but on the whole certainly still intact. But "morale" is not just the likelihood or improbability of open mutiny among the ranks as has been insinuated above and in other threads. That's too simple - and unrealistic.


In reality the issue of "morale" is a bit more complex; And open dissent is merely the extreme last indication of its ultimate failure.

"Closing the ranks" under external threat or criticism is a natural reflex in any halfway functioning community, with the military not being an exception. But it would be a mistake to confuse this reflex still functioning with everything still being fine. That is not what it means. It merely means that morale hasn't broken down completely.


The problem I see is that even the usually republican-voting US military community can't close their eyes before the inconsistencies between the mission statement and the actual reality they're facing, between the ideology ("bringing freedom and democracy", "they'll greet us with cheers and flowers") and the emerging evidence (Abu Ghraib, discussions about the "legality" of torture, the disappointment in the local population (to pick the best case reaction)).

When this kind of thing happens, your daily routine and your immediate challenges don't really change all that much, and that is usually where you keep motivating yourself; But when your leadership is continually making grand speeches which then fail to turn out to be true and you're left with the mess to clean up, you will at the very least start to compartmentalize your motivation, your loyalty and your faith in the greater mission.

You'll start making up internal excuses for some things, start ignoring others and will concentrate on just a subset of your initial mission.


Motivation and morale usually don't just vanish - they erode over time, with every new disappointment and with every promise broken.

I have no doubt that the prevailing attitude among any military is to "tough it out" when things get difficult; But the capacity of any human to re-charge one's motivation under the prevailing circumstances is still limited.

It will certainly take a lot to bring any halfway functioning military to the breaking point, but it's clearly headed into that direction - what's unknown right now is how far that point is still ahead.


We've frequently discussed the various unfortunate actions performed by US troops on the way, but I don't share the view that those were (are?) just accidental missteps by individual soldiers or officers.

There is overwhelming evidence all through history and all over the planet that you just have to create a certain set of circumstances and you'll see first a few, then more and ultimately most people turn into savages;

Sure, the ultimate responsibility will always be with the individual, but knowing the relationship between cause and effect it is simply not possible any more as a civilian society to rush into a conflict carelessly and emotionally, then to send one's military to do the actual dirty work and ultimately to wash one's collective hands of the gruesome results one didn't want to recognize when there still was a choice.


The abandonment of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq have been planned, cheered for and decided by civilians, explicitly against better judgment of several military experts (who subsequently turned out to be right). Now not just the civilian populations in both these countries have to suffer the consequences but also - and for the american population much closer to home - the US troops sent to execute a flawed strategy and to clean up the mess.

There will be severe repercussions both abroad, US domestic and for and among the troops involved. Had it been a fully justifiable and well-planned operation, it would be easier to deal with the fallout; But in fact it was neither.

As much as I'd personally gloat and cheer if GWB and his merry men were tarred, feathered and run out of Washington on a rail, that's ultimately irrelevant.

The essential question is if it will happen again - starting an aggression on pain, fear, hate, ideology instead of an actual look at the really existing evidence, risks and possible outcomes. This question is obviously most essential for british and american citizens and voters, but it is relevant for every decision that ultimately means to send people to kill other people. We civilians (including soldiers in their role as citizens) ultimately make the decision, but others will have to bear the consequences.

Do we live up to that responsibility?


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2252 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
The problem I see is that even the usually republican-voting US military community can't close their eyes before the inconsistencies between the mission statement and the actual reality they're facing, between the ideology ("bringing freedom and democracy", "they'll greet us with cheers and flowers") and the emerging evidence (Abu Ghraib, discussions about the "legality" of torture, the disappointment in the local population (to pick the best case reaction)).

I don't deny Abu Ghraib and the BS at Gitmo give great cause for concern. I don't think anyone - Republican or Democratic or otherwise - in the military. close their eyes to the difference between the ideology and the reality. I do maintain that - as I've said in the past - no one is getting the entire picture by simply watching the news and reading the papers. All the general public will see are the body counts and the occasional scandal . . . that was my point in posting this reference to this Alaskan soldier. It's not doctored.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
I have no doubt that the prevailing attitude among any military is to "tough it out" when things get difficult; But the capacity of any human to re-charge one's motivation under the prevailing circumstances is still limited.

Agreed, and I think the time is quickly approaching when we'll see the military say - "We're Exhausted". I know I damn sure would be . . . I thank my lucky stars I'm fortunate enough to be retired now.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
Had it been a fully justifiable and well-planned operation, it would be easier to deal with the fallout;

As for whether it was justifiable, that's going to remain debatable forever. As for the planning - the initial planning of the operation was brilliant . . . period. In every sense of the Operational Art - it was brilliant. Follow on planning and subsequent execution sucks.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
Do we live up to that responsibility?

I think we do . . . at least you and I for this brief moment in time - in that we discuss it - both the positives and negatives - and we make ourselves heard not just to the other members here - but I suspect, just like I do, other members - other citizens - make their opinions known to their govermnent representatives. We elected the leadership in this country (and they elected theirs in Britian) entrusting them to make the decisions on whether to go to war, whether to raise or lower taxes, make laws (etc, etc). We live up to our responsibility every time we go to a oting booth, write a letter to a government representative, etc.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
Okay, first of all let me apologize for not responding earlier. I initially put it off and then kind of lost track of this issue.

No worries . . . you have a life . . .  thumbsup 


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 2234 times:

I have't had a chance to talk to my brothers roommate who just got back from the sandbox last week.

So far the only story I have heard second-hand was that he thinks he might have broken his foot....When they first got there he had a habit of keeping the door of the humvee open by keeping his foot on the sill.

Then they got the uparmored ones...and the doors on that thing weight a couple hundred lbs more then the factory stock ones...Anyway he had to brake suddenly and the door slammed into his foot.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9367 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 2228 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 2):
The problem is that you have one or two young ones that come home and get the media attention with their negative perspectives.

Sure there is media attention, but there is also going to be feedback regarding military actions and services from close family members and friends. I would tend to think negative perspectives from these people would be more disheartening than anything they'd read in the paper, coming from the idea of pride and accompolishment that is supposed to be "earned" when one joins the armed forces.

I'm sure it has happened or maybe I'm just entirely off base. Just a thought.



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2214 times:

Quoting STLGph (Reply 8):
, but there is also going to be feedback regarding military actions and services from close family members and friends. I would tend to think negative perspectives from these people would be more disheartening than anything they'd read in the paper, coming from the idea of pride and accompolishment that is supposed to be "earned" when one joins the armed forces.

I'm sure it has happened or maybe I'm just entirely off base. Just a thought.

Not off base at all . . . in fact, I'd welcome honest feedback from Gis that have been there and done that. In m case, two brothers and two best friends. Ony Navy, one Air Force and two Army. In all cases, I have nothing but positive feedback . . .

Oh, of course, the war sucks, they're away from home, we need this and that, feedback - but on a bog picture scale, nothing but positive.

STl, you won't read about that in the Anchorage paper . . . it doesn't make news.

Now, have a car bombing tomorrow - that'll be on the front page. There in lies the error of the media's way.

And the uneducated - no offense Klaus, you're not among this group - being to think we're demoralized and losing the fight . . . utter  redflag 


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2197 times:

When you fight a hidden Enemy who knows where you are & you don't.
Who can strike using Civillians as props.
Who strikes & when you retaliate you kill Innocent civilians in the process due to confusion.
Its bound to hit your Moral.
We faced it in Kashmir until the Improvement came.The US troops are facing it in Iraq.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9367 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 9):
Not off base at all . . . in fact, I'd welcome honest feedback from Gis that have been there and done that. In m case, two brothers and two best friends. Ony Navy, one Air Force and two Army. In all cases, I have nothing but positive feedback . . .

Oh, of course, the war sucks, they're away from home, we need this and that, feedback - but on a bog picture scale, nothing but positive.

well keep in mind your case is one of just many many and many.

but not necessarily hearing it back from those who had been, but what if you were someone who had served overseas, came back, and had heard displeasuring comments from your girlfriend, boyfriend (!), mom, dad, etc. who disproved of the whole damn Iraq conflict. you have to admit, no matter how much the pride, it'd sting a little if words came from the right person.



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 6):
As for the planning - the initial planning of the operation was brilliant . . . period. In every sense of the Operational Art - it was brilliant. Follow on planning and subsequent execution sucks.

You have a basic problem in that an Army is fundementally meant to kill the enemy and break his country. That is it's basic purpose. It is best capable of fulfilling that purpose when given a target and unleashed. The concept of politics is alien to the military concept.

The initial operation was a success because it was precisely what the military was designed for. Invade Iraq. Sieze the enemy capital and major cities. Kill anyone who gets in the way.

But once politics reared its ugly head, the military is out of its element. Now they are supposed to prevent destruction and keep the piece, while a guerila force is trying to do the opposite. They are supposed to help build a government, when they are much better at bringing them down.

If there is an enemy base in Faluja, the military mind would say, "wipe it out". But politics demand that you cannot do that, forcing the military to go house-to house.

The military is based on rules and discipline. They wear uniforms ensuring that they can be identified. They must restrain themselves from breaking the laws of warfare. The enemy do not wear uniforms and respect no rules. If they did, the conflict would be over by the end of the week.

In summary, the military in Iraq is trying to do a job that it was not designed to do. It is like using a hammer to repair a watch. But in the finest tradition, they are dedicated to survive, adapt, and overcome their obstacles.

As far as moral is concerned, I see that re-enlistment levels are still very high, and that is the best indicator of all.


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2168 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 10):
Its bound to hit your Moral.

War is war.

Quoting STLGph (Reply 11):
you have to admit, no matter how much the pride, it'd sting a little if words came from the right person.

Yes, and I agree. The war may be hard as hell, but its nothing compared to not having the support of your family behind you or getting negative comments from them while you're fighting. This is why many divorces happen during wartime because the spouses weren't prepared for this. Then, the negative comments come and the relationship breaks down. Pair that up with having the service member deployed and you have the military's divorce statistics right there.

However, I don't think this is the morale we're talking about. I think we're looking at the morale troops have about the war and about our progress thus far. That morale, as Cfalk's next comment takes the words from my mouth, is very high right now because enlistment and commissioning levels are increasing. The Navy has way more officers than it needs and is still recruiting strong. People want to be involved in this fight and, like he said, those levels are prime indicators of what the true morale is.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
As far as moral is concerned, I see that re-enlistment levels are still very high, and that is the best indicator of all.

 checkmark  yes 

Couldn't have said it better myself.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineLHMARK From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2160 times:

ANCflyer's article illustrates the fellaciousness of the argument that popular opposition lowers the morale of troops in combat.

Since the war began, conservative pundits and vocal war supporters in the US have been decrying anti-war demonstrations, posters, bumper stickers and the like as damaging to troops' morale, and therefoire a potential boon for the enemy.

It's good to see that it takes more than reasonable and expected popular dissent to destroy the morale of American soldiers. I think everybody pretty much knew that all along, even the Coulters and O'Reilleys who espoused this false, malicious argument.



"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6816 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

If I were a soldier in Iraq and kept seeing the gross negligence and irresponsible spin-infested reporting of the war efforts by our media, I'd be pretty damn pissed off if not demoralized.

Further, if I kept hearing talking head bureaucrats talking about how they "support the troops but oppose the war" all while their seditious speech and actions undermine the morale and effort the troops are so strongly fighting FOR, I'd also be pissed off. Just because Murtha is a vet himself doesn't diminish the destructiveness of his ranting.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
You have a basic problem in that an Army is fundementally meant to kill the enemy and break his country.



Quoting Cfalk (Reply 12):
But once politics reared its ugly head, the military is out of its element. Now they are supposed to prevent destruction and keep the piece, while a guerila force is trying to do the opposite. They are supposed to help build a government, when they are much better at bringing them down.

Bingo- the military exists to kill people and break things.

Let's win the peace, get this country on its feet, stop the insurgents and get the hell out. Until then, the leftists should STFU. We're there, it doesn't matter WHY at this point, under what dubious circumstances or faulty intel (which the entire world and the loudest critics all believed), let's just get the damn job done already.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2140 times:

Quoting LHMARK (Reply 14):
Since the war began, conservative pundits and vocal war supporters in the US have been decrying anti-war demonstrations, posters, bumper stickers and the like as damaging to troops' morale, and therefoire a potential boon for the enemy.

It's good to see that it takes more than reasonable and expected popular dissent to destroy the morale of American soldiers. I think everybody pretty much knew that all along, even the Coulters and O'Reilleys who espoused this false, malicious argument.

Nice Spin. spin 

Really, My compliments.

I think all of those pundits also know that these demonstrations empower the enemy more then they bring our boys down.

And that is the danger lies.....the enemy watching news reports of anti-war demostators and thinking, My cause isn't hopeless



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2128 times:

Quoting Slider (Reply 15):
If I were a soldier in Iraq and kept seeing the gross negligence and irresponsible spin-infested reporting of the war efforts by our media, I'd be pretty damn pissed off if not demoralized.

You sound like you're already pissed off (if not demoralized), so how would being a soldier in Iraq change your view?

Quoting Slider (Reply 15):
Further, if I kept hearing talking head bureaucrats talking about how they "support the troops but oppose the war" all while their seditious speech and actions undermine the morale and effort the troops are so strongly fighting FOR, I'd also be pissed off. Just because Murtha is a vet himself doesn't diminish the destructiveness of his ranting.

I happen to support the troops. Then again, who doesn't? Isn't the whole "Support Our Troops!" bandwagon more about convincing others to be quiet rather than expressing an actual and identifiable viewpoint?

I do not, however, support almost anything this administration has done or tried to do. The only exception I can think of are the new restrictions affecting diesel fuel and emissions for off-road equipment. I assumed that Bush was probably going to be one of the worst presidents ever, but that didn't stop me from watching for any silver lining from his actions. Needless to say, I never really found any. In fact, most of his actions seem to reveal a deep-routed contempt of everything I stand for. Bush apparently wants the lives of our citizenry to be ever more transparent even while he works to make the workings of his government every more opaque. He is, quite frankly, among the most manipulative and hypocritical people I have ever had the misfortune of living under.

Quoting Slider (Reply 15):
Bingo- the military exists to kill people and break things.

So why is Bush trying to use it for nation building? One of the first things I knew about Bush was that he wasn't going to use our armed forces for nation building. How did I know this? Well, because he said so. So how did we end up doing just that? Bringing integrity back to the Whitehouse? Please.

Quoting Slider (Reply 15):
Let's win the peace, get this country on its feet, stop the insurgents and get the hell out. Until then, the leftists should STFU. We're there, it doesn't matter WHY at this point, under what dubious circumstances or faulty intel (which the entire world and the loudest critics all believed), let's just get the damn job done already.

Aren't the "leftists" the same folks who helped bring the right to vote to blacks and to women? If all they did was "STFU" whenever some right-winger told them to, well, wouldn't this country would be much worse off than it is now? The idea that only someone who gets the country into a mess can subsequently get it out again doesn't make any sense to me at all. IMO, we need new blood and a new viewpoint to undo the damage we've already done. "Staying the course" only makes sense when you're already on the right track, and we seem to have lost that direction long ago.



Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlineLHMARK From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2115 times:

Hey, I'm just saying the strongest invective against expressing anti-war sentiment has been proven invalid by Frommer and thousands of servicepeople like him. They don't sweat the fact that some people back home are calling for the war's end.

I admire that sense of purpose.



"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

 banghead   banghead   banghead   banghead 

Why are we still having this discussion?

This is probably going to come out the wrong way, but civilians can sit around all day and theorize on the level of moral among our troops... but with all due respect... you have no clue what you're talking about. They simply can't and they never will. It's not a bad thing, it's just the way it is.

Just as I cannot expertly and intelligently speak about a day-in-the-life of, oh say, a teacher; likewise, a civilian cannot truly speak about being a soldier. Especially since it's a job unlike any other.

War. - This is our very purpose! We don't put in countless hours of training and preparation because we're simply bored with nothing better to do, we train to be ready to put our skills to use. Sure, there were those who joined in the 90s because they wanted to see the world or get some college money, but those who did, and who didn't like the idea of deploying to war have all left by now. The rest of us joined/or remain in the service because we want to fight.

I honestly don't think a vast majority of civilians realize that. Sure war is extremely exhausting, but demoralizing? No, and here is why: The moment you start hating your job and the war destroys your morale... you're not going to re-enlist. (especially if it is a guarantee that you would be going back to the sandbox.)You are going to reach your ETS date, and take that uniform off for good. But that's not happening! Just the opposite - RECORD HIGH re-enlistment! We joined to fight, we're staying into fight, and we won't stop until the fighting is over.

I've said this already - but we don't complete the job to time, we complete the job to standard. We don't punch out when the clock says we can go, we punch out when the job has been completed.

It's called discipline. It's called duty. It's called responsibility. Three things, that if we had more of in society, people would realize how foolish and dishonorable it is to cut-and-run.

-UH60


User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2107 times:

Well, this guy certainly has no idea what it's like to be in the miliraty.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060110-034726-7752r

"When our soldiers hear politicians in Washington question the mission they are risking their lives to accomplish, it hurts their morale," Bush said.


User currently offlineBaylorairbear From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 49
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Thread starter):
US Troops Demoralized?

Not even close.

BAB wave 



I'm just skipping stones...
User currently offlineLogan22L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2100 times:

Quoting Baylorairbear (Reply 21):
Not even close.

Hey, Josh! Good to hear from you. How are things going?


User currently offlineBaylorAirBear From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 49
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2095 times:

Quoting Logan22L (Reply 22):
Hey, Josh! Good to hear from you. How are things going?

Hello, Logan! Things are great, except water quality  Wink I've been on r&r for a week, but today I'm heading back in country. Yeehaw! Three months to go and then I'll be done! Exclamation mark just because I can fuckers!

BAB



I'm just skipping stones...
User currently offlineLogan22L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2091 times:

Quoting BaylorAirBear (Reply 23):
Exclamation mark just because I can fuckers!

Hell yeah. You could get banned for 3 months and it wouldn't matter a bit.  Wink

Hang in there.


25 Post contains images Slider : Great post, UH60---thank you.
26 Lumberton : Well said, Cfalk. I was going to make this point, but decided to read all the thread first. Glad I did. The Army hasn't missed making its recruiting
27 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Believe me, I know this. I also know that I'm not alone - I know I'm not the only person around who has family, friends in a war zone and that they h
28 Itsjustme : I'm not sure I agree that it's the best indicator. Some are attributing the unprecedented cash bonuses being handed out to re-enlist as playing a sig
29 Lumberton : Did you read my post? You can google to verify. The recruitment level isn't "plummeting"; so far this year, the Army has made its goals. This good ne
30 Halls120 : Because there are many posters on Anet who have never served in the military and just don't comprehend the concepts of discipline, honor, and integri
31 Itsjustme : A USA Today article states recruitment has fallen 15%. Taking into account the military saying they are 6% over their projected goal for re-enlistmen
32 Post contains links Itsjustme : This article appears to contradict what you have posted. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...005-07-17-soldiers-re-enlist_x.htm
33 Post contains links MDorBust : Really? Would that be... this USA Today? http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...005-07-17-soldiers-re-enlist_x.htm Could just be me... but methinks yo
34 UH60FtRucker : Well first - $150,000 re-enlistment bonus!? What MOS is that?!? I sure hope they're not counting the aviation incentive pay as a bonus. ($1,000 extra
35 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Bingo, we have a winner . . . The gimme, gimme, gimme society today has no sense of responsibility towards their country or their family. Period. And
36 Itsjustme : It's actually the Army makeing (sic) the claim that soldiers are re-enlisting for the cash bonuses and a renewed interest in fighting terrorism (USA
37 LHMARK : That's probably a result of a peacetime sense of security. To quote The replacements' "Bastards of Young:" Willingness to claim us/we got no war to n
38 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Agreed, the complacency of peacetime can cause problems. . . and you're probably dead on LHMark . . . I don't think that it turned so much during the
39 LHMARK : well, if things continue for a couple more years, I daresay those tough-as-nails recruits will be back again.
40 Itsjustme : I don't understand how you can make a blanket statement like that. Any parent who stands in the way of their child...? I know some pretty immature 18
41 Post contains images Lumberton : Its amazing that we can read the same article and come away with a totally different perspective. The article talks about recruitment shortfalls for
42 Usnseallt82 : The lessons they will learn in the military will be of such importance throughout their lives that they cannot possibly pass the opportunity. The par
43 UH60FtRucker : Yes, a parent who stops their child from enlisting is, without a doubt, a jack-ass AND a bad parent. I encourage everyone to read the following artic
44 L-188 : Hey Hey Hey.......I went in in 91.
45 Post contains images ANCFlyer : There are, however, exceptions to every rule Sorry Dude! Present company excepted!
46 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : There damn well better be.
47 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : Well... I don't know... how "tough as nails" can any sailor be after the Navy's version of boot camp??? .... and plus, I thought squid were naturally
48 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : I'll admit.......our basic blows. But, try some of our 'other' areas.
49 Post contains images ANCFlyer : I wasn't going to go there . . . interservice peace keeping and all, but since you broke the ice . . .
50 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Ahh.........he speaks at last. Can't say I was surprised with this reaction. (go Westpoint )
51 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Blaaaahhh, bunch of misguided teenagers looking for a life . . . then getting brainwashed . . . You know us CSMs (MCPOs); sit, watch, listen and then
52 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Annapolis isn't much better. Swaggering all the way in.
53 Post contains images ANCFlyer : sTaggering maybe, I never swagger . . . been known to bounce off a wall or three . . .
54 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : That's what the chiefs say.
55 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Yeah, well, who besides an O-6+ ever argues with a CSM (MCPO)? And lives to tell the tale.
56 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : An Annapolis puke.
57 L-188 : Good flick. Right now I am watching a WWII training film titled Rear Gunner...Bugess Meredith and Ronald Reagan Star.........Guess which one is going
58 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : we're getting far off topic here... but I've worked with a ton of West Pointers, the av community seems to have more than many other fields. Anyway,
59 Post contains images Gilligan : I went through Ranger school with MA's. In the mountain camp, in an 11 man squad, I was the only non west pointer. Want to guess who got peered? At l
60 Post contains images ANCFlyer : In Germany, years back, I picked up a brand new Butter Bar Lieutenant . . . right out of Armor Officer Basic at Knox . . . and a West Point grad. He
61 UH60FtRucker : Great story. I think anyone who's spent time around new butter butter WP LTs can identify. I don't want to make this a trip down memory lane... but i
62 ANCFlyer : Glad it was that newbie Wobbly One in there with the "lieutenant" and not I. Would hate to see that Lieutenant try to explain how he fell down - five
63 Itsjustme : Touching story. Makes me wonder what Jamie Smith would have achieved had he not been killed at such a young age. We'll never know....will we?
64 Traindriver : UH60FtRucker you were doing so good until you knocked Navy boot-camp. I'm proud of my 2 mos. boot-camp up in Great Lakes back in '68. You got to cut u
65 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : Ugh. You totally missed the entire point. I've resigned myself to the knowledge that you're just too far out there in fantasy land to be reasoned wit
66 Itsjustme : "Fantasy land" being defined as what? Looking at the big picture rather than considering only one option? You seem to think the only choice an 18 yea
67 UH60FtRucker : You're dense as a bag of bricks. I didn't say the military was a person's only option. I didn't say that if you don't serve, then you've made the wro
68 Navymidn : Since you guys seem to be having a love fest knocking on officers, I have one question. In your experience, are the academy grads different from ROTC
69 ANCFlyer : In my experience - yes. I found that the Academy grads I served with (save 2) were generally more arrogant and more aloof than the ROTC or OCS office
70 Navymidn : Good to hear that you don't think all officers are like those LTs you've run into. One of my fears as a future officer, is that someday, these stories
71 UH60FtRucker : I've found that officers coming from OCS tend to be the most "squared away." But that's understandable, they're coming from years of prior service in
72 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Certainly you'll be talked about. We all are. The question is - what will be the context of the talk? I'm sure somewhere out there there's an E-7 sit
73 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Yes. Sometimes the difference is night and day. Some ROTC boys are just as arrogant, but you can tell that they had a life during college. The Academ
74 Post contains links MD-90 : This Marine pilot sounds rather demoralized: http://www.craigslist.com/about/best/wdc/118782492.html As I sit here I am still shaking. I can't take mu
75 Halls120 : In the Coast Guard, the situation is both the same and slightly different. A large portion of our OCS grads (the CG has no ROTC) were non-prior servi
76 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Sounds tired and scared . . . that's how he sounds. Sounds like he's venting. Soldiers need to do that . . . of course, you wouldn't know anything ab
77 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : What the f*ck point did that serve, huh? And people like you wonder why the majority of Americans think the morale is low. Look at the type of inform
78 Post contains links ANCFlyer : Here you go Navy - read this thread . . . . It will stand your hairs on end . . . Please note the author of the thread opener - that will in fact answ
79 Usnseallt82 : I remember that thread. Its nothing short of disgusting to see the people we protect speak out like this guy does. Absolutely pathetic. Making your p
80 Post contains links and images UH60FtRucker : I've just learned to ignore him. When I envision MD90, I picture one of thos crazy nuts, who has a big beard and long hair, dirty/tattered clothes, ho
81 Post contains images Keesje : I takes an oiled PR machine to send out thousands of young men to kill thousands of other young men far away for a not so clear purpose. Essential is
82 Halls120 : Whatever success I had in my 21+ years of active duty would never have happened but for two individuals - the Chief Boatswain's Mate and Quartermaste
83 ANCFlyer : Complete credit for my success to COL (R) Dick Ardisson and CSM Csaba L. Kofalvi . . . . The CSM particularly . . . I could go on and on about CSM Ko
84 Post contains images L-188 : Get back to the original subject. I don't think anybody that is on deployment from Bremerton, Whidbey Island, Lewis, McChord, Fairchild are feeling de
85 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : You ought to see a mortgage out of Whidbey.
86 L-188 : Actually now that I think about it, wasn't Whidbey Brac'd?
87 Itsjustme : Good to see you can have an adult-like debate with someone who has opposing views and not resort to childish, personal attacks on someone you "know"
88 Usnseallt82 : Nope. Brunswick was though, if we're on the P-3 topic.
89 Post contains links Usnseallt82 : I had to double check and make sure, but I was pretty sure it wasn't BRAC'd. It actually gained 173 civilian jobs while only putting out 34 military
90 Post contains links Confuscius : It's not demoralized, but... Deployments stretching army, study finds By ROBERT BURNS AP MILITARY WRITER WASHINGTON -- Stretched by frequent troop rot
91 ANCFlyer : CNN has a similar article . . . In fact, it's quite correct IMO. Gen Eric Shinseki warned of this very thing at his retirement several years ago - th
92 SATX : Why doesn't Bush get rid of "Dumsfeld"? Seriously. (I only quoted your whole post just avoid more of your drama queen routine.)
93 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Seriously, I can't answer that. I've asked that question dozens of times. Dumsfeld offered to resign after Abu Ghraib - and PotUS declined. Bad call.
94 Halls120 : Here's my guess. Replacing Rumsfeld would mean that Bush would have to nominate a new SecDef. No matter who he might nominate, the confirmation heari
95 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : I would have to agree. While Rumsfeld may not be holding the weight he should be these days, the process of bringing in someone new during a time of
96 SATX : Perhaps he would take it on for the health of the troops and for the health of the nation? A headache seems a rather miniscule concern compared to le
97 ANCFlyer : I tend to agree . . . Without fail, in my adult lifetime, I think Rummy the worst SecDef we've had - and I'm qualified I think to make that claim, si
98 Usnseallt82 : Gordon England's working his way up, but I think that this would be a little too much to swallow, even for him. Hard to find someone to take over one
99 MDorBust : According to that thread, the username B744F is registered again...
100 Post contains images Usnseallt82 : Yeah, some of us discovered that a couple of days ago. Apparently our lost little tin foil man has returned from the mothership. Can't wait to hear h
101 Post contains images Klaus : The Krepinevich report is very much related to my thoughts about the problem, especially together with the dynamics in this very thread here (which wa
102 ANCFlyer : I find myself agreeing here - having re-read the thread. I have a problem with the civilian leadership in today's US military. I'm sure there are sim
103 Klaus : The civilian leadership has two main influences on the military: a) building and maintaining the forces in peacetime b) deciding wisely which conflict
104 Halls120 : Worse than Les Aspin? Robert McNamara? I don't think so..... Good points. But unlike ANC, I can't agree with you here. I'd rather have a military lea
105 ANCFlyer : He wasn't around long enough to cause any long term damage. Yes But you must also have a civilian leadfership that recognizes when it's time to liste
106 Halls120 : I don't disagree that Rumsfeld is a disaster as an operational SecDef - as was McNamara - but his transformation of the way the Pentagon plans for th
107 UH60FtRucker : I'm not going to speak about my opinion of SoD Rumsfeld... the whole boss thing. But in regards to policy changes made under the administration... I'
108 Klaus : One change the US forces haven't addressed so far is to actually be capable of peacekeeping and reconstruction - I sincerely hope that Iraq has remove
109 Halls120 : You can thank Bush 41 and Clinton for this one. The Army Reserves used to have a very robust civil affairs capacity, but it was one of the first thin
110 Post contains images ANCFlyer : There is no question but that the US Military must transform itself. . . . the question is, is the current transformation the right one. I can only s
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Iraq Advisor Says US Troops Will Be Gone Mid-08 posted Sat Apr 29 2006 00:23:33 by Bushpilot
US Troops In South America posted Thu Mar 30 2006 07:55:07 by CannibalZ3
US Troops Demoralized? posted Mon Jan 9 2006 13:05:59 by ANCFlyer
Why Justifies T. Kennedy To Call US Troops Nazis? posted Tue Jun 1 2004 02:22:20 by TriJetFan1
Pat Tillman Killed By US Troops posted Sat May 29 2004 21:26:50 by BN747
US Troops Accused Of Theft After Home Raids posted Wed May 26 2004 04:31:55 by Qb001
Wary Of Attacks, US Troops Send SOS To The World posted Sun Sep 7 2003 01:06:59 by Keesje
US Troops Now 6 Miles From Baghdad posted Thu Apr 3 2003 13:48:58 by Cfalk
Propaganda Or Truth: US Troops Starving posted Sat Mar 29 2003 16:04:05 by Rabenschlag
Donald Visits US Troops posted Thu Feb 13 2003 16:13:37 by Keesje