It isn't the basic training. It is mostly the leadership. Our army has experienced soldiers,some with 30 years..you can't have an effective army in 6 months.
2007-03-02 10:22:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
While you can train an individual soldier in a year, not six months.
They have Boot/AIT then atleast 6 months OJT in a real unit.
But that's just an individual soldier.
You still have to train a squad to work as a squad.
A platoon to work as a platoon.
A company to work as a company.
A battalion to work as a battalion.
A squad leader in the Army has around 6 years experience.
A platoon Sgt has around 12 years experience.
A 1st Sgt has around 15 years experience.
A platoon leader has 2 years experience.
A company commander has 6 years experience.
A battalion commander has 15 years experience.
You have to remember, the Iraq Army started from scratch.
So they have to train their squad leaders, platoon sgt's, 1st sgt's, platoon leaders, company commanders, battalion commanders all at the same time.
You should read about the history of some of the divisions that were formed during WWll, like the 101st Airborne and see how long it took to form the unit and get it combat ready, and that was with experienced officers and noncoms.
2007-03-02 11:49:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by jeeper_peeper321 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The military can train troops to kill in six months however cannot train a civilian to be a military peace maker. That is what is wrong in Iraq. These young are not ready to be peacemakers. It takes many years to master this profession. Most of the Politicians in the US don't know squat about peacekeeping and neither do many of the basic training instructors.
Our troops should never be placed in this position.
Hisemiester
2007-03-02 11:35:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by hisemiester 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think what is important to remember is that the illiteracy rate in Iraq is pretty high. Also, there is a culture difference...not to mention a language barrier. That being said, I think four years...there should be some headway. I don't know if the Iraqis don't want to defend themselves, or if they have a kind of cultural 'learned helplessness'. Meaning, they were so badly treated for so long, they're comfy inside their shell, let someone else do the dirty work.
If you are speaking of winning the war on terrorism...well, there won't be a winning. It's like the war on drugs. We can curtail it, track it, have some wins and losses...but it will always be there, like crime will always be around. So long as humans live on the planet, terrorism will be around in some shape or form.
2007-03-02 10:38:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by ~*Allypooh*~ 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
The US can win wars and battles, but with politics It's like sending a man with a knife to a gun fight.
If the Dutch and the French gave up on Americans during 1775
as our politicians want to do to Iraq and did so to Vietnam would we be waving a Union Jack (British) If we pull out now for the Democrats and some finger pointing Republicans we will never never again be a leader in this world. We will be like the UN all talk and no action. All it takes is a few good folks to sit and watch evil grow.....
2007-03-02 10:43:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Iraq used to have an army. But Bush and Bremer and Rummy decided to disband it. That great idea put about a million unemployed people with military training on the street with no job. It was mostly Sunni - because of Saddam. Now those people fight the majority Shiites and we are in the middle. Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and Condasleeza made bad decision after bad decision. This a total mess and there is no solution other than leaving or staying there forever. Great job was also done in Afghanistan. We left too early, let the Taliban escape, dropped bombs on our Canadian friends who are trying to help, and now the Taliban is getting ready to rumble.
2007-03-02 10:44:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Worried in Bolingbrook 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
When Murtha says "not ready"--this is an example of what he's talking about. Folks that are over there in Non-combat roles, although military personnel--have been forced to grab a weapon and become part of a combat operation. And many have died because of it. You don't exchange a Cooking Knife for a rifle and expect the person to be just as effiecient.
War--there is no war. Right now your looking at an Imperialistic Occupation in the midsts of a Civil War--Winning is GWB's pipe dream that we occupy the region for years to come in order to maintain stability while our Big Oil entities reap the profits from controlling Iraq's Oil infastructure.
2007-03-02 10:25:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by scottyurb 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
Because you can train somebody well enough to function with supervision in six months.
In US Army practice it takes two years before a soldier is considered to be 'fully trained.'
Then you have to get that soldier more experience before you train him to become a junior NCO. Then after several years as a junior NCO you can take that soldier and train him to be a senior NCO. So in order to get your 'backbone' soldiers it takes about 100 years.
Then there is the time it takes to form units, train staffs, train your senior NCOs (who took a decade to create) into instructors and drill sergeants and now - finally you have an army that can function on its own.
Why do people think that you can do all this in six months? Before I retired I had spent the equivalent of four years in some sort of training status.
2007-03-02 11:17:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by MikeGolf 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
What makes something called something. somebody got here up with a attractiveness for people and now we mutually call ourselves people (so a techniques as English is worried). How are we different from different issues? we glance different, we've different genes, we've different applications, and a few might say we won the breath of existence from God. What makes us human interior the eastern way of questioning? A human that conforms to the societal norms. Even the bible says you're a beast in case you provide your self as much as sin.
2016-10-17 03:24:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree that the problem is with the Iraqis...
Quite frankly, I'd like to see Bush say: "Ok...screw you. We tried to liberate you and set up a democratic government, but you wouldn't step up to the plate and do your part. So to hell with ya...all the towel heads in this whole country are not worth one more American soldier's life, or another dollar of US taxpayer money."
Then I'd like to see us arm the Kurds, and tell them that however much of the country they take over, they can KEEP. In six months, every Iraqi would either be dead or long gone...the Kurds would have their new Kurdistan, and the US would have a VERY FRIENDLY ally in the middle east...that just happened to have an enormous amount of oil.
2007-03-02 10:24:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋