|
|
|
|||||||
| Political Conversation and Debate This forum is not a temporary one. It will exist up to, and after the presidential elections. Some people want to talk or even argue politics, other's don't. Let's see if we can apply some reason and understanding to the debate. |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
10-09-2007, 04:20 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
         
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
10-09-2007, 04:50 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
Specific tactics & techniques are another matter. Edit: Speak of the devil... Marine Corps News -> Security detail escorts battlefield leader through dangerous missions Last edited by Muck; 10-09-2007 at 04:59 AM.
|
|
10-09-2007, 05:02 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
That story is pretty interesting, thanks for posting.
|
|
10-09-2007, 09:45 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Media hype aside the re-enlistment rates for component units under SOCOM's command are still consistently the highest for active duty units.
The career guys are still career guys, they aren't leaving in droves. The turnover rate isn't significantly different than it is during peacetime. Quote:
|
|
10-09-2007, 11:48 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
Also, I highly doubt that they "sure as hell don't want it." I'll let any present or former Marines weigh in with the final word, but it was always my understanding that embassy duty was a rather prestige duty for an enlisted Marine. I would imagine that it's something of an insult to be pulled off the job and replaced with $1300 a day mercenaries.
|
|
10-09-2007, 09:17 PM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
10-09-2007, 09:23 PM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
|
|
10-10-2007, 12:26 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
|
|
10-10-2007, 01:01 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
BTW I'm one of those people "that should be hanged" as well  Of course I was doing the jobs of 3 to 5 (depending on what I was doing) soldiers, but what the hell.....
|
|
10-10-2007, 10:41 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
The $150,000 re-enlistment bonus the Army was offering to Special Forces operators was for senior NCOs who had 19 years in and who agreed to sign a six year contract. So if you were within a year of retirement they were willing to dangle a damn big apple in front of your face to get you to stay longer than normal. From what I've seen the rest of the bonuses weren't excessively higher than they were prior to the war. That being said there is a war on and incentives to keep people in are going to be higher by necessity regardless of whether their is a perceived better option for them to ply their skills. *Kinda like the reports of "there are 125,000+ mercenaries in Iraq" fail to mention that 3/4 of those are dudes working on the infrastructure of the country...ie truck drivers, construction workers, engineers etc etc. Or the reports talking about how there are X to 1 troops to contractors now vs Y to 1 (where X<Y) troops to contractors in Desert Storm...without mentioning that there are far less troops now in the first place which skews the ratios. Last edited by Muck; 10-10-2007 at 12:51 PM.
|
|
10-10-2007, 11:55 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
The Marine Corps has stressed for decades that Marines should be supporting Marines carrying out combat operations. That is why they have fought to keep Marine Aviation away from the AF. It is why they fought for years to from having Marines placed under the control of SOCOM. It is also why they currently fight against Marine units being piecemealed out to shore up shortfalls in Army commands. Quote:
The Marine Corps was responsible for security on Navy ships damn near from the inception of both...yet when the CNO quietly floated to the Commandant a few years back that the Navy would be open to reestablishing MarDets on Navy vessels the Commandant politely declined. (For the record the Marine Corps has only officially been handling security as foreign service posts since just after WWII.) Marine Security Guards are responsible for internal security at embassies (and consulates). That means their primary roll is safeguarding assets (ie classified material) and personnel within the physical grounds of the compound. They are responsible for site security, they have no external security roll. They do not act as security details for individuals outside of the embassy itself. That is a very different mission than that which we are talking about in regards to Iraq & Afghanistan which is primarily a mobile security force that is responsible for individuals who are moving outside of a secure facility. Quote:
It also has one huge benefit for the 'Corps itself....it's a PR bonanza. Having highly motivated, dedicated Devil Dogs highly visible to everyone who enters any US embassy around the world is good publicity that is hard to beat. It is also publicity that continues whether there is currently a war on or not. That being said if it were being offered to the USMC for the first time as a new mission today...IMO there is a very good possibility that it wouldn't be picked up. Quote:
We are talking about a job that has never been traditionally filled by Marines. Why should a Marine be offended if someone else is doing it? For a Marine to do the job that means he has to leave his current job...and chances are the new job is a good bit [censored]tier than his old one. Insulted? Hell most Marines are shaking their heads in bemusement at the idiots out their riding around in gun trucks. There are about 1,000 Marines on MSG duty total in the entire world. There aren't any who could be pulled from their traditional mission to go Iraq because then their mission would go unfulfilled. You'll notice in my initial post I said Marine Security Forces rather than Marine Security Guards. That is because the MSF Battalion is a slightly different kettle of fish than the Marine Security Guard Battalion. MSF are also a defensive security force and their primary mission is to guard various Naval facilities (primarily revolving around protection of nuclear devices). Their training is similar to that of the MSGs but is focused on the specific criteria of their mission. There are also two FAST companies who's job is to act as a deployable security force that can reinforce facilities that are in need of additional security due to an elevated threat level. A small number of the MSF Marines go through the tactical driving school and a few do attend the PSD school. Most however, do not. There are around 3,500 (that's a ballpark number off the top of my head) Marines in the MSF Battalion. And once again every single one of those Marines has a preexisting mission that they need to carry out. The only ones who would be able to pack up on short notice and deploy to Iraq would be the two FAST companies (about 500 Marines). Now the Marine Corps was in the process of putting together a dedicated PSD team a few years ago although I am not sure what happened to the program. How large was the unit they planned to field? One platoon. So the United States Marine Corps' planned force that would specialize in the mission we are discussing consisted of about 50 Marines. ---Yes the Marine Corps would be able to take up the mission if tasked with it. The Marines so ordered would perform above & beyond just as they always have. Now which of the contractors in country are these Marines going to replace? The *5K or so top quality guys from the US/England & other assorted countries? Do they also need to pick up the slack for the 10K or so foreign nationals who are carrying out less critical security rolls? What about the 15k or so Iraqi guards who are protecting the oil pipelines, wells, refineries & other assets? Does the Marine Corps take over for them as well? That gives a range of 5,000 to 30,000 Marines who are going to have be organized, trained & moved to take over the responsibilities. The Marine Corps is currently trying to add an additional 20,000 Marines to the active duty ranks just to be able to carry out the missions it is currently being tasked with, that does not include any future missions it may have to perform in addition. Where are these additional 5-30K Marines going to come from? How are they going to be trained (the current driving & PSD schools can only handle a few dozen students at a time). You're going to have to yank experienced guys from current units who have some of the requisite skills just to form a solid cadre to even get started. That means Marines who have served on MSG or MSF duty in the past. They are also typically the same guys who are more competent & experienced. That's great because you'll need them in your hypothetical new command, however that also means you're [censored]ing over their current units by taking them. Who gets to tell those line infantry commanders that some of their best guys are being cherry picked to go babysit Tom, Achmed & Mary down in Baghdad? *Those 5K are the only ones making money in the $500-$700 a day range and only a small number of them are making $800-$1,000. The Iraqi & third world guys don't make anywhere close to that much (as in 10x less). Last edited by Muck; 10-10-2007 at 12:54 PM.
|
|
10-10-2007, 11:58 AM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
all the logic that Muck is bringing to this thread is hurting my head
|
|
10-10-2007, 01:57 PM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
First, Muck, thanks for adding your experience/expertise to this thread... and... others.
Second... for those worried about the "expense" of Blackwater and other PMC's, remember, they are temps.... I do understand though why the use of these companies is controversial... there is quite a stigma about private soldiering... and... a lot of it for good reason. Lots of UN rules and individual countries have passed laws in the last 2 years or so to try to curb this kind of activity... a lot of this has to do with the backlash from the activities of Private Military Corporations operating in Africa in the 80's and 90's... Of course the problem with these guys is that they have to make money... and... well... there's not always a legitimate government to work for to do that... so... you end of working for oil or diamond companies to preserve thier interests... get into some slimy dealing on the inside of all that... or... end up on the wrong side of a civil war... the problems with Blackwater... for now... are much different than all of that... I will say that I do have a problem with a lack of accountability for their aactions... this is a big problem... I mean... I'd love to be able to shoot anyone I wanted durign rush hour driving to work... no question about that.... people are morons... especially insurgents with guns trying to kill you... but... there needs to be a mechanism for "policing the police" here... and I don't know how stringent it needs to be... but... if the State Department is going to hire private guys to protect their people... I think the market need here is having a company whose job it is to enforce whatever rules it is that these guys need to follow. I'm not saying what the rules of engagement should be for your average Blackwater operative... but... there do need to be rules of engagement, and consequences for breaking them. That doesn't seem to be the situation... and that's a problem. As for the "hang them all"/war profiteers/mercenary comments... I think its pretty difficult to throw around accusations like that in a country that has a professional military in the first place... Uncle Sam is still writing everyone's check... and... hey... they are easier to downsize.... and... every company that is there is a war profiteer... hang them too? What about companies that make antiterrorist products? War profiteers? Its like drugs, there wouldn't be a problem if there weren't a market. (Hmmm, that makes me think... maybe Nancy Reagan should start the D.A.R.E. equivalent for the bad guys... keep 'em off terrorism... and... religious extremism and insurgencism-- yeah... I made that word up)
|
|
10-10-2007, 08:40 PM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Quote:
 Who here(other than possibly Muck) has any pertinent knowledge that could compromise said military personnel?
|
|
10-10-2007, 08:44 PM
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
This started as an "oversight" thread. It would seem that there is a huge amount of data now, that says the War in Iraq is still being mishandled. And the lack of oversight of monies going there is very troubling.
Last edited by Taosman; 10-10-2007 at 08:51 PM.
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
