On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:32:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:06:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...


On NBC news last night, a general (in a uniform, in front of a
microphone,
in Iraq) commented that out of 8 or 10 divisions of Iraqi soldiers, only
1
(as in ONE) division was ready to be self-sufficient.

He was referring to a *battalion*, not a division. Even the American
Army
has
few, if any battalions which are self-sufficient. Maybe their is an SOF
battalion sized unit which is self sufficient, but the *vast* majority
of
our
battalions are not self-sufficient. The media has picked up on this as
though
it's proof of the ineffectiveness of training, and most folk, such as
yourself,
have no idea what 'self-sufficient' means.

Don't be ridiculous. You know exactly what I meant by self-sufficient. I
didn't mean they grow their own food and dig a well every time they needed
water. I meant that they didn't need another army (ours) tagging along
with
them to help them do their jobs.

Considering the patience I have for you, I should've been a special ed
teacher.



The rest were useful
only as backup for our own troops. One of your president's measures of
success (per his own blather last spring) was how well the Iraqi army
was
doing in its training.

Perhaps someone else here can answer this question: Here in America, if
you
enter Army boot camp on January 1, what is the shortest period of time
that
must pass before the Army would consider you ready to be sent into
battle?

Good question. A soldier generally gets about 9 weeks of basic training.
He then
goes for 8-26 (depending on his specialty - it could be more) weeks of
advanced
individual training.

He then becomes part of a unit. The unit, once filled with it's
authorized
personnel, then conducts team/section training so the individuals learn
how to
work together. Once the team/section is proficient (another couple
months), then
the teams/sections can work together as part of a platoon. Once the
platoons are
proficient, they work together as part of a company. Once all the
companies are
proficient, they work together as a battalion. This notion (espoused by
fools)
that a battalion should be ready to go in three months is pure
horse****.

Where did 3 months come from? Your president has been raving forever about
how much progress the Iraqi army is making.


What *you* mean by 'self-sufficient' and what the US generals mean are two
different things.

The 'three months' came from Chris Mathews and some Democrat idiot he had
on his
show, who seemed to think battalions should be ready to go three months
after
they're thought of.

You are leaving out a great number of battalions, purposely I assume, that
can
conduct combat operations with minimal support. That's the group that
falls
between the self-sufficient and the 'follow-up' to American forces.
--
John H

OK - I used the wrong terminology, but it really doesn't matter, does it?
Call them "pieces". If there are 8 possible pieces, and only one is ready
(according to someone YOU trust), that means 87.5% of the pieces are not
ready, however the person YOU trust defines the term "ready". The person YOU
trust is currently a big shot in Iraq, not retired, not a news consultant,
not a news anchor. That eliminates the "Oh yeah? Who said that?" nonsense.


You lost me with the 'YOU trust' stuff. You are the one who referred to a
general's comment about one battalion being self sufficient. .

The question is, "ready for what?"

Being ready to conduct sustained combat operations with *no* external support is
one state of readiness. I know of none of our battalions, except perhaps some
Marine units, who could do so. Being ready to conduct combat operations with
combat support and combat service support is another thing entirely. It is what
most of our Army battalions do. Being able only to hold an area that has been
secured by another unit is the minimal state of readiness.


--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]