National Guard Going To Iraq Doesn't Have Rifles Or Equipment

[Psychoblues]

Maybe they are just not serious enough about actually taking on an enemy force?


The Pentagon is planning to send more than 14,000 National Guard troops back to Iraq next year, shortening their time between deployments to meet the demands of President Bush’s buildup, Defense Department officials said Wednesday. ...

"We're behind the power curve, and we can’t piddle around," Maj. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, said in an interview. He added that one-third of his soldiers lacked the M-4 rifles preferred by active-duty soldiers and that there were also shortfalls in night vision goggles and other equipment. If his unit is going to be sent to Iraq next year, he said, "We expect the Army to resource the Guard at the same level as active-duty units." ...

Capt. Christopher Heathscott, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, said the state's 39th Brigade Combat Team was 600 rifles short for its 3,500 soldiers and also lacked its full arsenal of mortars and howitzers.


More: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/wa...in&oref=slogin


I dunno. Maybe you can figure it out.

[manu1959]

Maybe they are just not serious enough about actually taking on an enemy force?


The Pentagon is planning to send more than 14,000 National Guard troops back to Iraq next year, shortening their time between deployments to meet the demands of President Bush’s buildup, Defense Department officials said Wednesday. ...

"We're behind the power curve, and we can’t piddle around," Maj. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, said in an interview. He added that one-third of his soldiers lacked the M-4 rifles preferred by active-duty soldiers and that there were also shortfalls in night vision goggles and other equipment. If his unit is going to be sent to Iraq next year, he said, "We expect the Army to resource the Guard at the same level as active-duty units." ...

Capt. Christopher Heathscott, a spokesman for the Arkansas National Guard, said the state's 39th Brigade Combat Team was 600 rifles short for its 3,500 soldiers and also lacked its full arsenal of mortars and howitzers.


More: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/wa...in&oref=slogin



I dunno. Maybe you can figure it out.

gen wyatt better fill out the forms....he has a year

[pegwinn]

The thread title is a bit of mythdirection. The first unit is short on M4's and the second unit is short of other stuff. Neither of which logically leads to the assumption that they will deploy without the gear.

Being short on M4's also doesn't mean that they don't have enough M16's.

And, if I read it right, isn't there a full year for workups? Seems like a non issue to me.

But that's just my opinion.

[Mr. P]

The thread title is a bit of mythdirection. The first unit is short on M4's and the second unit is short of other stuff. Neither of which logically leads to the assumption that they will deploy without the gear.

Being short on M4's also doesn't mean that they don't have enough M16's.

And, if I read it right, isn't there a full year for workups? Seems like a non issue to me.

But that's just my opinion.

Just another Psycho drive-by.

[avatar4321]

What the heck does it matter? You liberals have made it clear that the national guard isnt really part of the military. So why should they get military equipment?

[CockySOB]

What the heck does it matter? You liberals have made it clear that the national guard isnt really part of the military. So why should they get military equipment?

More to the point, the Democrats have indicated a willingness to knot the purse-strings in Congress, which would mean that the Democrats don't want our soldiers to have any weapons anyway. Of course, when one realizes that doing such in an attempt to "convince" POTUS/CIC to NOT deploy the troops is actually EXTORTION, it becomes clear just how traitorous and criminal our Democrats have become.

[Dilloduck]

Just another Psycho drive-by.

Agreed---there are gettin to more "drivers by" all the time it seems. Allegation after allegation

[Yurt]

More to the point, the Democrats have indicated a willingness to knot the purse-strings in Congress, which would mean that the Democrats don't want our soldiers to have any weapons anyway. Of course, when one realizes that doing such in an attempt to "convince" POTUS/CIC to NOT deploy the troops is actually EXTORTION, it becomes clear just how traitorous and criminal our Democrats have become.

This is the crux and the nail in psychoblues post. You complain, yet vote down every $$ we need to give them. You complain, yet vote down a troop surge. You complain we don't have enough troops, yet vote down a troop surge.

I don't get it.

[jillian]

This is the crux and the nail in psychoblues post. You complain, yet vote down every $$ we need to give them. You complain, yet vote down a troop surge. You complain we don't have enough troops, yet vote down a troop surge.

I don't get it.

Funding HASN'T been cut yet. So that argument is a bit specious. And even Paul Reikoff at IAVA.org says the troops we already have should be taken care of before they start talking about sending more.

[avatar4321]

Funding HASN'T been cut yet. So that argument is a bit specious. And even Paul Reikoff at IAVA.org says the troops we already have should be taken care of before they start talking about sending more.

"Yet" is the key word here. You don't think complaining about troops not having supplies and at the same time advocating to cut the supplies to the troops isn't alittle hypocritical?

[jillian]

"Yet" is the key word here. You don't think complaining about troops not having supplies and at the same time advocating to cut the supplies to the troops isn't alittle hypocritical?

I think we both know that funds to troops on the ground aren't going to be cut. The cut has to do with allowing more troops to be sent. So using that as an excuse for why current troops might be inadequately supplied isn't a very good argument.

[Mr. P]

I think we both know that funds to troops on the ground aren't going to be cut. The cut has to do with allowing more troops to be sent. So using that as an excuse for why current troops might be inadequately supplied isn't a very good argument.

Right out of the democratic playbook. They use this same BS every budget.

[avatar4321]

I think we both know that funds to troops on the ground aren't going to be cut. The cut has to do with allowing more troops to be sent. So using that as an excuse for why current troops might be inadequately supplied isn't a very good argument.

who was pointing out any excuses? I was pointing out the disengeniousness of those making the accusations.

[Yurt]

Funding HASN'T been cut yet. So that argument is a bit specious. And even Paul Reikoff at IAVA.org says the troops we already have should be taken care of before they start talking about sending more.

How many dems have voted "no" on spending? What about your ol friend Kerry for starters...

[CSM]

I think we both know that funds to troops on the ground aren't going to be cut. The cut has to do with allowing more troops to be sent. So using that as an excuse for why current troops might be inadequately supplied isn't a very good argument.

Current troops imadequately supplied???? Just how long do you think equipment lasts under combat conditions? Do you realize that stuff gets broken and lost and needs replacement? When you take a unit out of theater, they need time to reconstitute, that is retrain, repair and replace items etc. If the decision is made to deploy them ahead of schedule then that reconstitution needs to be acclerated...and that is what the General is saying. As for the M4 rifles preferred by active duty soldiers, as has already been pointed out, that does not mean the Guard unit does not have rifles nor that the rifles they have are ineffective or inoperative. The M16 and M4 are essentially the same rifle but the M4 has a shorter stock, making it easier to employ inside a vehicle (that means you can shoot it from inside easier). Night vision equipment is another item that civilians do not understand...not every soldier NEEDS night vision equipment. Only those soldiers who are conducting operations AT NIGHT need them.

I would point out that the tactics currently being used by the Democrats are the same used by the Continental Congress prior to the decision to make the POTUS the CIC...I suspect the results will be the same....if you want to know how that all worked out, go read some history and just remember, the Founding Fathers decided that ONE Commander in Chief was far better than a Congress full of them.