Army Worried by Rising Stress of Return Tours to Iraq

[Skybird]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/wa...hp&oref=slogin

Among the 513,000 active-duty soldiers who have served in Iraq since the invasion of 2003, more than 197,000 have deployed more than once, and more than 53,000 have deployed three or more times, according to a separate set of statistics provided this week by Army personnel officers. The percentage of troops sent back to Iraq for repeat deployments would have to increase in the months ahead. (...) Since the study was distributed last month, it has become a central topic of high-level internal discussions within the Army, and its findings have been accepted by Army leaders, senior Pentagon and military officials say. (...) the ground forces risk an unacceptable level of retirements of sergeants — the key leaders of the small-unit operations — and of experienced captains, who represent the future of the Army’s officer corps. (...) Beyond the Army, members of the Joint Chiefs have also told the president that the continued troop commitment to Iraq means that there is a significant level of risk should another crisis erupt elsewhere in the world. Any mission could be carried out successfully, the chiefs believe, but the operation would be slower, longer and costlier in lives and equipment than if the armed forces were not so strained.

From a german newspaper source from where the NYT artcile was linked: after the first tour, 12% of troops suffer from posttraumatic stress, after the second tour: 18%. This study now says, after the third tour, the numbers rises to one in four.

These numbers must be added to the list of wounded soldiers. they are not to be excluded because the affected individuals do not bleed from open wounds. Ergo: the humnan cost of the war for the US forces is much higher than officially stated.

The longterm internal strategic cost of Captains turning their back on the army in considerable numbers I have pointed out already 2 or 3 weeks ago. And who would dare to blame them? I don't and so noone else should do as well.

[Brag]

The seriously wounded exceed 40,000. A large are badly maimed, with limbs missing. One sees a lot of them in Washington on a nice afternoon when they are wheeled out to visit the Mall.

Iraq is far worse than Vietnam where at least one could walk safely in the towns and get some sort of feeling of normality, have a meal, sit in a cafe. No such relaxation is available in Iraq. Even inside the fortified bases, soldiers live in fear of rocket and mortar attacks.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The longterm internal strategic cost of Captains turning their back on the army in considerable numbers I have pointed out already 2 or 3 weeks ago. And who would dare to blame them? I don't and so noone else should do as well.

I heard about that a few weeks ago on the radio, even with huge bonuses being dangled in front of them many experienced captains are choosing to get out. Iraq is HURTING our military in many, many ways.

PD

[AJ!]

The war has had terrible conciquences, but at the same time it was a just cause. Saddam needed to be stopped and an attempt had to be made to crush the terrorist groups operating in and around Iraq. I dont think anyone could have foresaw the situation that has unfolded although the way the war was planned could be called into question

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AJ!

The war has had terrible conciquences, but at the same time it was a just cause.

If that is not suspicious of being contradictory. It was no just casue by the offical reasons for it anyway. And not by the consequences at all.

Saddam needed to be stopped and an attempt had to be made to crush the terrorist groups operating in and around Iraq.

but there were no terrorist groups operating from inside Iraq, and why attacking Iraq when terrorist groups operate from outside and around Iraq escapes me. the majhor offense of saddam was, regharding terror, that he payed pensions to Palestinian families of "martyrs". and that hardly can be enough to justify the mess one created to fight this "terrorism". Those mensions were provoking and disgusting, and that'S all they were. Terrorism is something different.

I dont think anyone could have foresaw the situation that has unfolded although the way the war was planned could be called into question

wrong again, it had been forseen by many people and they said so liud and clear, and I even say that it had to be forseen and must have been forseen, because for everybody knowing even a bit about the context and the situation in Iraq it was the most obvious thing to expect exactly that outcome that we have gotten. And when little unimportant me could have forseen it - much better payed so-called experts I can demand to have known it then, too. And many did for sure. Question is if American leaders WANTED to know it. As far as I recall it, they did not. I wonder how often again this needs to be said. endlessly repeating the same fairy tales of terror groups in Iraq time and again does not turn them into truths, and thinking that the outcome could not have been known, is a cheap excuse.

[mrbeast]

Arrghhhhhh........Skybird beat me!

Originally Posted by AJ!

The war has had terrible conciquences, but at the same time it was a just cause.

Indeed but its debatable what exactly the cause was, WMD's? Regime change? Oil? A Bush famly vendetta?

Saddam needed to be stopped and an attempt had to be made to crush the terrorist groups operating in and around Iraq.

Saddam pretty much had been stopped, the policy of containment was very succesful and high ranking members of the US government were queing up to say so. And as far as anyone can tell there were no terrorist groups operating in Iraq, until it was invaded, check this thread out here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=133018

I dont think anyone could have foresaw the situation that has unfolded although the way the war was planned could be called into question

IIRC quite a few people were predicting how the situation might develop and it wasn't the planning for the war that was faulty, it was the planning for the post war period that was lacking.

The thousands of seriously wounded and crippled young men coming back from Iraq are paying for that lack of planning.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Arrghhhhhh........Skybird beat me!

Indeed but its debatable what exactly the cause was, WMD's? Regime change? Oil? A Bush famly vendetta?

WMDs for sure, this is what they said before the war: that they knew oh so sure that there are nulcear WMDs, and that they knew for sure where they are.

Regime chnage came as part of the agenda.

The real intention was to gain a strategic foothold in the region to control the traffic patterns of the international oil flow.

the Halliburton-factor must not be explained, I assume. for theml, it was a planned profitable business, witht he US army acting as their bodyguards and private army.

IIRC quite a few people were predicting how the situation might develop and it wasn't the planning for the war that was faulty, it was the planning for the post war period that was lacking.

Well, I do recall that the military DID want more troops, and stupid arrogant Rumsfeld gloriously wiped it off the table and wanted his great Rumsfeld-for-victory strategy beeing used instead: using smaller, technologically superior, highly mobile forces instead. that gangster still has to learn a lot about what assymmetrical warfare means and how technological superiority provokes it and gets - to a wide degree - neutralized by it. Technological superiority by the one side is the reason why the other picks up tactics that are summarized as "asymmetrical warfare". It'S a cat-and-mouse game that never ends. Hsitor5ically, assymmetrcial wars almost never get solved militariloy, but have a strong tendency to become chronic and then last on for decades, chnaging their faces meanwhile, often becominging a mix of civil war and armed criminal organisations with private armies that behave like a Mafia and whose business i not the oroginal goal of the war anymore, but criminal enterprise. You can see many example of this in South Am erica, Africa, and SE Asia. Many of the terror and mafia groups there have started as often left oriented freedom fighters using assymmetrical warfare, and having ended as muderous criminals today.


Anyhow, this thread I started as a reference to strategic chnages inside the army of the future, and as a reference to the high price many soldiers pay even when returning physically unharmed. If you do some math on the numbers the article mentions, and do an estimation, you come to a number of at least 85000 troops returning from Iraq and having to deal with PSD. And PSD is a beast, we do not talk about some lightweight psychological minor problem. This is hefty stuff, with the potential to be of danger for the community and people dealing with veterans as well. It can ruin decdes of the vet's life, it can destroy all his life, his family, his marriage, his social skills, his ability to be occupied in a job - and the general feeling of being home in life. It can make him a paranoid, a srtalker, a predator, and a killer. It does not lead so far as a case of rule, but it happens - and then you read in the nation-wide newspapers about it. If you ask such people, many of them refer to themselves as ticking bombs, and feeling like that.

Roughly close to every fifth vet seems to be affected. That qualifies for a top priority problem for the army and for the community that send them into war as well. Call it a social responsibility, and a debt.

and increase the number of wounded from some 40.000 to around 120-130 thousand.

[peterloo]

"Asymmetrical warface", as skybird pointed it out, is the key of failure of USA

The USA, after the Korean war and the Vietnam war, after paying heavy price in terms of blood and money, seemed not to know the effectiveness of this type of warfare.

The Soviets invaded middle east in 1980s, again, a superior army defeated by a small group of Islamic militants, armed with light weapons only

Asymmetrical warface, as what its name suggest, is a type of warfare employed by small group of mobile units against a group of immobile yet superior army

In Korean war, the Chinese successfully turned the tide of battle, neutralized the USA superiority in tank and man, and the USA lose ground slowly as its supply lines disrupted, morale reduced, and death toll mounting.

The same story goes for Vietnam. The USA supply line is always ambushed by Viet Cong irregulars, armed by light weapons (the heaviest weapons used are mortars), and the USA left Vietnam in a hassle in early 70s.

The same story is going to repeat itself, I'm afraid. Although USA has better technology, low tech but adaptable IED always kills. A pound of fertilizer hidden in bulk of trash = life of several people in a squad. Comparing the cost of fertilizer and the training cost of a USA soldier and its benefits, you see the difference. Most worrying is that, the remaining soldiers left behind by the explosion must be suffering from great psychlogical stress, which kills.

[August]

Originally Posted by peterloo

In Korean war, the Chinese successfully turned the tide of battle, neutralized the USA superiority in tank and man, and the USA lose ground slowly as its supply lines disrupted, morale reduced, and death toll mounting.

The Chinese successfully turned the tide of battle by a massive sneak attack involving 100's of thousands of troops, artillery and tanks. That is hardly asymetrical warfare.

The same story goes for Vietnam. The USA supply line is always ambushed by Viet Cong irregulars, armed by light weapons (the heaviest weapons used are mortars), and the USA left Vietnam in a hassle in early 70s.

The US supply line started in Hawaii and California and ended in Vietnam. Exactly where did the VC ambush it again? Besides after Tet the VC were pretty much finished as a fighting force with the bulk of the fighting being done by the NVA.

[bradclark1]

In Vietnam supply routes and convoys were usually heavily escorted. Sure there were incidents but nothing to affect supply lines beyond nuisance status overall.

[JetSnake]

War is hell. Armchair generals debating its finer points on the intraweb is amusing.

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by August

The Chinese successfully turned the tide of battle by a massive sneak attack involving 100's of thousands of troops, artillery and tanks. That is hardly asymetrical warfare.

Thats not strictly true. The Chinese army had few if any armoured vehicles, at least in Korea. It also lacked much heavy artillery and mostly relied on mortars for atrillery cover. Its attack was also hardly sneak, they warned the US that if UN forces threatened North Korea they would attack, Chinese prisoners were captured on a number of occasions before the main attack and there were many intel reports stating that vast numbers of Chinese troops were massing on the border. It was more UN forces failure to correctly read the signs and a refusal to contemplate chinese intervention that allowed the Chinese any element of surprise.

But you are correct, the Chinese hardly used guerilla tactics in Korea. Certainly they were hard to spot from the air due to thier lack of vehicles and a tendacy to travel overland rather than use roads. But they normally relied on massive human wave attacks to attempt to overwhelm UN forces. They even tried to attack tanks the same way and hand to hand. There are reports of British tanks having to shoot Chinese soldiers off other tanks with their coaxial MGs!

[August]

Originally Posted by JetSnake

War is hell. Armchair generals debating its finer points on the intraweb is amusing.

Shut up nub. :p

[Tchocky]

Oof, another Iraq thread.

Was it a bad idea in the first place? Yes

Did we know that then? Not enough.

And now the US Army is in just as bad of a no-win situation and the whole country was in March 2003.

I've never met anyone who's fought there, but I knew a few guys on their way out. Wouldn't wish it on anyone.

But apparently George W Bush wishes he could be there. I dont like saying this from the other side of the world, but that is ****ing sickening.

[peterloo]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

In Vietnam supply routes and convoys were usually heavily escorted. Sure there were incidents but nothing to affect supply lines beyond nuisance status overall.

Recoilness rifle is the key to take out the escorting armor personal carriers



Note that this photo is download from Wikipedia. If this is violating the rules, please tell me so that I can modify this

But you are correct, the Chinese hardly used guerilla tactics in Korea. Certainly they were hard to spot from the air due to thier lack of vehicles and a tendacy to travel overland rather than use roads. But they normally relied on massive human wave attacks to attempt to overwhelm UN forces. They even tried to attack tanks the same way and hand to hand. There are reports of British tanks having to shoot Chinese soldiers off other tanks with their coaxial MGs!

Yes, the Chinese relied on massive manpower to overwhelm South Korean force, yet some of the tactices they use, like sabotaging railway lines or destruction of key bridges, are in fact, some guerilla tactics.

Chinese also got some artillery, some are reverse engineered Japanese artillery, some from Soviet and some from USA, I believe