Women in Combat? Why?

Another silly comment. Do you not understand what I'm talking about? I can play your silly little game though. The President has to uphold the constitution....and appease the people of the United States as well as Congress which fund the military. See how that works? I'm talking in terms of military operations. Do you get it?

 

SEALs are Infantry. How do you not get that? Either way killing a single dictator doesn't somehow change the role of Infantry.

 

I'm not saying that the Infantry does it alone. You guys seem to be purposefully ignoring that. What I'm saying is that in order to ultimately defeat a determined enemy you have to put boots on the ground in his cities and inside his houses. Think Germany and Japan in World War II. Sure, naval power, aircraft, tanks, nukes, and various other things massively supported the effort, but untill you have guys on the ground you have nothing.

When you operated as a tanker in Vietnam you did so with Infantry, right? Tanks are extremely vulnerable to infantry, especially in dense foliage and urban areas.

 

If you had taken Infantry out of the invasion of Iraq we never would have won. Infantry played a very important role. Mechanized forces are extremely vulnerable to infantry. Once the counter-insurgency began it become almost a completely Infantry centric war. Tanks are nothing without grunts, even in wide open planes and in the desert you need them eventually.

 

I don't mean to say that EVERYONE does it, I mean to say that inevitably it happens, or would inevitably happen in the large numbers and close quarters of Infantry BNs.

 

If we used missile strikes or a bombing raid to take out Bin Laden, then that probably would have caused a lot of civilian casualties and could have potentially lead to world outrage against us, which could have had political consequences for the United States. The best way to get Bin Laden while minimizing civilian losses and any potential political fallout was with specialized infantry like the Navy SEALs. Even "precision guided bombs" or missile strikes are not as precise as the man on the ground. In addition, using specialized infantry like the SEALs enabled us to have undeniable proof that we terminated Bin Laden and we would know for sure that he was terminated. That being said, President Obama is the Commander in Chief of US forces and as such, the US military takes orders from Obama. He is the man in charge. Obama made the right decision ordering the SEAL raid, though it did contain risks, but that is what the infantry is paid to do.

Anytime you take the oath, you follow military law and regulation and take orders from the current President of the United States and there is no guarantee you will make it home alive from deployments. The best hope of surviving to see an honorable discharge is training to be a professional, being a professional soldier and holding yourself to the highest professional standards. Being a professional is what it is all about and that is the best chance a soldier has to surviving a deployment or living to see an honorable discharge or doing enough time in the military to retire. Professionalism and high standards in the military gives everybody the best chance of survival and victory.

 

You believe in a very incorrect myths. In WWI tanks were used in SUPPORT of the infantry. The idea of concentrating armor wasn't really developed until the 1920s when tanks become reliable enough to travel large distances. In WW2 Germans were the true innovators of concentrating mechanized forces to break through enemy lines and cause havoc. However, the vast majority of the German army still consisted of foot soldiers and even the armored columns carried mechanized Infantry with them. Every major battle on the Eastern front consisted of thousands of Infantrymen. Tanks and armored vehicles are dead meat without infantry support. The advent of ATGMs has made them even more vulnerable. Ask the Russians about that and their experiences in Chechyna.

The Machinegun is an infantry weapon.....how could it make Infantry obsolete. That's like saying airplanes made pilots obsolete.

Bombs and shells, whdile important force multipliers, cannot win wars. Look at Libya. We bombed an strafed Gadhafis forces for months....is was ultimately the rebel infantry running through the streets of Tripoli that won that conflict. Look at Vietnam, we dropped ungodly amounts of ordinance on NVA cities and troop concentrations....it still didn't work.

I'd like to see some reliable sources for your ASVAB claims. The Army actually accepts more GED recruits than any other branch (as a percentage).

I also never said that Infantry were the best or brightest. Your reading comprehension seems to leave a lot to be desired. Please devot more time to reading what I say. To reiterate; Infantry tends to have some very intelligent people who join for the unique experience it provides, it does however NOT require the same minimum level of intelligence that many techincal fields have and thus includes many "rocks".

 

No.....I would have just joined the Army or waited until my MOS opened up. Your generation was forced to go. I could have gone to college or gotten a cushy job somewhere. Instead I went overseas and did a very dangerous job in a very uncomfortable place with hundreds of thousands of other young men and women. Sure, I was provided with some benefits, but I don't think losing my life, limb, or mental health was quite an equal tradeoff.

To call today's all volunteer military a social club compared to your draftee days is silly. As a whole it is widely considered to be the most professional and competent force in American history. This isn't to downplay WW2, Korean, Vietnam vets etc, the realities of those conflicts were just very different.

 

I know in the Marine Corps EVERY Marine, regardless of job or gender, attends Marine Combat Training. This course is taught by Infantry Marines and is a crash course in crew served weapons and basic infantry skills. This comes on top of a few weeks during boot camp where EVERY Marine becomes quite competent at shooting a rifle and learns rudimentary field skills. I imagine the Army has something similar. My understanding is that the Navy, Army, and Coast Guard do NOT.

 

Wrong. Israel has a lot of experience but its mostly low intensity counter-insurgency operations. Its been decades since they fought full scale tank battles, which they excelled at against very incompetent Arab forces. They were also very heavily supported by the U.S.

I don't think you know the first thing about Iraq and Afghanistan. In both those countries it was/is quite common for large scale attacks against American bases. IDF is also VERY common. In Afghanistan dozens of small American outposts have fought off massive insurgent attacks. In my BN virtually every team leader, squad leader, and above had multiple deployments overseas. My BN just got back from its 6th combat deployment in eight years. I know Marines and Soldiers who are going on their 4th, 5th, and even 6th deployment overseas. That level of experience is unheard of. Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought by a very small number of troops over a very long time. We are without a doubt the most experienced military in the world at conducting counter-insurgency operations. The British and Israeli's have A LOT of experience, but still not to the level of the U.S. in the last decade.

 

I knew one soldier who was on number 7. He had done 6 combat tours and was going on number 7. I was a newbie at the time and had a lot to learn, but you learn. It was interesting talking with him after I got some experience. I picked his brain and the brains of some of the other more experienced vets.

 

Officers are older, more mature, have more responsibility, higher standards, and better living conditions. I don't remember seeing many officers around when I slept 30 to a tent. I also never used the "E-6 and above" restrooms or had bachelor housing/my own house.

 

The military experience varies MASSIVELY between branch, job specialization, and rank.

 

You got a Marine corpsman into your Marine unit that did not know how to disassemble a M-4????????
Exactly what do they teach Marines in their first training period (in the army it was called Basic Training)? How to march and look pretty? They do NOT teach the M-4, the basic weapon of the military to trainees in the Marines now? Or maybe corpsmen are not marines, maybe just navy? I understand that the navy now teaches only the shotgun and handgun during their basic.

 

Has anyone ever doubted that the enlisted ranks were full of headcases?

 

The lesson in Nam was that politicians cannot win a war. There is another lesson that many did not and still do not understand that came out of NAM. You cannot defeat an indigenous population that hates you. No army can defeat terrorist activity, not in Nam, Afghanistan or in the USA. You may be able to completely wipe out the enemy, but that is not winning in my book. No amount of infantry could have won in Nam, nor in any nation were the citizens refuse to live under your thumb. You can leave, make peace or kill every single one, but you cannot win.
The only thing I agree with in the bible is their method of war. Kill everyone, man, woman, child, dog, cow and donkey. Then you do not have to worry about terrorists. The only other option, which I prefer is not to get involved-if possible.

 

Try reading some history, start with Caesar, move on to Napoleon, and even Patton. Through out history, the ELITE forces have not been the infantry, with only one exception that I can think of, and that is the British Square. And no general that used the British in that formation gave a dang about the men, he only cared about what the formation could do. The trained infantry has been thrown away in all wars, geez, go look at ww1 to o see what the generals thought of infantry. 10 million dead on the fields of Europe and most of them just infantry cannon fodder, dieing in droves charging into machine gun emplacements designed to lay them out in neat rows.

 

The president makes the decisions about a war, he sets the policy, he decides the major events. Everything that any soldier does, is to support the presidents policy. The president is THE SUPREME COMMANDER. The buck stops with him, not with the constitution, or the people, but with the PRESIDENT. The PRESIDENT ordered men to go after Osama "on the ground" instead of taking him out with bombs or missiles or even a nuke. The infantry is NOT the be all and end all of any military, not even close. However, it appears that the brainwashing of the infantry is better than any since the Chinese at the end of WW2.

 

Some seals may or may not have an infantry MOS, lol, if the Navy even has such an MOS, but, the Seals are Not INFANTRY. I recommend that you come here to Virgina, find any of a couple of bars I could send you to and tell any of the seals there, that are off duty, that they are "infantry".

Taking out Osama, who was not a dictator was something the entire Marine and Army infantry could NOT do.

 

Actually no boots on the ground won the war with JAPAN. TWO air burst nukes won it, without a single American on the Japanese mainland.

When in Nam--90% of our duty was spent in patroling "the highway". We did NOT work with any assigned infantry in that roll, although quite often an infantry unit would as for our help in establishing a field of fire. The 90mm canister round is quite good at clearing out the "underbrush". We did, often camp with infantry, or artillery or even med units at night and at times used their troops to assist us in perimeter duty. We did several times do some actions with other units in a combined operation. And, although I did not want to say this. We were taught that the Infantry and Artillery were there in SUPPORT OF US. I imagine the Artillery is taught the same thing--ROFLOLOLOL. But the reality is, there is NO one part of the military that is the most important, no one part that all others support. Support among the units is mutual, when needed.

 

When the counter-insurgency began the war was long over, as declared by BUSH himself.
The counter-insurgency was when the policing action began, after the war.

 

Corpsmen are Navy.

 

The machine gun meant the death of infantry because infantry no longer could make charges and take positions as they used to, the long stalemate is proof of that. What broke the stalemate was TANKS. The infantry was able to FOLLOW the tanks into no-mans land and complete the moping up began and allowed only by the tanks.

You honestly believe that the rebel troops would be alive today if not for the UN bombing of Libya? And you call the rebels INFANTRYMEN?

As I said, we were politically handicapped in NAM, we did not attack the source of the enemies men and supplies. Well we did towards the end, but only in minimal ways. Dropping bombs on a jungle does NOTHING. The great and wonderful infantry in Nam, went into battle, won over and over again and the next day, the territory they WON, was once again in NVA or Cong hands. The infantry did great, they fought and never lost a battle, but they could not win the war either. You cannot win a war when the citizens hate you. All you can do is kill them all.

 

Heavy Infantry was the backbone of the Roman and Greek militaries. I'm astounded you would make that statement.

No one disputes that Infantry die. They do most of the killing and most of the dying.

Almost all Special Forces units around the world are Infantry. SAS, Gurkas, Commandos, Spetnatz, ODA, Rangers, Delta, SEALs, GS-9......the list goes on and on.

 

Today's American Military is the best equipped. The British army is far more "professional". The Iraqi army is better trained.