|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
| <klassylady25>
|
RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158912,00.html
CSM Terry B Zimmerman was a tank man during the Vietnam war (ok conflict) and came back in one piece physically. He is my older brother. Mentally he's just as sharp but I will have to say that the war did change him. War changes everyone, does it not? More so in those that serve and live in a combat zone. I do agree with the article in this area; we do need a better way to acclimate our soldiers upon return and we need to know what to look for. I do not agree with sentencing them. We do not need to sentence someone to life, no matter the years, without first finding a solution. The word convalescent homes comes to mind..... Free enough to not be trapped but in a controlled setting so that a man/woman can be brought back to civilian life. |
||
|
Member |
SO TELL ME, WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM VIETNAM???
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
General Petraeus calls upon our soldiers to be "warriors, builders, and diplomats." There is IMHO no finer preparation for civilian and family life than this three-front mission.
We America must *not* do to our soldiers is under-support and under-train our soldiers in any one of these three missions:
Both the left-wing and the right-wing politicians have failed to understand that success at all three missions is vital to the health of our returning soldiers. My wife and I have a son—now home on leave—who is scheduled to deploy a third time next year to Iraq. Maintaining a balanced commitment to all three missions is in my wife and my opinion very valuable to our son's morale, to our family's morale, and to the morale of every Marine and Soldier who deploys. The war-fighting mission is unpopular with left-wing politicians, and the nation-building and peace-making missions are unpopular with the right-wing politicians. The huge expense of all three missions is very unpopular with all politicians. Nonetheless, the best Christmas present that America could give our soldiers, would be America's whole-hearted, bi-partisan, and unstinting support of all three missions. It's time for every American politician to step up and do this. Merry Christmas and a huge Semper Fi! to all! |
|||
|
| <klassylady25>
|
 Very well said. Thank you. Merry Christmas to you as well. |
||
|
| <klassylady25>
|
Why are you shouting? |
||
|
|
Member |
Sorry, sometimes emotions get the better of me. I remember a story of a Medal Of Honor recipient who was shot while attempting an armed robbery. Tanks |
|||
|
|
Member |
My military experience goes back to World War II and may not have any relevance today.
However, the military trains a person, particularly the enlisted, to do a specific job -- rifleman, heavy weapons, canon, etc. We all learned our jobs and performed well under most difficult situations and conditions. When the war ended, discharge into civilian life was rapid and without any preconditioning. Skills, mainly combat skills, effective in the military were of little or no use in civilian life. Discipline imposed on a uniform and regular basis in the military has no counterpart in the civilian world. Lacking civilian skills, lacking the usual discipline, lacking jobs, lacking education, lacking guidance, the ordinary former military may well go wrong. Sure there is the GI Bill but many are unaware or unable to use it. The country must provide both some form of counseling and usable skills before discharge. Having marketable skills and appropriate orientation will help to remediate the problem of civilian misconduct by former military. |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Tanks35
I'm not shure what we learned! What we should have learned is that once war starts THE POLITICIONS KEEP OUT! |
|||
|
|
New Member ------------------  Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group ------------------  |
I believe that the Military (particulary the Marines and Army) must have a mandatory program that teaches a smooth non-violent transition to civilian life. This will teach how not to be a soldier and stress non violence and how to receive help from the VA or civilian counterparts. This would be mandatory for all returning military. I believe that it would help identify PTSD and violence prone persons.
|
|||
|
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning" |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by usmc_family:
General Petraeus calls upon our soldiers to be "warriors, builders, and diplomats." There is IMHO no finer preparation for civilian and family life than this three-front mission. We America must *not* do to our soldiers is under-support and under-train our soldiers in any one of these three missions:
I tend to disagree. As has been said "the military is for killing people and breaking things". Nation building and peace keeping are diplomatic endevors and should not be the responsibility of the military. The one exception would be helping to "Keep the Peace" simply by "Showing the Flag" from time to time (peace through strength.). While I consider the UN to be less then useless I do believe Peace Keeping could be their best purpose by keeping the tin horn thugs under control. Humanitarian efforts such as "Meals on Wheels" should be undertaken by civilians (Red Cross, etc). Just my $0.02 |
|||
|
Member |
Absolutely, America's Hero's should not be kissing baby's and petting puppies!! Why haven't Big Gov lackies reinstituted the DRAFT and front loaded all the training to ready our Warrior's for such a long term in a war zone??
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Someone mentioned the brain damage. I sent liners to both my grandsons so their heads don't go back and forth when a bomb goes off. You mean to tell me that the government hasn't followed through? Brain dead is brain dead.
|
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member Old Fart #00  |
PTSD is a sad reality of exposing men to war time after time on numerous tours to the combat zone. Should we be surprised that this is how they are reacting to that? The military needs to reestablish a Project Transition program to help reintegrate these men and women in society. They have spent many months walking on the edge of a razor and need to be debriefed of combat horrors. Having your brain rattled in massive explosions could certainly lead to some problems in the judgement arena. These troops need help now, not later!
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
With sincere respect, Raunchy, that is the twentieth century view. But in Iraq and Afghanistan (and in Vietnam too, some say) that old-fashioned view of war has failed utterly. IMHO, the good news for young American soldiers is that being trained for a modern Petraeus-style conflict as "warriors, builders, and diplomats" is highly effective on the battle-field, and useful in civilian life, and in general just plain more challenging and satisfying for everyone involved. Like it or not, politically convenient or not, that is a modern strategic reality, because the old "kill-them-all" style of warfare just just plain did not work in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we keep up this three-front "war-fighting, nation-building, and peace-making" strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, we might actually *win* an honorable victory, with a safe return home for our soldiers. |
|||
|
|
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning" |
I understand your point John, however my view of using military power is as a last resort. Let the diplomats and politicians do their thing, if ageements cannot be reached then and only then do you call in the military. The war-fighters are trained to the highest degree and equiped the same way. The goal is to inflict as much pain as quickly as possible with least amount of casualties (both sides) and make them cry uncle. You mention Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The best of examples of how NOT to use the military. Do not tie their hands with political motivated ROE's. This only prolongs the fighting and gives the enemy more to hide behind. When the fighting is over, then all the fancy pants come in with their Nation Building ideas and techniques. You can't train a man to be a "gentle" warrior. In a perfect world your ideas would probably work but then in a "Perfect" world we wouldn't need the military.
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
I would give anything if we could have a totally separate posting area for real combat vets and others.
The reality differences between people who know the real military and real fighting and the people who say the embarassing and stupid things they hear from the right wing propaganda machine..... this isn't even worth finishing take my word for it....many of the things here are totally freaky. and please...no more use of the bush terms "war fighter" or "global war on terror" or calling the marine corps anything but "the crotch" or "the suck" Our young "warriors" are being lied to, exploited, bullshitted to death and, when wounded, thrown away. Reality check for those who see it differently. Do not be part of the problem. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
That would work, if Anbar were a territory be conquered. But what Anbar is in reality is a conflict ecosystem to be stabilized. That is why Gates/Petraeus/Crocker are no longer pursuing "inflict pain" as the main strategic goal in Iraq ... that single-minded strategy has proved in Iraq to be:
So we can either fight the old way in Iraq, and eventually lose, or else acknowledge that "in COIN the side that learns faster and adapts more rapidly—the better learning organization—usually wins" (as Petraeus asserts in FM 3-24). Speaking for myself, I would rather that our soldiers learn, adapt, and win. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
I know we are stuck in Iraq. At some point, Iraq, despite all the utterly stupid things we have done and the few less stupid things, may eventually form a nation.
Chances for that are, however, fairly slim. I have a bad attitude. I don't think Iraq was worth the price we paid for it. If we wanted to punish the terrorists, we could have invaded Saudi Arabia and hunted down those in our own government that very well may have helped. Failing to consider this is unrealistic. I can't think of one single reason for one American soldier to be in Iraq. Nothing comes to mind. If we simply walk away, what do we win or lose? What is our downside? Clinton was in office, we had very very little terrorism problem. Bush gets in, suddenly we have huge and successful attacks almost as though our government itself was planning them. Then we fight a series of unwinable wars for years that destabilize the world, create more terrorism, kill hundreds of thousands and destroy the American economy. Gas double in price. We are so far in debt that China now owns America. Our current government and their friends are now shown to be utterly corrupt beyond even the dreams of the wildest "liberal". Our constitution was thrown in the toilet and we are despised around the world. Our own troops are being abused by poor medical care and a VA that has been destroyed by leadership that sees veterans as "liberal welfare scum". General Petraeus may be a good person. He is far from the best commander we have. He was the only one who would take the job after Bush got rid of our top military leadership because they disagreed with Secretary (resigned in disgrace) Rusmfeld, George (resigned in disgrace) Tenet and others. and so it goes
|
|||
|
|
"I love the smell of Brown Water in the morning" |
|
|||
|
|
Member |
Gordon, get a friggin' clue! You have no idea what you're talkin' about! |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
