52,000

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
why do we need 52,000 'non-combat' troops in iraq?

is not that a bit much for just training?

also, (i know this has been questioned before but i thought that i would add these for this thread) why do we need troops and material in germany and okinowa

then there is our large navy

if we are the worlds policemen, then why have we mostly ignored conflicts that are killing 100,000s of civilians in africa
 
I guess its to provide security for ourselves.

As for Africa, I like to apply the you-break-it you-buy-it concept to the world. The US should focus primarily on helping Latin America, while Europe/UN should focus on Africa, with a collaborative effort on the Mid-East, which we helped break via WWI, our involvement in Iran in the 50s, etc. Plus, policing the world is expensive.
 
DonQuixote said:
why do we need 52,000 'non-combat' troops in iraq?

is not that a bit much for just training?

also, (i know this has been questioned before but i thought that i would add these for this thread) why do we need troops and material in germany and okinowa

then there is our large navy

if we are the worlds policemen, then why have we mostly ignored conflicts that are killing 100,000s of civilians in africa
Click to expand...

Operation Iraqi Liberation. The only reason we are in Iraq.
 
Onceler said:
You keep saying that. It's pretty weird.

How do you think they'd conceal "combat"?
Click to expand...
"Combat troops" is a term used to describe people whose primary MOS is combat. Infantry, tanks, arty, Etc. Combat engineers, MP's, and transportation services guys all do combat operations but are not listed as combat troops.
 
Onceler said:
You keep saying that. It's pretty weird.

How do you think they'd conceal "combat"?
Click to expand...

are you really this stupid? obama can call them whatever kind of troops he wants....he is the CIC....if you think no true combat troops are there to protect the so called 50,000 non combats troops, you're a moron
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
"Combat troops" is a term used to describe people whose primary MOS is combat. Infantry, tanks, arty, Etc. Combat engineers, MP's, and transportation services guys all do combat operations but are not listed as combat troops.
Click to expand...

do you believe there will be zero combat troops left in iraq? my pal who served says otherwise....but as you've served, i would be interested in your opinion
 
Yurt said:
are you really this stupid? obama can call them whatever kind of troops he wants....he is the CIC....if you think no true combat troops are there to protect the so called 50,000 non combats troops, you're a moron
Click to expand...

if they get into combat, there will be casualties...a little hard to hide, but not imposssible
 
Yurt said:
are you really this stupid? obama can call them whatever kind of troops he wants....he is the CIC....if you think no true combat troops are there to protect the so called 50,000 non combats troops, you're a moron
Click to expand...

And what are you basing this on? Do you have any precedent; any hints of clandestine plans? Any proof at all?

Put up or shut up, as they say.
 
"if you think no true combat troops are there to protect the so called 50,000 non combats troops"

Just thought about this line - it's funny. Do you think the 50,000 who are left are not trained soldiers?

They're talking about what the function of the remaining troops will be.

As always, I am so glad I'm smarter than you. But, you do have a "pal" informing you on "the truth," so I guess that's something.
 
DonQuixote said:
why do we need 52,000 'non-combat' troops in iraq?

is not that a bit much for just training?

also, (i know this has been questioned before but i thought that i would add these for this thread) why do we need troops and material in germany and okinowa

then there is our large navy

if we are the worlds policemen, then why have we mostly ignored conflicts that are killing 100,000s of civilians in africa
Click to expand...
Because Bammy promised he'd get the combat troops out. So now he has to call them something else so his vacuum skulled followers can gloat about how truthful he is.

It's not dissimilar to calling Vietnam a "police action". There were no police there, just us combat grunts (oops, I mean "military advisers") getting our asses shot off - in combat.
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
"Combat troops" is a term used to describe people whose primary MOS is combat. Infantry, tanks, arty, Etc. Combat engineers, MP's, and transportation services guys all do combat operations but are not listed as combat troops.
Click to expand...
Close, but not quite, at least in this particular case. There are two definitions between combat troops and non-combat troops. You are using the MOS distinction, which only applies in peacetime. When deployed the lines get blurred depending on deployment and mission. For instance, an intel weenie attached to a maneuver battalion at the front lines is considered a combat trooper, even if his job in the battalion is to avoid combat if possible while processing and reporting combat info. It's only at higher levels when specialized MOS's have their own units that we distinguish between combat troop and non-combat troops on the battlefield. For instance, if the same intel weenie was attached to the intel company of the HHC(-) division HQ, then he'd no longer be a combat troop.

But I think this has more to do with a political definition than military anyway. All the "combat troops" were brought home to fullfil a political promise, and just the "military advisers" (who will be doing the same things as the combat troops did) are left behind.
 
Yurt said:
do you believe there will be zero combat troops left in iraq? my pal who served says otherwise....but as you've served, i would be interested in your opinion
Click to expand...
Like I said, combat troops applies to direct combat MOS's. These are groups that do not allow women to join, namely tanks, arty, and infantry. All I did was combat operations (well patrols and escorting anyways) and I was not counted as a combat troop, because I was assigned to the MP's.
 
Good Luck said:
Close, but not quite, at least in this particular case. There are two definitions between combat troops and non-combat troops. You are using the MOS distinction, which only applies in peacetime. When deployed the lines get blurred depending on deployment and mission. For instance, an intel weenie attached to a maneuver battalion at the front lines is considered a combat trooper, even if his job in the battalion is to avoid combat if possible while processing and reporting combat info. It's only at higher levels when specialized MOS's have their own units that we distinguish between combat troop and non-combat troops on the battlefield. For instance, if the same intel weenie was attached to the intel company of the HHC(-) division HQ, then he'd no longer be a combat troop.

But I think this has more to do with a political definition than military anyway. All the "combat troops" were brought home to fullfil a political promise, and just the "military advisers" (who will be doing the same things as the combat troops did) are left behind.
Click to expand...
Oh I understand, I was in the same situation myself (ammo tech attached to MPs as a machine gunner). I'm simply putting forth that they removed combat units in those three areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top