 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! December 8, 2006 The War in Raw NumbersBy GreyhawkA quick test to see if you know what you think you know. As of 30 September 2006, 1. How many U.S. troops (Army, Navy, USAF, Marines, Coast Guard - Active Duty, Guard and Reserve) have deployed in support of OEF and OIF? Of that number, what percentage were 2. Guard or Reserve? 3. Army and Marine Corps (Active, Guard, and Reserve) members deployed whose primary specialty is/was "infantry"? 4. Female? 5. Killed in hostile action? Answers here (a popup will appear).
According to the data, compiled monthly by the Defense Department, 24 percent of soldiers who have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan have gone more than once. Air Force numbers show that 42 percent of the 287,632 airmen ever deployed have gone more than once. Standard deployments for airmen are four months, compared to 12 months for soldiers. Posted by Greyhawk / December 8, 2006 12:40 AM | Permalink 1 TrackBackA short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention. In the News: (Registration may be required to read some stories) Read More 20 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
I'm an Army reserve component drill sergeant. There are something like four or five army reserve training divisions, each with several battalions worth of drill sergeants (we have about 60 or 70, plus other support personnel.) Our normal war time mission is to mobilize and take over an active duty Basic Training battalion someplace like fort jackson, sill, benning or knox. Well, the army doesn't seem to be interested in that. They also, for some reason, won't mobilize anyone with the drill sergeant identifier. You'd think that because the training of Iraqis is so crucial, they'd have a use for us over there. So far, nothing.
If 11% of the US troops referenced in the data above are female, why does your motto on the left say "and his wife who stands by him." ??
Erik, that's a really stupid question. The motto on the left refers to the specific person who writes this blog. He is male and has a wife.
America's leaders hallucinated wmd in Iraq where no wmd were but completely ignored Iran's ambitions. To make things worse, OIF made sharia, after godless decades, the constitutional rule of law in Iraq again. And under the rule of green zone democracy, Iraq got army and police forces dominated by shiites now, in other words: America created new likely Iranian proxy troops in Iraq and made itself dependent of the peaceful ambitions of the mullahs in Tehran.
The U.S.A. have completely run out of options in the entire greater middle east now, nobody talks of victory in Iraq anymore but how to limit further damages. Before this background, I wouldn't even think about strengthening those shiite proxy troops unless you really want to fight Iran's wars. One word from Tehran and the shiites in Iraq will turn the weapons you gave them against you.
Knowing that time is on their side Iran little by little earns the windfall profits from OIF. Iran's influence along the Fertile Crescent (google that!) has increased dramatically. All of a sudden the US-Army in Iraq has also become a buffer against Iran's sunni rivals rejecting a shiite crescent. From both (fundamentalist) sunni and shiite point of view, Operation Iraqi Freedom could be the overture of the revival of a much larger historic conflict. Only who controls the Fertile Crescent can rule the world. This is one of the oldest laws of war of mankind - from the place where mankind's civilization was born. Already Alexander the Great knew it.
Under almost every circumstances the shiite power and influence should be reduced. Should Iraq be divided, should Tehran expand territory to south Iraq, this could be the casus belli of a real big war in the middle east.
It is the strengthening of Iran that makes the OIF disaster complete and I' afraid that will become even clearer in the near future.
2020 I've completed the above post and keep myself up on the situation as best I can.
Iran DOES NOT scare the beejeebers out of me. But maybe that is just me.
Iran is running a bluff and making the lefties quake in their boots and crap their drawers. Has anyone ever seen the President really concerned with these 17th century baboons? There are enough subs with multi warhead nuc's surrounding Iran to turn it into a sea of glass. They just need to push the wrong button one time to find out they are nothing but a bad memory. North Korea is in the same boat, a loud mouth is all the idiot Kim can muster. He's not stupid enough to turn himself into burnt toast.
If the cowardly left wing in the U.S. congress would do what they have sworn to do, protect the American people we wouldn't have any problems. They're aid and comfort is all that keeps the terrorists going and hoping the dimmi's will surrounder. So far only a couple of dimmi's have shown the guts to speak up. Another terrorists attack on America and the people will assure that the dimmi's no longer exist. We aren't stupid and we know who's endangering us for political purposes. Even the dimmi's will eventually have to admit that and stand up.
If you base the casualty percentage on the extreme pointy end of the stick (infantry) instead of lumping all military personnel together, the percentage is almost exactly 1% killed. Quite a bit larger than the .15% quoted. Even so, I wonder how this stacks up against other conflicts?
I'll bet it's a far lower KIA percentage than the infantry has 'enjoyed' in any past conflict.
Uh..no BenJCarter your wrong. Not only the infantry is there. Maybe they are their in larger numbers but almost all MOS's are available to go. I'm in the navy and we have 5 members on the ground from my unit now over there.
Forgot to say that my posting was an answer to rankin.
I wonder why no one mentions the numbers or percentage of female "troops" killed by hostile action? Could that be because it is so low it embarrasses those who pretend women are put in the same danger, and make the same contributions, as men? I have often thought that the proportion of women killed in Iraq/Afghanistan is likely lower than that of nurses and other female staff killed in Vietnam. But even speculating about such facts is un-PC.
Women will not be "equal" until a number of women equal to that of men have been killed defending our freedoms.
"America's leaders hallucinated wmd in Iraq where no wmd were..."
Bullshit. EOD has found plenty of shells and chemical precursors buried in the desert. I've talked with plenty of the guys that dig this stuff up.
Granted, it is not (nearly) the stockpiles of already made stuff the CIA and foreign nations intelligence services thought, but hallucination? No. But that isn't a sexy headline, is it? Sadam had plenty of shit all buried. They've also found lots of mass graves, but who gives a shit about those right?
I'm on my Fourth Deployment, but as a special operations signal soldier, my deployments are not one year.
SPC M.S.G, US Army.
Please don't feed the trolls. If the Lefties want to believe their bull about WMDs being the reason we went into Iraq, let them.
As mentioned with the Air Force, you have to take into consideration different tour lengths. Marines generally go to OIF for 6 months, so a Marine who has been deployed twice, has actually only been in Iraq about as long as a Soldier who has been deployed once. An Airman, deployed three times, will have the same time in country as a Soldier deployed once. Not that it's any consolation for any of them (believe me I know), but it skews the numbers if you don't take that into account.
As for the pointy end of the spear, the CAB was put in place to recognize the sacrifices that non-infantry MOS Soldiers were making. In our division (4th ID), thousands of non-11B Soldiers were doing straight infantry missions, but not authorized the CIB because they were other MOSs. It didn't mean they weren't doing 11B missions, taking 11B casualties.
Rankin, you must be in the wrong Division. My division, 95th IT, has deployed trainers, DS, to A'stan' Iraq, Sill and Jackson. The ones at Sill are half way through their second year. Plus many mobed in ones and twos to support active duty at Sill, L. Wood, and Jackson plus in secondary MOS slots overseas. Who do you think is running the NCO academy for the Afghani Army?
Bullshark,
I, too, am in the 95th. Yes, I'm aware we have ones and twos mobilized at various posts. Our battalion has a company at Sill right now, though instead of serving as a company, they've been farmed out. I also realize we have soldiers from the 95th overseas as we speak. Several of our battalion's recently returned.
I'm talking about a large scale mobilization. Right now, it's all on a volunteer basis. It simple seems to me that we could be doing a lot of good work over there, as a battalion, not as 2-3 guys here and there.
Question: Does the 1.4M deployed represent individuals or deployments? In other words, if a svcmbr goes twice does this count twice? It would be interesting to compare the number of individual deployers against the total end strength to see what percentage of members have gone.
The reason the USAF deploys in 4-month blocks instead of 1 year is because anything over 180 days of deployment in 1 year means the USAF has to pay lots of extra benefits.
submandave, I'd be interested in that too. How many soldiers have gone twice?
With Marines, their tours are shorter and more frequent, 7 months vs. 12 months, so some of them are on third or maybe even fourth tours.
The USMC and USAF take care of their people a lot better than the Army, too. Seven or four months, even if more frequently repeated, is a lot better than the 12 months, sometimes extended to 16 months that the Army has done.
submandave and observer5,
The 1.4M is deployments, not individuals.
That's why, I'm sure, Greyhawk added the Army Times quote to give you the infomation on individuals.
I'm in A'stan my second time right now.
Who provided the fake intel? Saddam Huessein, who insisted on keeping the impression that he had the WMD -- to the point of shell-gaming the weapons inspectors -- to deter his enemies.
We took him at his word -- the difference this time, from the past ... we acted accordingly.
And ... stockpiles or no stockpiles ... rightly so.
We took Saddam at his word ... and he was lying.
Our current President, OTOH, was good to his word.
Somehow, Unitary Anne, I don't think that you are living up to your namesake denomination ... Unitarians aren't real big on the recompense of sin, from what I see.
However, like a few Unitarians I've heard about, you might just be so open-minded that your brains have leaked out.
The numbers surprised me, the the resolve doesn't.