Article repeatedly suggests any flood damage would largely affect the Mexican side, so I figure Trump would see it as a positive. As for any damage to Texas, well - cheaper real estate...
Here's how things play out: there is the theoretical army where doctrine dictates how things should go and the real army where things end up actually going - sometimes but not all the time. If current doctrine is "train in body armor" then most units will do that most of the time unless in the interest of safety the conditions won't allow it - or maybe that unit doesn't have body armor. Or maybe that unit trains in body armor half the day only. In 2003 our brigade doctrine was every vehicle and large piece of equipment deploying to the sandbox will be painted in desert camo pattern. Our brigade chose our unit to go first to the sandbox because we were the most highly trained and thus the best & most experienced. None of the vehicles in our unit or brigade were painted in desert camo, they were painted in woodland camo because we were based in Germany - makes sense. But our unit was two hours+ away from our brigade, where the vehicle painting was done. Our commander wanted our vehicles & whatnot to be painted and tried & tried but nobody could arrange it. But amazingly all the stuff in the brigade where the paint shop was located got painted. Long story short our unit deploys to the sandbox with woodland camo vehicles & equipment where we will stick out like a sore thumb. Thanks a bunch! Behind enemy lines on totally unsecured roads & airfields in an actual "holy shit" people & equipment are getting shot & blown up war and we can be spotted by Stevie Wonder. We didn't even get camo uniforms to wear until about one week - one fucking week - prior to Bush saying "let's roll!" But while we were in the sandbox the brigade back in Germany had every fucking piece of what they own painted to perfection in desert camo so they would be ready when it was their turn to deploy. So protocols are in place but there are exceptions to the rule - many times there are more exceptions than there are rules. I'm sure you've seen in war movie in which a young soldier gets to his first unit and the first thing the crusty NCO's tell him is "forget all that shit they taught you in basic son! We'll teach you how things really work!" And like shooter said, "photo-ops and dog & pony shows" are a big deal. That is the ultimate "what you see is not what you get" most of the time. A great example is WWI. After the war they had dog & pony parades to celebrate the war's end. Many times the soldiers and equipment in the parade NEVER WENT TO WAR! They used troops and equipment stationed safely in the US - the soldiers & equipment that actually won the war were too beat down & tore up to look good in a parade. The civilians don't know the difference anyway.
yep......send in THE NAVY if flooding gets too deep! Space Command, River Command......the opportunities are endless!
dude.....hate to say "you had to be there" when it comes to what the army does, but "you had to be there" to really get it.
Sorry but bullshit, I got it from the word go. There are a variety of uniform options available at the discretion of command staff. They'll choose based on mission parameters, risk assessments, so on and so forth. There was never a practical nor a doctrinal necessity for the body armour except as a political statement, one that was clearly always going to cause more problems than it solved.
So to catch up: They dropped the theatrical name Trump completely dropped the subject Ever House district which touches Mexico save one went to the Democrats and the one that didn't was VEEEERY close.
"They'll choose based on mission parameters, risk assessments, so on and so forth. There was never a practical nor a doctrinal necessity for the body armour except as a political statement, one that was clearly always going to cause more problems than it solved." spot261 yes your first sentence is true. Your second sentence is just your opinion, your assumption. You have NO FUCKING WAY of knowing whether or not wearing body armor was a political statement. It can be construed as one - but anything can be construed as a political statement when you get right down to it. Bottom line unless you were in that unit, in the actual briefing/meeting when the uniform for that mission or task was decided upon, or were there when the SOP's (Standard Operating Procedure) for that unit then you are talking out your ass. Granted if you can prove to me that wearing body armor was purely a political choice versus a routine, normal, precedented choice then obviously you are privy to information and facts echelons above your pay grade.
If you’re talking about Texas 23 that race still may not be decided. The incumbent has the lead, but provisional, absentee, military and overseas ballots are still pending. The vote is so close at this point that those outstanding ballots could make a difference in who wins.
In which case there's absolutely no point having a forum like this one is there? If people can't make observations of the world and statements based on them there's nothing legitimate to say at all. People are more than capable of watching events and making pretty reasonable assessments of what they are seeing and interpreting those events to form models of how the world works. That's the whole point of a discussion forum and it's what everyone does every tie they post here, you included. You're acting like this is some kind of rocket science throwing jargon around as though the military was somehow mystical and incomprehensible and smarting because you waved your expertise around only to have to backtrack when it became incontrovertibly clear the civilian was right all along. I don't imagine anyone over the age of eighteen needs to be told what SOP stands for, nor are logistics chains and risk assessments unknown to the rest of us. We just generally choose not to actually talk that way in practise in an attempt to make the mundane sound like PhD stuff
so spot................. you still can't prove that wearing body armor is politically motivated I see. I guess the civilian was not right after all. Thanks for playing though!
Y'know, I was about to apologise for having taken a bad couple of days out on you, but yes the civilian was right and the onus isn't on me to prove anything. I stated quite clearly I believed there was flexibility in the choice of kit at command level. You claimed expertise and said there wasn't, doctrine insists the armour must always be worn on deployment and that was non negotiable. Lo and behold next thing we know the troops are deployed without the body armour you claimed was mandatory and suddenly you about faced. You can't have it both ways, either it's mandatory or it isn't, you've claimed both.
It's mandatory doctrine to not exceed 70 MPH on the freeway near my house - yet people still speed. And some cops will let it slide depending on traffic conditions, and some cops won't. So is it mandatory or not? No, you don't have to prove that wearing body armor is (was) politically motivated like you claimed. That was unfair of me to ask you to do that, because I know you cannot because you were talking out your ass. Again, if you were involved in the mission planning please weigh in with your comments - I'm sure you did when you were in the meetings, right?
Dude, this post makes no sense at all. The question was whether or not the body armour is mandatory, not whether it was politically motivated. There was no requirement for me to prove it was, because that wasn't the point being made, that was what is known as an interpretation. You said the armour was mandatory, then when you were shown to be wrong you said it wasn't. It's that simple. You were proved wrong and tried to backtrack hoping no one would notice. You've been found out, have a little dignity and self respect and stop digging deeper.
in a neutral context, one could easily argue that there was a non-political motivation for the armor and helmets - in THIS context when the entire fucking assignment is a transparent political stunt, there's no benefit of the doubt on the subject y'all are discussing.
Thank you for your service. What did you do in The Sandbox (military slang for Afghanistan, Iraq, sometimes Kuwait, and sometimes W) again?
That is the US military from what I understand. They have standards that fit an ideal circumstance, but they don't always stop because the full preparations are incomplete. Welcome to the world. Was it a photo op? Sure it was. was it an ordered photo op? Of course it was. As long as they are gone before the caravan arrives and are not involved in civilian arrests and enforcement of the law on the caravan I am fine. Even the politically motivated photo op I am fine with for a reason. Despite the reality I think we should give these people a chance and allow them in legally, that is not our laws. The reality is a lot of these people plan on crossing outside of legal methods. I agree there should be better methods and Donnie little hands should not be allowed to withold asylum process, but even so they do not seem to be planning to cross at the crossings legally. This means it is the law to arrest and report them if they cross. So perhaps this dog and pony show discourages some of them from doing an illegal crossing and either settling before crossing or trying to cross legally when they get here. In these cases the potential for violence from law enforcement and the problems of holding children and families can me mitigated by discouraging pictures of military opposition. As long as the military is gone to a purely recon and report role for the border patrol and authorities by the time they get here I am not going to freak out. What they are planning is illegal. It is like the present drug war. I don't agree with the position, but sure show that law enforcement is out there and going to arrest people for drugs. It could destroy your life if you get busted for smoking a joint and have a career which frowns upon criminal activity. If you don't like it then flip the laws, but if you chose to break the law expect punishment for being caught. If there are problems with our immigration laws then let us change it, but crossing in this way is against the law and the message should be sent so that people don't screw themselves out of legal options for becoming a citizen because they chose to take their chances crossing criminally. This is not abnormal. If I jumped the Canadian border and got caught illegally working and residing in Canada they would toss me and never allow me back If I want to live there I should procede by their laws to move there.
I agree it was a political stunt, but it is also the law. To have the army deploy fences and preparations to assist local border patrol is within the purposes of the armed forces. This is not breaking the law. If they stay and have armed soldiers there that is a problem and a violation of military purpose. If a photo op to discourage illegal crossing will satisfy his racist idiots then satisfy them. This is something they voted for, no one is dying, and it might discourage some people from crossing illegally. Maybe I am desensitized but this just does not seem all that terrible or illegal. I am going to save my fight for if they do not leave and start challenging civilians with deadly military force.
wow! You were at the mission planning briefings and meetings too? Small world! Did you and spot compare notes? I bet you guys served in the same units a time or two during your military careers. BTW you guys might want to inform the military that they are only involved in a political stunt so they shouldn't take it too seriously.
I agree with your opinion of the purpose of the event, but IMO it is one of those cases where it is doing the overall right thing for the wrong reasons. I think that sending a message that illegal crossing is going to be opposed by strengthening border structures and that we are putting effort into stopping it is the message we should be sending. Cross in legal channels or else we are going to try and stop you. I also think that the military should be getting used to wearing body armor properly during certain civilian exercises. The setting up of barricades and other support structures in the field would be within their mission parameters and I would chose to have them do it for the sake of experience if in command. I don't want the military there when the migrants get there. That is a civilian issue of arrest and capture for deportation. If the military is going to use their spotting equipment and airborn craft unarmed to assist I can tolerate that. However, they should be way out of the line of fire by the time the caravan arrives. As for what to be done about the present mission object, protest, and get your opinion out there with a good argument. Finally vote a good leader into office and people whoa re concerned about making immigration better. I do apologize if my viewpoint made you feel yours was not welcome. It is part of rational discussion, and your point is one that needs to be there because too much armed military is a bad thing. That is a line of balance where we chose a level and I would prefer that over time that level decrease rather than increase.
Tererun as the go-to "voice of reason" on the caravan/border issue? It sure seems that way. Personally I don't care who comes across the border because we have so many home-grown criminals (not that the caravan members are criminals to begin with) and crazy, lazy system exploiting fuckers a few more won't make a difference. Any drug dealers? If there was no demand for their product they wouldn't be coming here. I would like to see a one-for-one exchange program! They bring one hard working, ambitious Central American to the border and we bring one lazy excuse-making malcontent to the border and swap them out. Damn I could probably win a presidential election with that platform!
I agree that the ultimate goal of the lower military command is preparation and training which would include body armor during non combat exercises. When we look at the reason they were there in the first place it was an order from trump to look strong for his people and send military to the border which is not normally done. He did this for a political purpose and it was also clear he was unaware the military could not take the confrontational role he wanted. I personally think the command to be in body armor probably came from lower officers who found it to be a training exercise where it could be done, and some officers under pressure to get a good photo establishing something being done which would discourage crossing. Knowing the military look good and appear strong was probably a desire for command for a picture op. Those soldiers might have been the prettiest ones in full gear while others might not have been so well equipped. I don't know, but it seems the publicity photos normally have purposes. I am not even arguing that is wrong.
I used to be an "armed military" member and trust me, none of us want to be around unarmed civilians. Nobody gets a thrill out of it and if the higher ups were looking for volunteers to not have to carry a weapon, every fucking hand would go up. What I really hate is carrying a weapon in a situation where we very well may have to use it.....but not having any live ammo. Yes, that does happen and the logic behind it would just piss off any sane person on any number of levels.
It is amazing (well maybe not) that Trump wouldn't know the limitations on a military force at the border. Well like they say, the CEO of an airline company doesn't have to be a pilot. Thus being Commander In Chief of the military doesn't mean you have to ruck up & march. That said CONSULT with the experts before formulating your plans. But that's just me.
they know. It's already been reported on. Everyone knows, ad everyone knows that everyone knows - except #Cult45 (the target audience) who were passionately motivated to go out and vote Trumpublicans. Mission accomplished. Everything from here on is just paying the mortgage on the campaign ad.
everybody knows? Better tell this Mattis guy - he must be a real inexperienced dipshit huh? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...of-sending-u-s-troops-to-border-idUSKCN1N526E
"Sending troops isn't a political stunt by the government, look the guy who signed off on it says so" Right now Mattis is arguably the least credible person on the planet where it comes to making that sort of statement.
That is spin doctoring. The decision to send the troops was a political stunt by trump. The military did it's job properly despite trump wanting to do the wrong thing. This is because our military is loyal to the country and the mission and not the president. Look, I respect certain things about the US military. I don't want them put in a position where they need to get hurt or shoot civilians because they are not trained or equipped to deal with that and we have other people for that. In this case I see our laws and guidelines for military use mattering and the military operating within the nation's rules. Trump obviously wants more, but the people who have served and know the military are operating as they should in this case despite his commands. This is one of the reasons why the left has to remember Donnie the tyrant is limited and he will not be a hitler because our military and government won't let one man lead us into such horrible things. He will not be able to seize power. This is one thing that is special and important about our military. It serves our country, not our leader. They are our countrymen not our authority. This is why I can respect the soldier and not the orders. It is why I try to make sure we get good people who establish the laws and guidelines which direct our military. In this case the show was offensive to some, but in other cases poor decisions have meant the death of many people and that includes the military. We need better leaders who respect and use that military properly.
