Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Nova, Oct 29, 2018.
Politics as Usual.
I admit that I haven't researched it, but I'm not sure why they're building it where they are right now. There's already a wall/fence there. I've been to it numerous times.
6 miles won't even stop one of the infants from walking around it. Maybe we should put this money towards next years secret service babysitting of the first immigrant and her anchor baby barron? That should cover a week of her living in trump tower on our dime and bitching about how immigrants are ruining our country.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say "greedy idiots."
It's a working title.
True, six miles is ineffective in terms of stopping immigrants from crossing over the border, but it probably looks good as a bit of bluster.
Well, it would give you a small area without people crossing to take a picture.
Makes sense. i wouldn't have expected anything similar to civies but i figured there had so be some uniform of the day that didn't involve all the excess. But that's a reasonable explanation
Of course they can wear something else when on a non combat deployment, don't be ridiculous, here's some soldiers doing exactly that:
Tactics and policies adapt to situational factors and you don't need a military background to see the common sense behind that.
Obviously wearing body armour is provocative, it's combat gear, it screams out "I'm here to deal with violence".
Oh, on another note, the science isn't out on the red blood cells thing, it's pretty well established, take it from a guy with polycythaemia
Well, actually I would say wearing body armor during physical labor as training is a good idea. Body armor is bulky and somewhat uncomfortable. the more used to wearing it the less likely you are to not wear it when you are supposed to, or to wear it wrong for comfort sake. As a paintball ref we always had to wear goggles on the field. The best advice was to wear them until you become comfortable in them. Everyone hates wearing them at first, and the more you wear them the more comfortable you are in them. I would imagine body armor is similar as you adapt to it's presence. The building of walls and tents would be something the armed forces would do on a battlefield in armor so this does make sense. We used to do paintball combat sims with west point cadets and they carried gear you would never need in paintball as part of the excercise.
I agree that you might not want to send the wrong message, and trump is tweeting the wrong messages. However, this seems to be a duty bound obligation of the troops, and the troops do everything in uniform for a purpose.
Also the troops get used to the utility of their combat uniforms. They become more efficient because they know where their pockets and gear are stored. The clothing is standard, strong, and made for their mission. It also tells you who is in command, and authoriszed to be in places. You are also taught to be proud of the uniform which means many would want to wear it. If you damage the clothing it gets replaced. Your civilian clothing should be a lot more expensive to replace than your military issued clothing.
About the only negative I could see to wearing the military uniform is the drunk militia roaming around with guns who might think some poor mexican has the money to deck themselves out in a military uniform with military gear and shoot them.
If the troops haven't had ample time to adapt to wearing body armour during basic training and throughout the rest of their careers then a few days on the Mexican border seems superfluous. Physical adaptations to stimuli happen progressively, they take months and years, they aren't going to gain anything significant by spending this deployment wearing body armour, any advantages to be gained there should have already happened by now or won't happen at all.
I'm not suggesting individual soldiers should take the initiative and remove it but I don't for a second believe there aren't more diplomatic alternatives or that a doctrine is so ingrained as to be willfully counterproductive and still not open to the discretion of command staff.
@spot261 I am just mentioning some more reasons because @oldfella1962 does not always give all the detail.
The US troops are laying out walls that should only be touched by the US troops. By being in uniform they will be able to more easily spot a person who is doing stuff to the fencing. It may even be a farmer or militia person stealing the fence for other locations or purposes. Being in uniform makes the troops more easily identified.
That is even a issue with the mexican authorities who may be in the area. Knowing a person is US military rather than one of the caravan or an armed militia person with no authority is important for them. As a mexican army or authority I am probably less likely to treat a person in official US military uniform more pleasantly than some armed or unarmed person in civilian clothing. The troops have rules and orders and there is no war going on so thy probably do not want to start shooting at troops and treat them more as allies who are lost if they are out of place. Yes, armed is bad and looks agressive, but as allies I think they could politely escort our troops back to their people rather than consider them invading.
No one suggested they shouldn't be in uniform, they're suggesting the body armour isn't required, they are not one and the same.
I am saying this is something it is good to get used to and remain used to. No it would not be covered in just a few weeks of basic training. This is something that will actually improve troop efficiency in combat over a lifetime. It is not just troops. If you have a peice of equipment you are always carrying around you get better and better with it. This sort of thing has been adapted for sports training and entertainment also.
To give you an idea we used to ref with our ammo packs on and full of junk paint when we were on teams. It got us used to running around with the weight and moving wit bulk through the woods. We got used to where our timers, squeegees, and wipes would be. The pros did more because you can never be too good with your gear.
The reality is people who are uncomfortable wearing something wear it wrong or take it off. Better to have all the time getting as comfortable and used to it as possibe than to have to get used to it in the thick of battle.
I will say that I think the benefits for the troops training and effectiveness outweighs the negative image that might come from body armor on the troops.
I do see where you are coming from. That is not peaceful attire. However, I think that diplomatic relations should be able to overcome the sight of military on the border.
I get all of this, but my point is those troops have already had years to build up those tolerances, they should already be at the point where they've gained those advantages and a couple of weeks on the Mexican border shouldn't make the slightest difference either way. If they haven't already built up that tolerance they're never going to.
They aren't in combat and they aren't playing paintball, they are acting as the highly visible arm of national policy whilst dealing with non combatant civilians on the world stage in a highly delicate situation. This is a situation which requires tact and discretion, not mindless adherence to doctrine. The image they present and the ramifications of that more than outweigh the miniscule advantages on offer to the as individuals of wearing that body armour, advantages they should already have gained anyway.
They might see it as a humanitarian mission with soldiers just out of basic so they have experience with non combat engagements?
here's the thing about that - THEORETICALLY we don't need a fence along areas of rugged terrain because the rugged terrain itself is a "natural barrier" people aren't likely to want to cross. Hey, whatever makes them sleep better at night I guess.
Is that happening?
Gen. Haterling(sp?) notes that under his command in Iraq he had ONE public affairs unit for 30k troops.
Tell us again how Trump isn't using the army for blatantly partisan propaganda?
"Operation Faithful Patriot"?!! Obviously not a Trump designation. "Operation Shoot The Darkies" would be more his speed.
Apparently the body armor isn't always necessary.
I'd wager that the earlier images were at least as much about the photo op/dog and pony show than they were about any "training".
Well, in the lower pic, the giant steel dildo is almost complete, so the boys gotta strip down.
okay for you civilians let me explain: what uniform to wear and how to wear it (there are many combinations and variations) can be dictated at differing levels. And often large operations involve many different units. For example one unit deploying wire might wear nothing but shirt pants & Kevlar (like in the video) and another unit might be wearing "full battle rattle" meaning a lot more extra tactical gear. Still another unit might ditch the helmet and wear a soft cap. When it gets hotter one unit might wear pants with a t-shirt, while another unit might make their soldiers keep the long sleeve shirt on.
But what you rarely see is every soldier dressing as they see fit when involved in a group task. Either everyone wears a helmet or nobody does - and whoever is in charge makes this decision. Hope I cleared things up when you see varying uniforms for similar tasks.
Reminds me of something that used to happen a lot at Fort Rucker - now and then we would have a big "group run" involving hundreds, sometimes thousands, of soldiers running in a big formation. You had to show up and stand around for a long time waiting for it to start. The run route, start time, and uniform for the run was dictated ahead of time from the higher leadership.
But with all these runs the uniform changes would drive you crazy!
For example the prescribed uniform might be hat, gloves, PT shorts & t-shirt with a long sleeve PT sweatshirt top over the t-shirt. You show up wearing that, then the folks at the top say "it's cold so put the sweat bottoms on". Everyone back to their cars to get their sweat bottoms! Then somebody who outranks that person says "now it's getting warmer - ditch everything except the t-shirt and shorts" so you put your extra clothes in a pile and hope nobody steals your shit or forgets where they put their clothes and rifle through yours - remember all the clothes look the same. Then somebody at the top says "now the uniform is gloves, no hat, PT long sweat bottoms with a t-shirt only".
All this fun and the run hasn't even actually started yet. Of course the run is all about "unit cohesion" so everyone has to run at the same speed and keep a uniform distance between each other. So if you are a fast runner you have to "airborne shuffle" along taking tiny baby steps - bad for your knees & other joints. If you are a very slow runner you might gas halfway along the route and have to drop out and run with the "profiles" which are people who are temporarily medically unable to run that day, so they have to walk instead. You will be mocked and quite possibly be chewed out especially if you are an NCO who are expected to "set the example" of physical & mental toughness.
Like I said. Photo op/dog and pony show.
Which is exactly the opposite of what you were saying until that picture showed up!
no, it's not the exact opposite. Please explain why you think that.
Okay I went back and read some posts and Tererun really "gets it" when it comes to uniforms & training & tactical mindset and whatnot. Spot however is still struggling with the concepts
If I were forming my own army spot would need remedial training.
I don't think it, it's what you've said.
You claimed that deployment downrange in body armour is standard practise and isn't open to discretion. You stated it was nothing to do with the nature of the deployment and those troops would always be wearing body armour because that's doctrine and said doctrine is utterly inflexible. You then gave some rather spurious explanation about conditioning and every single deployment being a chance to adapt to functioning whilst wearing that kit, regardless of circumstances.
I countered by calling that nonsense and offered that command level staff must have that discretion available, it makes no strategic or frankly common sense to be tied to a single protocol regardless of the situation on the ground or the role being carried out.
Now a picture turns up with soldiers not wearing the body armour and you are suddenly saying exactly what I was all along, that service dress is entirely contextual and at the discretion of a sufficiently high ranking officer.
You can't have it both ways, your last post contradicts your earlier ones.
"The reality is people who are uncomfortable wearing something wear it wrong or take it off. Better to have all the time getting as comfortable and used to it as possibe than to have to get used to it in the thick of battle. "
But to be honest I was often guilty of not following this line of logic when it came to wearing my body armor, NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical) gear, and Kevlar. I felt like I was in a straight-jacket and the Kevlar helmet covers up your ears and blocks your hearing. Also I have a bad "kyphosis" meaning my upper back is bent - so when I have to shoot from the prone position wearing a helmet my back pushes up the back of my helmet which pushes the front of my helmet down, blocking my vision. So If I want to see my target (pretty much priority #1 in marksmanship!) I have to use my left hand to push up the front of my Kevlar and shoot one handed using a sandbag to prop up the front of my rifle. The only work-around is stuffing a shirt inside my helmet so the helmet rides way above my head where my back won't affect it - and hope nobody says "dude, what the fuck is wrong with your head?"
Trump’s Border Wall Could Cause Deadly Flooding in Texas. Federal Officials Are Planning to Build It Anyway
Separate names with a comma.