Wait, I thought the combat in Iraq is over and they are withdrawing combat troops

[Axle_techie]

So why are they sending 5,000 soldiers from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment to Iraq? Was the planned withdrawal going on as scheduled just smoke and mirrors?

I feel lied to. I feel like the Government thinks I am stupid. I feel like I would like to see, JUST FREAKING ONCE, a promise from the politicians that was actually and wholeheartedly kept to its fullest extent. I don't know why this isn't being put all over the news. You cannot say that an armored cavalry regiment are not combat troops... they drive TANKS! WHAT THE FLYING FORNICATION IS GOING ON???

[Skittles]

1. please, just listen to the purty speeches

PAY NO ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON BEHIND THE CURTAINS

[area51]

75. +1 n/t

[tabatha]

2. All combat operations in Iraq are being performed and

commanded by Iraqis. All American bases are under the control of Iraqis.

Any US troops are there for training. If 5,000 soldiers are being sent there, it is probably to replace some of those whose tours are up.

Think!

[EFerrari]

3. You must be joking. Karzai is our puppet.

I doubt much of anything is under the control of the Iraqis, not even the propaganda on Iraqi teevee.

[PacerLJ35]

10. You'd be wrong

Because the Iraqis do make many decisions on their own. In fact, we'd force them to make their own decisions...which was maddening because they'd always want us to decide for them. But over time they've gradually begun to actually do things on their own, which is a very good thing.

[EFerrari]

14. Poor Pentagon. Being forced by those incompetent Iraqis

to make all the decisions. Just because their country was made a WAR ZONE for NO FUCKING REASON, they shouldn't be so slow on the uptake.

My deepest sympathies. It must have been quite a tribulation to you.

[PacerLJ35]

17. Ummm, no...

They didn't look to us to make all the decisions because we made their country into a war zone...it's because in the past they didn't get to make decisions at a tactical level...everything was run from the top down (ie, Saddam had a very tight grip). It's really not much different with the other Arab nations I've worked with, either. Dunno, they just don't like making important decisions...but they will if forced to.

[EFerrari]

78. "They will if forced to". And there it is. nt

[PacerLJ35]

80. And there it is?

See, you're always on here acting like we're always, always, always the bad guys...every last one of us in uniform. You need to drop the big, bad American schtick because it's really old.

When I said "they will if forced to", I didn't mean that I was holding my 9mm to their head yelling "dammit do it!"....

What I meant is they would ask us "what do we do?", despite already being trained in the matter. They just didn't want to have to accept responsibility for the result. So we'd tell them "use your training and make a decision...this is your country, your Air Force...you guys have to do this on your own. We'll add our two cents if we feel we need to".

When they saw we weren't going to hold their hand, THEN they would make the decisions...and most of the time they made fairly good decisions (although there were a few times they wouldn't, and that's when we'd add our advice).

You have to understand their mentality over the past 30-40 years...they were run by a tightly controlled dictatorship. Military officers, particularly those in line units, did NOT make decisions on their own. They waited to be told what to do. This is in contrast to the American military way of doing things (well, Western military way I should say because most of NATO operates this way)...were line unit commanders and leaders make decisions on the spot, taking into account overall command policy, etc. They are learning how to do things on their own, but it's a tough paradigm to crack.

[EFerrari]

85. I don't think you understand your own mentality

let alone, the mentally of the Iraqi people under occupation. A people who were doing things "on their own" when northern Europeans were still painting themselves blue and talking to trees.

Not that there's anything wrong with painting yourself blue and talking to trees.

lol

[PacerLJ35]

97. I really don't think YOU understand their mentality

I lived and worked with them for a year...anything you might think of with regard to the Iraqi people is probably wrong.

[truedelphi]

51. Do you remember how right before the Shock and Awe

The SF Chronicle listed what installations we Americans planned to hit, and which of our corporations would step in to replace the downed facilities?

So for instance, Iraqi Water and Sewage -- its replacement, Bechtel
Whatever the Iraqi version of Verizon was, to be replaced by Motorola.

And the people in Iraq cannot even plant conventional crops - according to the regs that are part of the New Iraqi Constitution, they must plant GM crops.

[PacerLJ35]

55. Motorola replaced their cell system?

I'm in shock! Because after all the time I spent over there, I never saw a single damn Motorola system...their cell system runs using Iraqna and Asia Cell...both indigenous companies.

The construction contracts in the area I was in was being done by Turkish and Iraqi companies, such as Al Andalus.

[Wilms]

59. Yep. The EU prevailed. So?

They're pocketing it, despite the local firms.

But all that's housekeeping notes.

Here's what you need to know:

WMD: Fail

Democracy: Fail

Lot's of blood and heartache for fail.

[PacerLJ35]

63. Interesting, considering the parent companies are based in the ME

Iraqna was the largest cell provider in Iraq. It was originally owned by Orscom, based out of Egypt, but sold to Zain, based in Kuwait.

Asia Cell was locally started in the late 1990s and still exists today, and is still an independent Iraqi cell phone company.

There are a few others but they are much smaller than both Zain (Iraqna) and Asia Cell. So I don't know where this connection to the EU comes in to play? Show some proof...

[Wilms]

65. This is among references leading to my misunderstanding.

http://www.internetnews.com/wireless/article.php/2171271/CDMA-Pushed-on-Postwar-Iraq.htm

The current reconstruction plan involves using U.S. funds to install a European-based wireless technology known as GSM (define) for a new Iraqi cell phone system. Issa's bill (HR 1441) would give preference to American companies, including QUALCOMM.


So did the US fund the infrastructure? Or is that $ among the billions that got lost in the fog of war?

[PacerLJ35]

67. It says "European-based technology", not European-based companies

GSM is one of the standard cell phone formats in Europe. Iraq generally abides by European standards with regards to its technology and communications infrastructure, as does most of the middle east.

You found an article that talked about proposed stuff, but please find something that states there's a US-based cell phone company operating in Iraq, because I'm not aware of any. In fact, I had an Iraqna phone and was well aware of the source of the company.

I fully believe the Iraqis found their own sourcing for the cell phone system, since it was very fractious and it didn't work very well. Most Iraqis keep two cell phones...an Iraqna phone when they are in south and central Iraq, and an Asia Cell when they go up north.

Finally, that article is from 2003. It's 2010 now, and in my very recent experience with the Iraqi cell phone system I didn't notice a single US- or EU-based company, other than perhaps the actual phones themselves.

While some US companies may have benefitted from contracts in Iraq, in my experience most of the contractors I saw rebuilding Iraq were local or other middle-eastern in origin. Lots of companies from Turkey, the UAE, Saudi, etc.

Most of the US or EU companies I saw working over there were involved with contracts relating to US facilities.

[EFerrari]

77. I'm sure that's for their own good, too.

:sarcasm:

[truedelphi]

96. Probably just all about

The American way.

Gotta keep spreading the democracy to everywhere where the people are clueless.

My plan now is to move to Bhutan, and install water slides to keep the rest of the world out.

[Winterblues]

73. I am amazed that the "oldest civilization on earth" is unable to accomplish anything

It takes a country a little over two hundred years old to show it how to maintain a society....:shrug: History can be your friend..

[avaistheone1]

79. Good points.

[PacerLJ35]

12. Also, how did Karzai get into this discussion?

He's in Afghanistan...we're talking about Iraq.

[EFerrari]

15. You're right! Wrong puppet!

[PacerLJ35]

20. I've met with most of the Iraqi government leaders

In particular, Maliki, Saleh and Hashimi. I've also talked to Allawi. Saleh in particular I hold in high regard...he's a very intelligent, well-spoken man. He personally thanked me for being away from my family for a year.

Puppets? They routinely did things that weren't always in the US's interest. I personally gathered from being there and talking to them that they are trying to make the best of a difficult situation, and they have significant challenges ahead.

[Wilms]

61. OK. Bad puppets.

Bad, bad puppets.

[Axle_techie]

5. I am thinking... TANKS=COMBAT We are not sending 5,000

troops over with their armored vehicles so that the Iraqis can drive them. We are sending in combat ready troops. These people are trained to shoot things with huge guns mounted on huge vehicles. They are not trained to train others, they are trained to kill others. Read up on the 3rd armored cavalry regiment... Units named Headhunter and havoc hounds...

If you think they are there for training only, you are naive.

[PacerLJ35]

11. We have active F-16 and F-15 pilots training their Air Force...

So I suppose they are "combat troops" too? Just because a unit has a combat mission does not mean they can't be there to do other missions. For what it's worth, the Army does not have large numbers of people trained specifically as combat trainers. So what do you do in such a situation? Send in regular troops with a mandate to train them.

[Axle_techie]

18. If they are being sent with a combat mission, they are COMBAT TROOPS.

We have had 9 FUCKING YEARS to teach these people how to fight. They should have enough of their own people to teach them how to fight now, unless they are just plain stupid. You could get a phd in combat tactics in less time than that.

[PacerLJ35]

19. They aren't going in to conduct combat operations

That's the point. And while we've been there for 7 years (not 9 as you stated), we've only really been rebuilding their military in stride the past few years. Read up on the Iraqi military...where it is now and were it's projected to be...there's a lot of work to be done.

It's 2010 and they Iraqi Air Force still does not have any fighter aircraft (or much of a combat capability at all). The Army is further ahead, but again, lots of work still being done.

[Axle_techie]

21. How the hell is that our problem

And numbers don't really matter. We are illegally occupying a country. The reason we went there is false. As long as we have tanks and guns there, Americans will be dying. If you send a Soldier with live ammunition to a known hostile territory (I would hope they gave him live ammo) he is a combat troop. These tanks will not be sitting on base and only be used for training.

I know how the military works, and I know how politicians work. You can cheer for the failures we call politicians all you want, but the fact is they have handed us a turd and told us it is chocolate. I for one am disappointed, I was really hoping they would be up front with us on this one, I am tired about worrying if my friends are going to catch lead on their next T.O.D.

[PacerLJ35]

26. It's our problem because we created it

We stripped them of a viable military by A) destroying most of their military and B) disbanding the rest of it. I'm a big believer in the "you break it, you buy it" notion. We broke their country, and now it's on us to fix it...or at least fix it to where they can take the stick and move forward.

I was an advisor, and yes, I had live ammo and weapons. You'd be an idiot not to have that stuff in an area where there is still some violence. While I was there, most of the Army's vehicles were parked on the bases...they only brought what they needed out the gate to defend and protect themselves, and had the Iraqis do most if not all the work.

[Axle_techie]

29. I hope it stays that way. I have lost 1 friend to this war and

still have about 7 other on active duty, I believe 2 are in Afghanistan right now. The one I lost was in Iraq if I remember correctly. He had a wife and a young kid. I don't like these "wars". I never have liked them, and I hate seeing more people sent into them. I will believe it is over when the last American soldier leaves Iraq. Until then, I am not buying what the government is selling.

[PacerLJ35]

31. I have lost many friends over the years

Most due to accidents...but one friend died in Iraq...he was married and had kids. Another died in Albania during the Kosovo operation...he had three kids. It's not easy taking the loss of friends, but it is what it is.

[Axle_techie]

33. It never needed to happen in the first place, but unfortunately, I guess it is already to late for

that

[PacerLJ35]

35. No, it didn't need to happen

But it did...and we broke it. So I believe we're obligated to fix it, to a point.

[Axle_techie]

37. I do, too, but there has to be a better way.

[PacerLJ35]

38. Unfortunately some things aren't easy any way you slice it

[Lagomorph]

6. And they take their combat gear so they can swiftly redeploy to...

combat operations.

That was the last Combat BRIGADE, not the last combat troops. There are still Artillery and Combat Aviation units of less than brigade size deployed in Iraq.

"That presence is far from over. Scatterings of troops still await departure, and some 50,000 will stay another year in what is designated as a noncombat role. They will carry weapons to defend themselves and accompany Iraqi troops on missions (but only if asked). Special forces will continue to help Iraqis hunt for terrorists."

http://www.military.com/news/article/goodbye-iraq-last-us-combat-brigade-exits.html?ESRC=eb.nl


"President Barack Obama also is banking on the diplomats - about 300, protected by as many as 7,000 private security contractors - to assume the duties of the U.S. military. That includes protecting U.S. personnel from attack and managing the training of Iraqi police, starting in October 2011."

"The U.S. will have 50,000 troops in Iraq when the combat mission officially ends Aug. 31; they are scheduled to draw down to zero by Dec. 31, 2011. Until then, they will advise and train Iraqi security forces, and provide security and transport for the diplomats."

http://www.military.com/news/article/diplomats-take-the-lead-in-fractious-iraq.html

I was a part of the last 10,000 US Forces in Vietnam after the last combat units had departed. It was a very busy time for those of us still there. The Vietnamese asked us for assistance every day, all over the country.

[readmoreoften]

40. If you think we're taking orders from Iraqis, you're a fool. Also, it's not true.

And that comes from active duty over there as we speak.

[PacerLJ35]

47. We don't "take orders" from Iraqis, but we let them run the show

I'm active duty and I did it for a year.

[LostinVA]

72. That is not true, NONE of it

OMFG

[spanone]

4. wait, if bu$h* was in office we'd be sending 50,000 and no mention of withdrawal

or mccain

or palin

[Axle_techie]

7. So because it's only 5,000 combat troops, it's ok to send

them into an area where we were supposed to pull out our combat troops, right?

[Axle_techie]

8. unreccers trying to send some truth to oblivion

[sandnsea]

9. I didn't unrecommend

but anybody who has been paying the remotest attention to the Iraw drawdown knew that troops would continue to replace the 50,000 that are still there.

And that US troops will have tanks and guns. And that they will shoot if shot at. And that some will still die.

I do not know why you pretend anybody told you any different - just so you could gin up this faux outrage at being lied to. You're not fooling anybody except fools.

[Axle_techie]

16. Not trying to fool anyone.

I thought we were aiming towards a cessation of combat. WE ARE STILL SENDING COMBAT TROOPS. If we were in an active war with Canada, and they pulled out to end hostilities but kept sending guys with tanks to replace the tired guys with tanks, how serious would you think they are about ending the combat??? We have people trained to train people to fight, these were not them. We have spec ops capable of assisting the Iraqis while keeping at a reasonable distance. These were not them. You can try to defend it in any way you like, but the simple fact is that we are still sending combat ready troops into an area where just their presence instigates the combat. They can't get shot at if they are not there.

[jaxx]

22. The mission has changed.

Troops in Iraq won't be leading combat missions, they'll continue teaching the Iraqis to do their own leading. And unless you want the 50k left there to stay there until the end of 2011 there will have to be replacements sent in so they can go home. Labels are funny things, combat ready does not mean they will be used for combat.
But then that doesn't make for a good rant, does it?

[Axle_techie]

23. What doesn't make for a good rant

is pulling our troops out, ALL our troops out, of an illegally occupied country. I would love to hear about that. That would make my year.

[jaxx]

28. Mine too.

But drawing down from 144k to 50k is a damn good start. And the exit plan is in motion.

[PacerLJ35]

30. Good analogy

"Combat ready does not mean they will be used for combat"

I was a "combat ready" pilot while I was over there, but served purely as an advisor.

[noamnety]

42. How many years have we been "training the Iraqis to do their own leading"? (nt)

[jaxx]

45. I'll guess 2004 got the training going.

And then all hell broke loose. It's time to let the Iraqis be responsible and advise instead of lead them. We do have an exit date, it'll happen.

[PacerLJ35]

49. We are advising them...

[jaxx]

53. Works for me.

In any event, things are not the same today as they were in 2004 before the insurgents et al.

The end is in sight.

[PacerLJ35]

24. I was a member of CAFTT for a year

It's the sister organization of CMATT, which trains the Army side. We trained the Air Force. Few, if any of us, were special operations. Most of us came from operational units within the US Air Force. I in particular was a combat experienced C-130 pilot, along with most of the others in my unit. We did not come from training specialities, although at the time I was in a training unit back home (but that had no bearing on my deployment...I had volunteered and my background as a formal instructor was merely a coincidence).

This is really no different. The Army deployment system works by deploying units together, whereas the Air Force does not do that. These guys going out the door are going to teach the Iraqi military how to operate as a cohesive force. Their equipment will be used to train the Iraqis and to a lesser extent, defend themselves if need be.

[Axle_techie]

25. Still, sending armed tanks does not sit well with me

[PacerLJ35]

27. I suppose we should have sent them over there in ice cream trucks

complete with the music.

Get real man...these kids are going to a place where despite the drop in violence, there's still a chance they could get shot at with heavy weapons while training the Iraqis. It would be stupid not to send them over there in their vehicles. Most of the vehicles going there are MRAPs and similar...they are not offensive vehicles. There is talk of selling the Iraqis some of our older M2 and M3 Bradleys...if that's the case, sending the 3rd ACR makes sense.

[Axle_techie]

32. Of course not. If it to sell the Iraqis gear and teach them how to use it,

couldn't they have just brought a couple hundred Iraqis over here, taught them to use the equipment and sent it back with them? Let them teach their people?

[PacerLJ35]

34. It's not that easy...

We fought for a very long time just to bring a couple dozen Iraqi pilots to the US to train them...and it wasn't our government that was getting in the way. I could go into details, but after seeing the act of congress it took just to get a handful to come to the US, I can't even imagine trying to get several hundred to come over.

[Axle_techie]

36. oh, well that's sad that it is not that easy

there would be families of 5000 soldiers resting a little easier.

[PacerLJ35]

39. True...and trust me, we'd all like to send them over here

One example is the Iraqi government requires each Iraqi that leaves to pay what's essentially a "deposit" to guarantee they will return...problem is, most Iraqis can't afford it. We inked the deal to sell them the new C-130J, and part of that deal was to train them here in the US...they tried very hard to get us to agree to send US pilots over there and train them in Iraq...which is what we did with their older C-130Es they currently operate...

They would let some of the guys we advised travel to France, Italy and the Ukraine to test potential candidates for new aircraft, but when it came to traveling to the US, their government said "NO". I guess they were afraid they'd send people over to the US at great expense to them, only to have them not return.

They can be fickle about the strangest things.

[LiberalAndProud]

50. I know. We should be sending them in unarmored humvees.

That worked really well for us before.

[Axle_techie]

84. We should have never sent anyone in the first place

[readmoreoften]

43. That's not what the troops of the 3rd ACR as saying.

They are training for combat. They will continue as security forces while there.

[PacerLJ35]

46. So what, we "trained for combat" too

If you're going into a combat zone, you train for any and all scenarios. The truth is, they may very well be asked to help...that's right, according to the current agreement, if the Iraqi government asks us for help, we'll help them. In that case, they will assist in that capacity.

[sandnsea]

56. They are much more than combat troops

"Beginning in September 2001, 1st Squadron with elements of the Regimental Headquarters, 4th Squadron, and the Regimental Support Squadrons, deployed to Egypt to participate in the Bright Star 01/02 exercise, as part of a Combined Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) coalition. The coalition included Elements from the US Marine Corps, Egypt, France, Kuwait, Greece, Italy, and the British Army. The soldiers took part in field training and live fire exercises while in Egypt. They also conducted training on nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare, mine warfare, and the use of smoke on the battlefield. In addition, members of 1st Squadron and the Regimental Staff were tasked to conduct affiliation training with their Egyptian counterparts to teach them to function as Observer/Controllers (OC) for the forces involved in ground tactical operations, as well as establishing and maintaining communications and command and control between the various multinational OC forces."

Read more:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm

[mzmolly]

94. You mean sending cynical speculation into oblivion?

Guilty. :hi:

[PufPuf23]

13. also as always air attack is moments away in Iraq. nt

[anaxarchos]

41. Not just the 3rd Cav...

Five other Brigades as well.

The following six Brigades are to be in Iraq:

• 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division
• 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division
• 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment
• 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division
• 1st Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division
• 4th Brigade, 1st Armored Div

The only major change will be to rename them as "advise and assist". As you can see from the above, it would be hard to find 6 BCT in the U.S. Army which are less suitable for "training the Iraqi Army", which in any case will be carried out by entirely separate teams that are a fraction of the size of the above.

This is an open joke in the military press (particularly, "the last combat brigade leaving Iraq")... which I suggest you browse.

Bait... and... Switch...

[readmoreoften]

44. The idea that the 3rd ACR are training anyone is laughable.

[PacerLJ35]

48. Because you heard about it, right?

Dude, I was over there for a year...active US Army units were indeed training Iraqi army units on a regular basis. I worked within MNSTC-I (now US Forces Iraq)...I know how it was (and is).

[anaxarchos]

60. Since you are explaining, explain the rest...

How many Brigade Combat Teams were assigned to MNSTC-I? How many battalion sized units were permanently assigned? What was the total size of MNSTC-I?

[PacerLJ35]

66. MNSTC-I no longer exists...

It was replaced by US Forces Iraq, which combined the various sub-commands. But when it was operating, it was roughly divided into three organizations...CMATT, CAFTT and CPATT. They borrowed manpower and equipment from active units throughout the Army. They were not organized into BCTs that I'm aware of, but they did indeed have "combat troops" training the Iraqi Army.

That has all changed now that US Forces Iraq is the agency running the show. MNSTC-I no longer exists, so trying to compare one with the other isn't going to work.

[anaxarchos]

70. The answers are...

...Zero, One (temporarily), and about a tenth the size of the "residual force" now remaining in Iraq.

I could ask ten more questions, but what is the point? All of this is well known and has been for over a year (the article below is from Mar 25, 2009):

Despite Obama’s Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46264

A spokesman for Defence Secretary Robert M. Gates, Lt. Col. Patrick S. Ryder, told IPS Tuesday that "several advisory and assistance brigades" would be part of a U.S. command in Iraq that will be "re-designated" as a "transition force headquarters" after August 2010.

Despite Obama’s pledge, new evidence has emerged that combat brigades will remain in Iraq under a different name.
But the "advisory and assistance brigades" to remain in Iraq after that date will in fact be the same as BCTs, except for the addition of a few dozen officers who would carry out the advice and assistance missions, according to military officials involved in the planning process.

Gates has hinted that the withdrawal of combat brigades will be accomplished through an administrative sleight of hand rather than by actually withdrawing all the combat brigade teams. Appearing on Meet the Press Mar. 1, Gates said the "transition force" would have "a very different kind of mission", and that the units remaining in Iraq "will be characterised differently".

"They will be called advisory and assistance brigades," said Gates. "They won't be called combat brigades."

Obama’s decision to go along with the military proposal for a "transition force" of 35,000 to 50,000 troops thus represents a complete abandonment of his own original policy of combat troop withdrawal and an acceptance of what the military wanted all along - the continued presence of several combat brigades in Iraq well beyond mid-2010.

The troops remaining in Iraq are there to backstop the Iraqi government for another year (at least). Whether they are "combat" units or not depends on what actually develops in Iraq. Their relabeling is political. The Army didn't even really plan for this renaming until after the word came down. Then they scrambled.

The "last combat troops leave Iraq" story is a new level of cynicism and everyone knows it, with perhaps a few local exceptions.

"They might do some training... maybe" - that counts as a last stand.

[PacerLJ35]

81. Re-read my post

The organization of MNSTC-I was vasty different than the reorganized US Forces Iraq, which combines organizations like MNF-I, MNSTC-I and MND-(X).

Comparing the new organization to the old is like comparing apples to Tuesday.

[anaxarchos]

87. It's not your wording that is at issue...

Read the article (or a hundred others just like it).

You have defined "training" so broadly that a Trident Sub is a "training unit" because it "teaches" people to "bend over and kiss their ass goodbye".

The units left in Iraq are renamed Combat Units intended to backstop the U.S. sponsored Iraqi government for another year (probably longer) while a transparent fraud is perpetrated. Any "training" is a small part of their mission.

Just to be clear, let's take it further. What is the current status of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment?

The Regiment left Iraq in 2006 and was almost entirely reorganized, leaving behind most of its personnel and equipment to form the core of a new Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division. It made it to Fort Hood with about 500 troopers. There, it was re-equipped and reorganized from top to bottom:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/3acr.htm

"The Regiment arrived at Fort Hood with almost no equipment. The primary combat systems, the M1 Abrams and M3 Bradleys, had been left in Kuwait when the Regiment was redeploying. Thus began an intensive effort to outfit 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment with all of the newest gear the Army had to offer. Starting in September, 2nd Squadron fielded the first M1A2 SEP Version 2 tanks. In October 2006, Sabre Squadron also received the Regiment's first M3A3 Block 2 Cavalry Fighting Vehicles.

In March 2007, the Regiment was fully equipped with its 123 tanks and 125 Bradleys. In addition to these critical platforms, 4th Squadron had been completely outfitted with the latest AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters, with its 3 troops replacing the previous 3 Troops of OH-58D Kiowa Warriors. The Regiment subsequently completed the fielding and certification of its indirect fire assets, both M109A6 Paladin and M1064A3 120mm mortar systems. The Regiment was as lethal as ever before, ready to tackle the missions ahead.

Beyond the obvious equipment improvements, inside the vehicles were the latest Command and Control systems and communications devices, bringing the Regiment on-line with other 'digitized' units. The Future Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) system was hard-wired into the fleet of tactical vehicles, providing the commanders with extraordinary situational awareness with regards to both friendly and enemy forces. Combined with the extensive fielding of Army Battle Command Systems, from Maneuver Control Stations to monitor and control the ground squadrons, to the All-Source Analysis System, an intelligence data base structure designed to facilitate pattern and link analysis of enemy actions, the Regimental Commander now has unprecedented resources at his disposal to plan and execute missions."


So much for the theory of the 3rd ACR ferrying old Bradleys to the Iraqi Army. No Block 2s are headed there. Neither are there any units of the Iraqi Army scheduled to have any capabilities or a mission of this type. Is the 3rd ACR going to train the National Police on how to arrest people?

Also, note the website.

Fess up, guy.

[sandnsea]

58. They say they've conducted training missions

"Beginning in September 2001, 1st Squadron with elements of the Regimental Headquarters, 4th Squadron, and the Regimental Support Squadrons, deployed to Egypt to participate in the Bright Star 01/02 exercise, as part of a Combined Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) coalition. The coalition included Elements from the US Marine Corps, Egypt, France, Kuwait, Greece, Italy, and the British Army. The soldiers took part in field training and live fire exercises while in Egypt. They also conducted training on nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare, mine warfare, and the use of smoke on the battlefield. In addition, members of 1st Squadron and the Regimental Staff were tasked to conduct affiliation training with their Egyptian counterparts to teach them to function as Observer/Controllers (OC) for the forces involved in ground tactical operations, as well as establishing and maintaining communications and command and control between the various multinational OC forces."

Read more:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm

[anaxarchos]

62. If you would read what you post...

... you might get that 3rd ACR was training itself, as in participating in a "training exercise", as part of CFLCC. The only real "training" in your quote is in the last sentence, and that is largely incidental and of very short duration.

[sandnsea]

64. No, you read

Conducted, not took part in, conducted.

"They also conducted training on nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare, mine warfare, and the use of smoke on the battlefield. In addition, members of 1st Squadron and the Regimental Staff were tasked to conduct affiliation training with their Egyptian counterparts to teach them to function as Observer/Controllers (OC) for the forces involved in ground tactical operations, as well as establishing and maintaining communications and command and control between the various multinational OC forces."

And again...

Read more:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm

[PacerLJ35]

68. It's common during exercises for US forces to actively train the other players

That's usually the intent of the exercise in the first place, not just to go "play war" somewhere.

[notesdev]

52. Mission Accomplished

Oh wait, sorry, just another bait-and-switch.

Color me surprised.

[jaxx]

54. That was Bush.

You got mixed up.

[notesdev]

57. Did I?

I was referring to the mission of getting our troops out of that sorry backwater - you know, the one that was in all the headlines recently.

Apparently the way to get to zero combat troops in Iraq is to reclassify them as something other than combat troops.

I would really strongly prefer some maturity and honesty in political discourse over the trust-eroding image manipulation that presently stands in the former's rightful place.

[slay]

89. That propaganda campaign might have been

but this one belongs to the Obama admin. Yeah, sure we're leaving Iraq. Remind me again - what did we win there? Why were we there again? Why are we sending more troops? Why are there going to be thousand and thousands of tax-payer paid mercenaries installed in Iraq as well? Oh yeah, and about this whole Afghanistan escalation thing... :puke:

[grahamhgreen]

69. You must increase troops to get out. You must destroy SS to save it. You must save the banks to stop

them. You must save insurance to stop it from ripping us off..... etc.

[PacerLJ35]

82. We aren't increasing troops...

Not long ago we had over 150,000 troops there...now there's just over 50,000 and dropping.

[LostinVA]

71. A US servicemember was killed in Iraq today

Peace to his loved ones.

[Barack2theFuture]

74. Gee. That's what the PR said.

I guess those "non-combat" troops will be using their guns and hummers and shit to help old ladies cross the street.

[Ezlivin]

76. How many contractors will remain?

That seems to be the elephant in the room.

We might pull all of our combat troops but if I'm not mistaken we are leaving around 100,000 contractors behind, if not more.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

83. K&R

[bigtree]

86. fuck, don't you think the troops who remain deserve to be rotated out

. . . according to the length of their deployment? Further, don't you think the troops who remain deserve to have the capability to defend themselves? This is like the folks who complain that Iraq is still a war zone but expect for our troops to lay down their weapons and pass out flowers.

jeez, 23 recs for pure ignorance. gotta love this place.

[TheKentuckian]

90. No, they deserve to come home and further to not have their tax dollars paying for mercenaries in

their stead.

Ending the war is the mission and that doesn't mean playing with labels and games of three card Monty subbing out private military for US troops.

[Axle_techie]

91. A-freaking-men

[Axle_techie]

93. I am definitely not ignorant of the process that is used to keep our troops

from war fatigue, and I do think they need the capability to defend themselves. I don't think we should even be there. The Iraqis are not children that would be utterly lost without our help.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

92. What does your question have to do with the facts?

It's not as if they have special "non-combat" units to send on a moments notice. The assignment is what is key, not the regiments that are going.

[slay]

95. Hey mods - if you delete this this time, I'd like to know why. We will be in Iraq for a LONG time

between the sending more troops, the thousands and thousands of paid mercenaries, etc. All that "leaving Iraq" mess we saw on msnbc was pure propaganda. like Bush's "mission accomplished" banner. (<-- i'm guessing that's why the mods deleted it but who knows).