Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Just checking in on the news today instead of doing assignments and saw these two photo's. I know I posted one last week but it is so hard to ignore the fact that I am sat comfortably in my little office, I will go to my comfortable place of work all week and I will come home to family every evening and play games and have fun with friends. Nothing I will ever do in life will be as dangerous as what these people do. And here is a bit of honesty - I don't have the balls to do what they do either.
Why does the fact we are multiple years into two significant actions have virtually zero impact on non-military peoples' lives? It just doesn't seem fair.
Below are two pictures of deployment ceremonies as US soldiers. For clarification, I am English but a US citizen and an army brat myself.
I'm sorry but we've had to delete the pictures, touching as they were. Please don't attach non wargaming pictures to Dakka, use photobucket, image tags etc etc please.
Reds8n
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/14 07:28:13
2014 will be the year of zero GW purchases. Kneadite instead of GS, no paints or models. 2014 will be the year I finally make the move to military models and away from miniature games.
I think a bigger fear is how is their multiple extended deployments effecting them, physically, mentally, and emotionally?
Not only for their own sake, but also for the sake of others around them when they get back... as well as their families...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/10/10 11:22:47
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:I think a bigger fear is how is their multiple extended deployments effecting them, physically, mentally, and emotionally?
Well, I'm a outsider on commenting on this, but I'd think that the military has done a decent job in trying to juggle the health of their soldiers. But the fact that a person has to live day and night conditioned that the next moment is going to be your last is nonetheless harrowing and stressful. Of course there will be some scars from war, but the modern military understands their soldiers as best as it can.
Youd think so, but I wouldnt agree. My brother was in the Marines for years, and all the leap frogging and being away from family, really fethed him up. And my brother inlaw is in the Army, VERY near retirement and the same thing, he is an emotional pile of gak, cant show affection to anyone, specially his own children. Its pretty sad readlly
I can't speak for the US forces but UK forces have a whole bunch of harmony guidelines that are supposed to dictate how often a soldier can be deployed and so forth.
The system is supposed to prevent over-deployment and allow a returning soldier plenty of time to rest, recuperate and reintegrate back into day to day life. It helps that the majority of UK army tours are 6 month stints as opposed to the US 12 month tours. Of course, the British army is somewhat committed at the moment; the harmony guidelines are being broken all over the place but they do and have worked in principle.
As to the OP and has already been stated, don't worry about the soldiers. They are doing what they are paid to do and what they signed up for. They should be under no illusion to that. And if someone signed up and it came as a surprise that they would be going to Afghanistan or Iraq, well, more fool them. In most cases, soldiers actually look forward to going on tour, I know I did. You get to do your job, contribute to a mission, earn some extra money and get away from the day to day bollocks that pollutes barracks squadron life. I would suggest it is the wives and families left behind who suffer the most. My 6 months in Iraq was the highlight of my army career as far as I was concerned.
The US does 12-month deployments, not 6 IIRC-- in fact, for a short while they actually had 15 month deployments!
And many soldiers are called on to do this time and time and time again, to the point where many have have spent more time overseas, often in dangerous areas, than they've spent at home.
That's why the worry about their mental and emotional health is so strong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/10 11:59:54
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Melissia wrote:The US does 12-month deployments, not 6 IIRC-- in fact, for a short while they actually had 15 month deployments!
And many soldiers are called on to do this time and time and time again, to the point where many have have spent more time overseas, often in dangerous areas, than they've spent at home.
That's why the worry about their mental and emotional health is so strong.
Not sure if that was a reply to my post Melissia? Anyway:
filbert wrote:...the majority of UK army tours are 6 month stints as opposed to the US 12 month tours....
I don't know if the longer tour length is better or worse to be honest. I wouldn't like to deploy for 12 months at a time but then again it would depend on pay, conditions and the amount of post-op leave I would get upon returning. I suspect that US army pay is probably better than the equivalent UK army pay and the conditions, both on base and in theatre, are way better than UK equivalent - I visited several US bases in Iraq during my time there and the conditions and facilities were much better than ours.
Again, to reiterate, I would suggest the vast majority of people signing up know exactly what they are letting themselves in for and the vast majority relish the opportunity to be deployed. That is not to downplay or denigrate the effects of PTSD but simply to say that these are big boys and girls who know what the commitment entails when they sign on the dotted line.
Neither is it a new thing - I know of many ex-military personnel who spent their army careers in almost constant rotation between overseas deployments and operations - and this was before the added strain of Iraq and Afghanistan. The advantage was, in those days you could buy yourself out of your army contract if you so wished, so if you didn't like it, you could walk.
US Marines do 7 month tours. Regular Army has been doing 1 year tours but new rotations will be 9 months. Some units (generally the SOC side) do shorter tours but more of them. Of course the guys who volunteer for those units know exactly what they are getting into.
Dwell time (time back at home station) is tracked by individual trooper in the Army.
As others have pointed out, all the US troops are volunteers. Each has either enlisted during time of war, or re-enlisted/extended in time of war. They do know what they are getting into, and after the first tour so do their families.
Trips to the sandbox are not the only times troopers are separated from families, as I know from experience.
There are a LOT of programs set up to help troops and their families prepare for deployment, during deployment, and reintegrate after deployment. I'm not saying these are all great, all work, or are all that is needed, but we've definitely come a long way from what used to be available. Additionally there are private groups like the Wounded Warrior Project and Soldier's Angels that do a fantastic job of reaching out to soldiers and their families.
Pitch in to one of those groups, but do your research to make sure you are donating (time/stuff/money) to a VALID group. The two I mentioned are top notch, but there are other good ones out there.
Don't pity the troops or their families. They do NOT consider themselves victims or like being considered victims by others for the most part.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/10 12:14:45
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Don't feel bad for the troops mate, nobody forces you to join.
I did OIF 1 and 4, OEF 4 and 6, and a British op in Sierra Leone named OP Pallister. I also did an Op Banner spending 6 months in a tin shed in Northern Ireland.
Allow me to give you 3 good reasons why your pity is misguided.
1. As soon as it stops being fun, you can leave. No conscrittion, and not a long contract. Not in 2011.
No need to worry about the lads, Its just because your a civvie and you havent served, your probably in love with the fictional military stuff after watching movies about war, but none of that romantic Hollywood gak has any real relevance.
2. There is the obvious fact that the majority of the army, and fething VAST majority of the air force and Navy are in hardly any danger anyway, and for every spec ops/SF/commando warry mother fether there are 40 chefs, drivers, storemen, signallers, clerks, engineers, techies, and general shiny arses. Not that any serving military people admit it, no if you ask someone who has been to Afghanistan, he was always in the SAS.
The Yank soldiers are FOB Phoenix who did 12 month tours spent almost every single day in an office, with air con, gatorade and steak and lobster every Friday. It was just like a regular office job back in the States, they did 12 on 12 off 6 days a week, and they all had internet and played world of warcraft.
And I know this, because I was jealous, and I used to turn up every single Friday without fail for some proper fething food and I got to know the lads really well!
3. Finally, even if they are in genuine combat roles, all of them are volunteers like me, who went for said role because we wanted to. As as such find that bombing/shooting/stabbing the gak out of people is an immensely heart warming and gratifying experience.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/10/10 14:44:33
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
mattyrm wrote:
Allow me to give you 3 good reasons why your pity is misguided.
I have a friend who is an office in US Army at the moment, West Point graduate and all that jazz.
The thing he hates the most about being in the military is the crowd of "thankful" people who pat him on the back whenever he's in uniform (which he avoids like the plague). In his words "Why do they thank me? I don't give a gak about them. I'm in because its interesting, has great benefits, and the pay isn't bad."
I'm sure his attitude on pity would be similar.
mattyrm wrote:
And I know this, because I was jealous, and I used to turn up every single Friday without fail for some proper fething food and I got to know the lads really well!
Its funny because you're English.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Well sure, that seems low risk, until you compare it to 1.25 million fast food employees or department store clerks...
I have a buddy who is a contigency contrating officer (regular army). Sounds a lot like a desk job, and generally is. Except the day his hummer got hit by an IED and destroyed his left leg.
A lot more of the casualties, especially in Iraq, were among the support troops who were in convoys that left the wire than we've seen in support troops in past wars.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote:Well sure, that seems low risk, until you compare it to 1.25 million fast food employees or department store clerks...
I have a buddy who is a contigency contrating officer (regular army). Sounds a lot like a desk job, and generally is. Except the day his hummer got hit by an IED and destroyed his left leg.
A lot more of the casualties, especially in Iraq, were among the support troops who were in convoys that left the wire than we've seen in support troops in past wars.
I still have scars from grease burns on my hands from working in fast food. You are right though, but that's the part of the nature of this war.
Pacific wrote:
Less than 40,000 casualties out of the 1.25 million different soldiers and Marines deployed. Not really high risk for all but a few.
Well, presumably the 40,000 or so don't think that.
That 40,000 includes in minor casualties as well. There have been roughly 4,500 KIA, and around 13,000 wounded severe enough that they were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. Less than 20,000 serious casualties approximately.
In comparison, around 40,000 people die a year in car accidents.
CptJake wrote:Well sure, that seems low risk, until you compare it to 1.25 million fast food employees or department store clerks...
I have a buddy who is a contigency contrating officer (regular army). Sounds a lot like a desk job, and generally is. Except the day his hummer got hit by an IED and destroyed his left leg.
A lot more of the casualties, especially in Iraq, were among the support troops who were in convoys that left the wire than we've seen in support troops in past wars.
I still have scars from grease burns on my hands from working in fast food. You are right though, but that's the part of the nature of this war.
Well, unless your grease burns required helicopter medevac to a trauma hospital, several hours of surgery to save your life, air medevac to a major hospital and several surgeries over several weeks to save a limb, and finally several months and over 25 surgeries including bone grafts to try to repair what was saved, followed by a couple of years of physical therapy, I submit your grease burns are in a slightly different category than what I am talking about. Not that I'm sure your grease burns didn't hurt.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote:Well sure, that seems low risk, until you compare it to 1.25 million fast food employees or department store clerks...
The death rate of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is about half what it is for the general population in the US.
Yeah that's my point when hippies say we will "lose" the war.
In Afghanistan the US has lost 1803 men.
The UK 382.
In 11 years!
You guys lost 66,000 in Nam.
If I was a politician or a general, then I would be happy as feth with those figures. gak, people might care about individual cases because it elicits an emotional response, but its all about statistics when your looking at the big picture.
I'm pretty sure that its more dangerous being a bricklayer.
Its true to say that soldiers are uncomfortable with that idea too, as was stated above, I always disliked people slapping me on the back about it, I didnt join the military for noble reasons and I don't feel I need any "thanks" off strangers.
I especially dislike it when cops and firemen try and "large" it as well.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
mattyrm wrote: Don't feel bad for the troops mate, nobody forces you to join.
My concern is more selfish I suppose. Lots of soldiers come home to Texas, and therefor any mental problems they develop due to their service is more likely to directly effect me.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
mattyrm wrote: Don't feel bad for the troops mate, nobody forces you to join.
My concern is more selfish I suppose. Lots of soldiers come home to Texas, and therefor any mental problems they develop due to their service is more likely to directly effect me.
Oh I suppose that's entirely sensible...
Selfish reasons always make more sense to an odious little prick like me.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
I guess how "acceptable" that is in the big picture depends upon what effect that 11 years has had on actually eliminating terrorism/crippling the groups we identified as our targets, and also if said 11 years is in fact increasing recruitment for the enemy...
In the 4 years i have been married, i have been deployed 3 times. in the 5 years i have been in the real portion of the Navy, i have been deployed 4 times (by Real portion, i mean after boot, "A" and "C" schools, and any other preparative environments prior to actually doing your job).
Naval deployments, although shorter than army and marine deployments, are equally difficult on us. We feel their pain, as they feel ours. until the government stops trying to downsize the military while fighting 2 wars, we will not stop being sacrificed in this way.
Each deployment takes a lot out of everyone. try to imagine being away from everything you love, with hundreds of other people who you may or may not like. every day, you have to put up with monotony. the days blend into each other until only the ones where something truly unusual occurred. your only form of communication with anyone back home is limited. most of your day is spent working on something. if your not doing your own work, your either picking up the slack for someone else, or doing one of the immeasurably tedious "Make-work" jobs that always appear whenever you think you might get time to yourself. you where the same 4-6 sets of practically identical cloths day in and day out. and if your lucky, you get to have a night out every once in a while.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/10/10 18:49:52
"Friglatt Tinks e's da 'unce and futor git, but i knows better. i put dat part in when i fixed im up after dat first scrap wid does scrawn pointy ears and does pinkies." Dok chopanblok to Big Mek Dattrukk.
mattyrm wrote: 3. Finally, even if they are in genuine combat roles, all of them are volunteers like me, who went for said role because we wanted to. As as such find that bombing/shooting/stabbing the gak out of people is an immensely heart warming and gratifying experience.
Besides, they're doing a pretty good job of it from what I can tell. Was reading this (yeah, sorry, it's subscription-only now) and they were talking about how the news was ignoring any good gains the forces were making in Afghanistan in favor of doom and gloom. http://www.economist.com/node/18681871
Wish I had copied it before it went pay-only, but eh, that's the economist and most other major magazines for you.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/10/10 18:35:36
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
If anyone is interested, I would thoroughly recommend the documentary 'Restrepo'. There is no political or other commentary, it's simply camera work and interviews with the soldiers who were fighting in Afghan.
It makes pretty harrowing viewing to be honest and is one of the most powerful documentaries I have seen.
In terms of the bigger question, I really question how you can define 'victory' to be honest, and whether it is even feasible. One of the officers at the start of the film said "One of our biggest challenges here is trying to get the locals to hand over members of their families who are fighting with the Taliban to us." ...
In Afghanistan the US has lost 1803 men.
The UK 382.
In 11 years!
Yes I guess the casualty figures are very small by the comparisons in any other war, but does that make them acceptable? Those are still more than 2000 families which will have been fractured by the loss, many more friends and relatives of those who are badly wounded but are not in this figure. You can say those men signed up for it, and knew what they were getting into, but then I suppose it depends on how far you are stretching the definition of 'king and country' and what needs to be defended.
I think part of the problem in our society is we just see peoples lives as numbers and the human element is not there when thinking about war. I remember reading that the point at which public opinion in the US started to turn against the Vietnam War was a photo in the press of a row of coffins with the stars & stripes covering them. My grandad, the most staunch conservative you will ever meet with a picture of the Queen above the fireplace, said that if the UK public had known what was going on in the Somme in the first world war, the government would have been toppled overnight. These days with the greater media coverage there is less chance from that happening again, of a war where human life is treated as worthless, but the point is I think the media still paints a predominantly clinical and clean picture of war. Of million dollar cruise missiles taking off and oakley-wearing soldiers calmly standing guard, it doesn't show the impact of that missile or that same soldier when he is in the situation like in the Restrepo documentary.
I think if people were more aware of the human element then they would be far less willing to condone war, especially the likes of something like Iraq. Saying 'only 40,000' is all well and good, but those casualty figures, those lives destroyed or forever changed, are a result of something that perhaps should never have happened and so it's meaningless to compare them to accident figures in civilian life.
CptJake wrote:Well sure, that seems low risk, until you compare it to 1.25 million fast food employees or department store clerks...
I have a buddy who is a contigency contrating officer (regular army). Sounds a lot like a desk job, and generally is. Except the day his hummer got hit by an IED and destroyed his left leg.
A lot more of the casualties, especially in Iraq, were among the support troops who were in convoys that left the wire than we've seen in support troops in past wars.
I still have scars from grease burns on my hands from working in fast food. You are right though, but that's the part of the nature of this war.
Well, unless your grease burns required helicopter medevac to a trauma hospital, several hours of surgery to save your life, air medevac to a major hospital and several surgeries over several weeks to save a limb, and finally several months and over 25 surgeries including bone grafts to try to repair what was saved, followed by a couple of years of physical therapy, I submit your grease burns are in a slightly different category than what I am talking about. Not that I'm sure your grease burns didn't hurt.
Sarcasm completely escapes you, eh?
Iraq and Afghanistan aren't nearly as dangerous as they're made out to be. Mexico is probably more violent and as Dogma pointed out you have a higher chance of dying in America.
Saying the casualties and deaths in Iraq are as meaningless as a car accident is completely asinine and offensive to the victim and his/her loved ones. Everyone joins up for different reasons, but there is a significant amount of servicemen and women who believed that the war was just. No one, not I or you, has any right to say whether or not their death or injury was worth it.
The War on Terror has not been a significant investment of personnel in terms of casualties. It has cost a large amount of money, caused a great deal of suffering to the peoples of Iraqi and Afghanistan and in the end, will probably not improve their lives in the slightest.
The majority of servicemen and woman deployed are never in any significant danger. That doesn't make their deployment fun or enjoyable, I'm simply pointing out that it is nowhere near as dangerous as popularly believed. It is significantly more dangerous for those serving in a combat arms MOS, especially those in Infantry and the various Special Forces. That is the nature or their job. Anyone joining in the military should be aware of the fact that their life may be placed in jeopardy, even if it is for a cause they consider unjust.
Amaya wrote:
The majority of servicemen and woman deployed are never in any significant danger.
Sorry, I am going to have to pull you up on that. I spent my entire 6 month Iraq tour with the other REMFs in Basra Air Station but that is not to say we were completely safe and cosy. The station was attacked pretty much on a daily basis both with mortar, crappy chinese rockets and small arms fire. It helped that the Iraqis were pretty lousy shots but I wouldn't suggest that it was 'safe' in any way. Obviously, we were more secure than someone patrolling, for want of a better word, the front line but we still faced potential harm.
I see recruiters buying high school kids lunch and then filling their heads with BS. It really helps that our economy blows, there are no jobs out there, so go to war war a few years, if you make it back then you can go to school, and we promise to pay for it all, but that never really happens. Then you can try and get a job but there still won't be any, and you are welcome to come back in and die for your country.
GW says in the future there is only war, so how long have we been in the future now?
I have the ultimate respect for human life, senseless death saddens me more than anything. I can't even imagine having a child in the military. I'd be out of tears by now.
Make Models Not War
3000+
Death Company, Converted Space Hulk Termies
RIP Diz, We will never forget ya brother
750 points
1000 Points
All is forgiven if repaid in Traitor's blood.
2 
2 
1
1 
1 
2
2 
4 
5 
