Something any team leader could tell you first hand. You can't fight an insurgency without safeguarding citizens. I've got a large amount of respect for General Petraeus. Glad to see he is pushing things in the headshed in the right direction... even if it's ever so slowly..

Everyone is taking about not enough troops/// Is anyone talking about the need for more troops? Or is the Democractic playbook still moving towards withdrawal and isolation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/washingt...ted=1&ref=world

Military Hones a New Strategy on Insurgency


By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: October 5, 2006
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — The United States Army and Marines are finishing work on a new counterinsurgency doctrine that draws on the hard-learned lessons from Iraq and makes the welfare and protection of civilians a bedrock element of military strategy.

The doctrine warns against some of the practices used early in the war, when the military operated without an effective counterinsurgency playbook. It cautions against overly aggressive raids and mistreatment of detainees. Instead it emphasizes the importance of safeguarding civilians and restoring essential services, and the rapid development of local security forces.

The current military leadership in Iraq has already embraced many of the ideas in the doctrine. But some military experts question whether the Army and the Marines have sufficient troops to carry out the doctrine effectively while also preparing for other threats.

The subtleties of the battle were highlighted Wednesday when the Iraqi Interior Ministry suspended a police brigade on suspicion that some members had been involved in death squads. The move was the most serious step Iraqi officials had taken to tackle the festering problem of militias operating within ministry forces.

The new doctrine is part of a broader effort to change the culture of a military that has long promoted the virtues of using firepower and battlefield maneuvers in swift, decisive operations against a conventional enemy.

“The Army will use this manual to change its entire culture as it transitions to irregular warfare,” said Jack Keane, a retired four-star general who served in 2003 as the acting chief of staff of the Army. “But the Army does not have nearly enough resources, particularly in terms of people, to meet its global responsibilities while making such a significant commitment to irregular warfare.”

The doctrine is outlined in a new field manual on counterinsurgency that is to be published next month. But recent drafts of the unclassified documents have been made available to The New York Times, and military officials said that the major elements of final version would not change.

The spirit of the document is captured in nine paradoxes that reflect the nimbleness required to win the support of the people and isolate insurgents from their potential base of support — a task so complex that military officers refer to it as the graduate level of war.

Instead of massing firepower to destroy Republican Guard troops and other enemy forces, as was required in the opening weeks of the invasion of Iraq, the draft manual emphasizes the importance of minimizing civilian casualties. “The more force used, the less effective it is,” it notes.

Stressing the need to build up local institutions and encourage economic development, the manual cautions against putting too much weight on purely military solutions. “Tactical success guarantees nothing,” it says.

Noting the need to interact with the people to gather intelligence and understand the civilians’ needs, the doctrine cautions against hunkering down at large bases. “The more you protect your force, the less secure you are,” it asserts.

The military generally turned its back on counterinsurgency operations after the Vietnam War. The Army concentrated on defending Europe against a Soviet attack. The Marines were focused on expeditionary operations in the third world.

“Basically, after Vietnam, the general attitude of the American military was that we don’t want to fight that kind of war again,” said Conrad C. Crane, the director of the military history institute at the Army War College, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and one of the principal drafters of the new doctrine. “The Army’s idea was to fight the big war against the Russians and ignore these other things.”

A common assumption was that if the military trained for major combat operations, it would be able to easily handle less violent operations like peacekeeping and counterinsurgency. But that assumption proved to be wrong in Iraq; in effect, the military without an up-to-date doctrine. Different units improvised different approaches. The failure by civilian policy makers to prepare for the reconstruction of Iraq compounded the problem.

The limited number of forces was also a constraint. To mass enough troops to storm Falluja, an insurgent stronghold, in 2004, American commanders drew troops from Haditha, another town in western Iraq. Insurgents took advantage of the Americans’ limited numbers to attack the police there. Iraqi policemen were executed, dealing a severe setback to efforts to build a local force.

Frank G. Hoffman, a retired Marine infantry officer who works as a research fellow at an agency at the Marine base at Quantico, Va., said that in 2005, the Marines sometimes lacked sufficient forces to safeguard civilians. As a result, while these forces were often effective “in neutralizing an identifiable foe, they could not stay and work with the population the way the classical counterinsurgency would suggest.”

The effort to develop the new program began a year ago under Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the Army’s Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, former commander of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command and the current chief of the First Marine Expeditionary Force. Colonel Crane, Lt. Col. John A. Nagl and Col. Douglas King of the Marines were among the major drafters.

Academics and experts from private groups were asked for input. A draft was completed in June and was circulated for comment. Almost 800 responses were received, but military officials said they would not alter the substance of the new doctrine.

“We are codifying the best practices of previous counterinsurgency campaigns and the lessons we have learned from Iraq and Afghanistan to help our forces succeed in the current fight and prepare for the future,” Colonel Nagl said.

In drafting the doctrine, the military drew upon some of the classic texts on counterinsurgency by the likes of T. E. Lawrence of Arabia, and David Galula, whose ideas were partly informed by his experience in Algeria.

Colonel Crane said that many of the ideas adopted for the manual had been percolating throughout the military. “In many ways, this is a bottom-up change, “ he said. “The young soldiers who had been through Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and now Iraq and Afghanistan, understood why we need to do this.”

As the manual is being drafted, the military has also revised the curriculum at its war colleges and training ranges to emphasize counterinsurgency. At the National Training Center in California, the old tank-on-tank war games against a Soviet-style enemy have been supplanted by combat rehearsals in which troops on their way to Iraq and Afghanistan engage in mock operations with role players who simulate insurgents, militias and civilians.

Dennis Tighe, a training program manager for the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, said the rehearsals were vital for preparing troops for their new counterinsurgency mission. But the Army is stretched so thin and so many units are focused on rehearsing for Iraq and Afghanistan at the training center that concerns have grown that the Army may be raising a new group of young officers with little experience in high-intensity warfare against heavily equipped armies like North Korea.

“That is one of the things folks are a little concerned about,” Mr. Tighe said.

While the counterinsurgency doctrine attempts to look beyond Iraq, it cites as a positive example the experience in 2005 of the Army’s Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, which worked with Iraqi security forces to clear Tal Afar of insurgents, to hold the town with Iraqi and American troops, then to encourage reconstruction there, an approach known as “clear, hold, build.”

One military officer who served in Iraq said American units there generally carried out the tenets of the emerging doctrine when they had sufficient forces. But protecting civilians is a troop-intensive task. He noted that there were areas in which there were not enough American and Iraqi troops to protect Iraqis adequately against intimidation, a central element of the counterinsurgency strategy.

“The units that have sufficient forces are applying the doctrine with good effect,” said the officer, who is not authorized to speak on military policy. “Those units without sufficient forces can only conduct raids to disrupt the enemy while protecting themselves. They can’t do enough to protect the population effectively and partner with Iraqi forces.”

Who said military people can'r learn new things?

Give us a little time, we'll adapt to the situation. And we'll win.

We’ve been at war in Iraq for 43 months, how much more learning curve is going to necessary?

I thought he was in charge of training the Iraqi Army, that makes me a bit behind the times. I certainly think this approach is right, if the political decisions can be straightened out too we have a decent chance.

Has anyone seen his estimate on how short we are on troops to do it right?

I know the troops have been trying to get it right, my pessimism was (and still is) based on how decisions are being made at the highest levels.

So we spend a lot of blood and money trying to learn how to do the wrong things in the right way.

No, the invasion was wrong, but creating certain conditions while there and in place before leaving are requirements of the Geneva Conventions, I advocate not adopting a policy that in and of itself would constitute a War Crime. Besides, not doing it right not only leaves our national security at far higher risk (as would staying the course), it would also lead to genocide and a regional conflict, consequences I'm not prepared to accept.

We was in Vietnam a whole lot longer, but methinks them at the top back in the world never learned to take the oriental philosophy of life and bein' into consideration. As you probably know from bein' there, the snuffies in country learned and adapted, just not them makin' all the big decisions, eh?

IMHO we're seein' the same all over again. Methinks we've never been good at the pacification of Asian entities 'cause of it.

The Brits might be better at it 'cause they had a couple hundred years experience in Asia and Africa durin' the days of the Empire, especially with their experiences in Kenya, Hong Kong and India. Their politicians learned to listen better to the folks that were actually dealin' with local populace and make necessary accommodations, eh?

This whole problem is due to Bush and Rummys failure to build the right military before the operation. We may have to "go to war with the army you have", but not if it's a war of choice.

The pentagons key advisor Thomas Barnett called the right force "not your father's military" but instead "Your mothers military." He expanded on the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force by pointing out that the overwhelming numbers need to be a more sensitive-to-civil-needs "occupying force", not an overwhelmingly brutal invasion force. He said that we're more than efficient at invading and less than adequate at occupying. Rummy only took have of his advice and reduced the size of the invading force. Cheney gave the civil engineering jobs to his war-profiteering chrony civilian friends.

Your mother's military would consist of more civil-engineering-types and less war-monger/killer types. It's important to make these civil-engineers active-duty military instead of civilians, to get the level of dedication from "commitment" needed to do the job right, and the level of integration with military tactics to protect themselves and others in the process.

This seems like real good advice and I hope whoever takes us into the next war remembers it. I hope even more so that we don't elect any more war mongers.
Maybe we'll get lucky and vote in enough Democrats in to restrain the current
administration until its term is up.

I was just wondering how much shorter the curve might have been had the Vietnam war not left such a sour taste in the mouths at West Point, Annapolis or Colorado Springs. Certainly there were lessons about gorilla warfare they could have carried forward. In the nam I was for a period involved the problems of captured non-uniformed combatants, Viet Cong; we used the Army Field manual to direct us. Yet we’re still struggling with how to proceed on that front. I understand how many new and evolving tactics are required, at the same time I see some of the same mistakes being repeated. First and foremost I believe we should have adhered to the Powell Doctrine, declared war and approached this war in the same way we did WW2, including a draft. We might be close to being done by now if we had.
That is if we conclude the war was just and proper in the first place, the jury is still out for many.

Could be you know somethin' I don't, but methinks the budgetin' and procurement process woulda precluded this. People have to be retrained, commands/units created and/or re designated, personnel transfers made, possibly more warm bodies recruited and new equipment bought.

IMHO if someone gets elected President, starts revampin' the military his very first day in office and stays in office for two terms 'tis only at the very end of his second term he might start seein' the fruits of his labors. None ever gets the chance to use a military they helped craft, eh?

Are you comin' at this from a different viewpoint or perspective?

Actually Bill the Army we had at 9/11 was still in the fight the big battle Cold War mode. Trained to stop the thundering Soviet hordes on the plains of Europe.

Think back on who went to Afghanistan. The Army Rangers and the Marines. People light on their feet and not there to slug it out with heavy mechanized opposition units. The Pentagon recommended sending in if I remember correctly about 6 heavy mechanized divisions, have a massive sealift/airlift of men and materials, and overwhealm the Taliban.

Rumsfeld, like him or not, would have none of that and used the light forces capable of operating on a shoestring. That work against the Taliban but set up Rumsfeld for making some incorrect assumptions in Iraq.

In both Gulf war 1 and 2 the United States military proved what we could do.

The military is slow learners until somebody gives them the impetus to learn.

I agree with this, but then maybe we should have waited to invade Iraq if at all.

The elephant in the room is are we just using Iraq as a beachhead for other invasions. If we are, than things seem to be going as planned, with the self-destruction of the Iraqi population being part of that plan.

It proved what the military couldn't do as well. We are good at invading, not good at occupying and rebuilding.

That's the part I think where Rumsfeld fell through his own ass.

I've been in combat twice, Grenada and Panama. Both operations highly successful in my opinion.

In both Grenada and in Panama we had enough people on the ground that if somebody tried to start something we stopped it before it got any momentum.

Rumsfeld was told to beat the Taliban it would take six armored divisions. Well, that's what the Soviets did and it got them mired down for 10 years and retreating with their tails between their legs.

The majority of Afghanis are opportunists, they'll go with whoever they perceive to be the current he-bull. Kharzai fill that position, we supplied the air power and direction for him to do it.

Rumsfeld thought the Generals to be all wrong again when it came to Iraq, he got the number of troops need to defeat Saddam's Army but we didn't have sufficient troops to stop things and secure the country.

It may well sound like Iraq is descending into chaos but a whole lot has been accomplished to date. The Iraqis are taking over the security of their country, not as fast as we'd like but they are.

You might counter that for the past six weeks there has been a dramatic increase in violence in Iraq. You would think the terrorist were trying to influence our elections, eh?

I think terrorist try to influence or stop what we do all over the world, and have throughout history. al Qaeda (in particular) has been much more successful at influencing our elections amongst other things here in the continental U.S. than Iraq. The only thing we are doing in response to al Qaeda by being in Iraq is giving them a tool for recruitment. That doesn't mean that we are not making progress in Iraq. I just don't buy that the progress is towards defeating al Qaeda.

You ignore the great strides already accomplished in Iraq.

I suspect when Saddam is seen publically dangling from the end of a rope it's going to be like a page turns to a new chapter in the book of Iraq.

I think if you asked just about anyone in the military they'd agree Iraq is a fertile ground for new terrorists. I think also not to many would not agree they'd rather kill them in Iraq than have them coming over here trying to kill their families.

Every radical Muslim killed in the Middle East is one less available for a suicide mission against the American homeland.

I don't ignore the accomplishments. I believe Iraq has made progress towards more free and democratic society. I just don't think that will stop or slow al Qaeda.

I think we are only killing insurgents and new terrorists that wouldn't have been terrorists had it not been for the invasion. This doesn't stop terrorist willing to strike else were.

We are fighting them everywhere because they are everywhere and so are we.

I think the only reason al Qaeda hasn't struck here again is because they either have a plan in the works or thy are waiting for us to finish self-destructing from the 9/11 attacks.

Bill, I'm in total agreement with all your posts in this thread.

If the suggestions that have been made (including some not in this thread) are implemented we can stop creating terrorists faster than we can kill them. To be blunt the biggest problem is they see our corporations looting their country while they live in despair and fear, the second biggest one is we've tried to restrict their options too much because of what we promised Turkey.

Either way we face a generation raised for jihad from other countries (Palestine and Pakistan are good examples) and that's unrelated to Iraq.

I agree it has little impact on al Qaeda, to win that campaign we need a radical shift in policy, I'm not even sure a new administration could do all that should be done on that.

Wish that'd been the case, but methinks lotsa countries worked behind the scenes to screw up any meaningful diplomacy. IMHO France did everything they could to derail diplomatic efforts, with Germany and Russia bein' complicit too.I don't doubt that might've been the case three years ago, but methinks not possible now or for the foreseeable future. Militarily 'twould be just 'bout impossible. Right now we're pretty much limited to usin' air and naval force projection for a while to handle any new confrontations.

If you were serious when you said "If we are, than things seem to be going as planned, with the self-destruction of the Iraqi population being part of that plan" then methinks you've been readin' way too much written by Graham and a couple others here on CGCS. That seems like it'd been more in line with oriental philosophy than the occidental philosophy that we seem mired in and dictates replacin' folks like General Garner, who understood the problems and how to solve 'em with idiots like Paul Bremer. IMHO if we'd just left them that really understood it apply oriental philosophy in the way we ran the occupation we'd be much more successful than we've been.

Well, that may well be true.

I try to imagine where the world would be today had the republican party behaved in World War 2 as the democratic party has during this war. I imagine most of Asia would be under the boot of a militaristic Japan and Europeans would all be speaking German now.

I remember one of our members making the statement that attacking Iraq after 9/11 was like had we attacked Korea after Pearl Harbor. I couldn't agree more. Korea at the time following Pearl Harbor being occupied by the Japanese Imperial Army would have been a very appropriate target for us to attack. I would guess this other member made that statement in ignorance which seems to abound in the antiwar movement.

Al Qaeda has made the defeat of America their objective in Iraq, we never made the defeat of al Qaeda the reason we invaded Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was because we believe Saddam Hussien would willingly provide WMDs to al Qaeda and Saddam Hussien would provide no assurance the he would not. Everything else said about it is misdirection and spin by the antiwar movement.

It turned out the WMDs were not as abundant as the intelligence people thought they were. Having screwed up intelligence reports is nothing new. I watched a program about how close we actually came to nuclear war during the Cuban missle crisis about a week ago. Intellgence thought the number of Soviet troops in Cuba to be about 8,000, in fact there were better than 40,000 Soviet troops at hand in Cuba armed with tactical nuclear devices which we also did not know anything about. The only reason we did not invade Cuba was because we believed the Soviets would have used it to seize West Berlin.

This world's politics came within a hair's breadth of ending the existence of mankind in 1962. And it would have been due to a failure in intelligence.

Accusing the president of lying about Iraq is pure political hyperbole and provides aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

Here again the antiwar movement has learned nothing. In Vietnam following the Communist's defeat in the Tet offensive the North Vietamese were ready to negotiate a settlement. They were amazed to learn the liberal antiwar news media was handing them a resounding victory. That encouraged them to hang on and get all that they wanted. It also cost the lives of close to 30,000 American boys.

Maybe we can all agree on this, most actions or decisions narrow the range of viable options going forward, the current situation is where planning should start. A second thing we can probably agree on is that the oldest (because they have a track record and tend to lose emotional and ideological power) and newest (less investment in them) decisions are easier to reverse if they're counterproductive.

I am of the opinion radical Islam has been at war with us for almost 25 years Tomhye.

What lead us to that day our country was attacked was the leaders of our country not taking the threat serious enough.

This coming Saturday; October 23rd marks the anniversary of a day permanently itched into my memory, a day when something happened to convince me we were faced with the most deadly and ruthless enemy this country had yet to face. On that day 23 years ago 220 Marines and 21 members of the other services died as they slept in a horrific explosion in Beiruit Lebanon

2 days later I was in Grenada and still greiving the loss of some good friends.

I agree they've been at war with us for about 25 years, could argue how that came about (although I agree we didn't use enough 16" shells at first), but have absolutely no clue how this applies to what I was saying.

It seems we are in a prolonged period of disagreement. Viable options moving forward should address the primary reason the USA is motivated to spend our treasure in this region in the first place. Shouldn’t fact and reality be our guide, or shall we continue to operate with the deception presented by today’s politics. Ask yourself this; if America held all the worlds’ oil reserves, would we give a crap about the politics in the middle east? Maybe to a small extent, on humanitarian levels perhaps, but would we be willing to spend treasure and American live’s like we are today? I believe as others do, that our presence in the region going back several generations, has been the reason we are targets today.
The reality is, we are now in the middle of both a civil war, that we helped create, and a war of ideology. When we first went into Iraq, they had little or nothing to do with terror against the USA. Now they are a training ground and a recruiting center for the worlds new terrorists. We no longer have a choice, we have to put an end to this practice of sending battle hardened Iraqi trained terrorist throughout the world to be confronted again later.
I have been against this war since we moved the first troops from Afghanistan to Iraq. It was a lie, it was wrong on every level. Thanks to our commander and chief’s complete incompetence, we are facing a much worse situation today, one that we can not ignore. The terrorist shipping out of Iraq for foreign destinations today, is a well trained battle hardened enemy worthy of our concern. They are taking the experience of fighting the greatest military in the world and they are using this to go train new terrorist who are spread all over the globe.
My thinking has come around to the idea that we need a completely new posture in Iraq. It would not be possible to move an additional 200,000 more troops into Iraq, we just don’t have them, but that’s what’s needed to lock the security situation down and allow for a political remedy. I guess we would have to have a draft in order to come up with the required troops, I hate the draft, but it might prove necessary. Best bet might be to impeach Cheney first, then Bush, then hire a new crew who can think beyond sound bites.

I don't take the conspiracy theorists too seriously. I was just acknowledging the possibility regardless of likelihood.

I didn't hear from my brother over there until the next day.

But I think our involvement in middle eastern affairs has a longer history.

Some of that may be true but at least in the service I'm in there are still more then a handful of old dogs not wanting to learn new tricks. Burried deap in the back of an important document called "Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield" under a category called "Other" there is "economic, Sociology, and religious factors".

That and the fact we rotate leadership on the ground every year..... It's tough to build those relationships required and keep things moving forward. The new Commander may or may not take a similar approach to dealing with local leaders. He'll definetly be defining goals that are obtainable for the year he is there.... not necessary the best ones over the long haul. He may be more focused more on hunting bad elements less on government and economic issues.
A hands off approach in the hopes that will speed up or finishing thinks up. Of course he'll bring his personality and pre conceived ideas to the job.

It makes it hard for the Iraqi's and the leaders.

I was really supprized the logistics involved in say just moving a Brigade to Iraq and from Iraq. I would have hoped that vehicles, computer networks, communication equipment and other large ticket items would be handed over, for continuety sake. Sadly it was not always the case, meaning that days were wasted transferring and setting up equipment. Just on example...

and just thoughts from a small microbe of the big big big picture.

That was one of the problems presented when they were discussing what to do about Afghanistan 1st Sgt.

The Pentagon wanted to move a couple of Divisions with all of it's equipment to Afghanistan, a logistics nightmare. Rumsfeld over ruled that and used the light units to do the work which got him in trouble later that he knew better than the Generals on how to handle any operation.

The United States Army, I am convinced, is the finest Army to ever trod the face of the earth, once they get pointed in the right direction and once they got all their ducks in a row.

The Army is going through a transition from some of the things I read. Trying to be lighter on their feet, it's going to be interesting.

My Uncle was a 30 year career Army man, I know just how stubborn some folks can be.

BushCo never gave a sh*t about Iraqis.

The Army's first task after the invasion was to secure the oil ministry.

Second task was to fire the Iraqi Army.

Brilliant.

Now we have 75,000 unemployed soldiers who are armed to the teeth.

And chaos runs rampant in the street.

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."

Rummy’s pentagon……. need I say more.
Lining up ducks and getting pointed in the right direction is what you do as a little league coach, not commander and chief. It matters not what the current admin wants, it will change along with the new admin Jan 09. This transition you refer too is the reaction to piss poor leadership.
I believe our services are strong enough to survive this leadership crew.

Well the issues I was speaking about were more about institutionalized change or learning by the service it's self. Politics aside.

You must not have been in too many Corps or Army level exercises Vaughn.

We'd have a just about annual excercise with our NATO allies on what to do if the Soviet hordes descended up Europe. Once the United States Army is set into motion , it's a hard critter to stop.

Seemed like they'd always send the Marines; American, UK, and Dutch out to fight the holding action while the Army set peice got moving. Why? Because the Marines were light Infantry and we didn't expect or need the logistical support the Army had to have.

The Army is learning though, new adversaries are teaching them to be lighter on their feet. When we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq the Generals where still in the thought mode of repelling Soviet hordes.

Make no mistake about it, the United States Army can take on the Armies of any two other countries on the face of this planet in conventional warefare and kick booty, it's the unconventional which gives em problems.

Your right Marine, I saw very little in the way of exercises, we didn’t have time to break away from fighting the war so we could exercise.

Maybe training a little harder would have made a difference Vaughn. People die when they don't know what or how to do it.

Comm Marines tackle combat course, focus on convoy operations, urban warfare
Nov. 9, 2006; Submitted on: 11/08/2006 08:51:54 PM ; Story ID#: 2006118205154

By Lance Cpl. Juan D. Alfonso, MCB Camp Butler

CENTRAL TRAINING AREA, OKINAWA, Japan (Nov. 9, 2006) -- More than 36 Marines with Communication Company, Headquarters Battalion, 3rd Marine Division, completed a four-day course focused on convoy procedures, crew-served weapons handling and urban combat techniques Oct. 30 - Nov. 2 at the Central Training Area.

The course was part of a three-week pre-deployment training program, which included a Combat Lifesavers Course, that prepares Marines for possible deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, according to Capt. Robert S. Hargate, the company's executive officer.

The training is especially important for the communication Marines since they are often individually attached to units already engaged in Iraq or Afghanistan, the Greenwood, Ind. native said.

"When that happens, these Marines don't get any pre-deployment training," Hargate, 32, said. "One day they're (on Okinawa), the next day they're down range and unprepared."

The convoy training, which was continuous throughout their time in the Central Training Area, focused on developing the company's non-commissioned officers by having a different Marine give a convoy brief before each movement. "The briefs are meant to make sure we're all on the same page," said Cpl. Stephanie L. Quick, a field radio operator with the company. "That way, if the convoy commander goes down, anyone can step up and take his place, because we all know the details and how to get the mission accomplished."

In addition to giving the briefs, the NCOs, and some senior lance corporals, were made convoy commanders, assistant convoy commanders and navigators. They were required to deal with threats or attacks while the convoys moved from one location to another.

The convoy training included providing security after an improvised explosive device attack and using night vision goggles to scan the route for insurgents.

As the training was conducted at night, the Marines had to remain at their best in demanding conditions.

"Marines (being fatigued) and doing night driving or providing security is a reality," said Cpl. Peter S. Reiss, a digital multi-channel wideband transmission equipment operator. "We're training exactly like it is in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I believe it's going to save our lives."

During the Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain portion of the training event, the Marines traveled via convoys to Combat Town where they practiced clearing buildings and conducting patrols as a squad-sized unit.

The training progressed to individual room-clearing techniques as teams of four learned to work together to cover each room from every angle.

The key to surviving in any combat environment is good communication, remaining in a combat mindset and trusting that each Marine will do their job and cover one another, said Cpl. Joshua C. Benford, a rifleman and course instructor with the division.

The three-pronged training package included small arms and crew-served weapons training. The Marines fired M-16A4 service rifles, M-9 pistols and the M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon. The M-240G medium machine gun rounded out the weapons package.

"We definitely got our money's worth out of this training," said Staff Sgt. Benjamin M. Laster, the company's training chief. "Once the Marines got the feel for it, the NCOs took charge, and the Marines were right on target. Even if they never deploy from Okinawa, I'm confident they'll be ready for any deployment in support of the War on Terror."
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf...EF?opendocument

Military life is no longer peeling pototoes in your spare time Vaughn. We always trained hard just so more Marines left alive.

Lejeune-based Marines take aim at close-quarters combat training
Nov. 9, 2006; Submitted on: 11/08/2006 08:33:55 PM ; Story ID#: 2006118203355

By Pfc. Daniel R. Todd, MCB Camp Butler

CENTRAL TRAINING AREA, OKINAWA, Japan (Nov. 9, 2006) -- Artillery Marines assigned to 3rd Battalion, 12th Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, are typically tasked with providing long-range fire support. But as the Global War on Terrorism continues to be waged room-to-room, the Marines are preparing for anything.

The Marines, with F Battery, 2nd Bn., 10th Marines, 2nd Marine Division, from Camp Lejeune, N.C., are in the last month of their unit deployment here and used the facilities at Combat Town to conduct Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain training Oct. 30-31.

"Less artillery is being used (in operations overseas) now, so participating in this training helps to broaden the skill sets of our Marines and become a more flexible unit," said Capt. Arnaldo Colon, the commanding officer of F Battery.

To develop these skill sets, the Marines practiced missions they may encounter in an urban environment including taking over an enemy stronghold, manning an entry control point and capturing a "high-value target" for interrogation.

The Marines also incorporated simulation rounds, similar to paint pellets, and mock improvised explosive devices to add to the realism of the training.

"Without the (simulated) rounds I don't think that I would have realized how important this training really is," said Lance Cpl. Andrew Osburn-Davis, a field artillery cannoneer with F Battery and native of Nashville, Tenn. "Just seeing how many casualties we would have taken during some of the scenarios made me realize that we really need to have this training to survive."

The senior Marines in the unit acted as insurgents for many of the scenarios. After each event, they critiqued the junior Marines on what they could have done better. Many of the unit leaders were combat veterans and stressed that Marines of all ranks have to make crucial decisions on the battlefield.

This message appeared to resonate well as the artillerymen progressed through training. "At first the Marines were lost, suffered many casualties and were not able to complete their missions," said Cpl. James McMahon, a field artillery fire controlman with F Battery. "But in the last few scenarios we ran, the Marines didn't hesitate at all and did exactly what they needed to get the job done."

The artillery Marines now have a basic understanding of how to operate as a squad in close-quarters combat and a little experience in making quick decisions, said Colon.

U.S. Marines and sailors arrive in Philippines for annual exercises
Oct. 17, 2006

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES -- More than 400 U.S. Marines and sailors arrived at the Subic Bay Free Port Saturday in preparation for bilateral training exercises conducted annually by the Armed Forces of the Philippines and U.S. military as part of their long-standing partnership.
Service members from 3d Marine Expeditionary Brigade, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Okinawa, Japan, and their equipment are part of the U.S. forces that are temporarily assigned to participate in two upcoming Philippine-U.S. bilateral exercises, Talon Vision and Amphibious Landing Exercise (PHIBLEX) 2007. Overall, about 7,000 U.S. and Philippine military personnel will participate in the exercises.
On Sunday, Marines and sailors of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit embarked aboard the Essex Amphibious Ready Group conducted a helicopter-borne training exercise using AV-8B Harrier, KC-130 Hercules and CH-53E Super Stallion aircraft aboard Basa Air Base, Pampanga.
These forces are beginning bilateral training with their Filipino counterparts as well as participating in the many civil-military operations, which will be conducted to benefit Filipino citizens living near the training areas, including holding free medical/dental programs and completing engineering and construction projects.
These routine bilateral exercises, being held from October 16-31, 2006, are designed to improve interoperability, increase readiness and continue professional relationships between the U.S. and Philippine Armed Forces.
Media organizations may contact the U.S. exercise public affairs officer, Marine Capt. Burrell Parmer, at 0915-200-0207 or the public affairs chief, Gunnery Sgt. Jerry Ray, at 0920-225-8243 for additional information. Media may visit www.okinawa-usmc.mil and click on the “Talon Vision ’07” link under the “What’s New” headline on the left side of the page for updated releases and digital photos.

And for you Japanese readers the marines don't want y'all felt left out.

恒例の軍事演習のため、米国海兵隊員と水兵がフィリピンに到着

フィリピン共和国－長年にわたる協力関係の一環として、フィリピン軍と米軍による恒例の二カ国間訓練演習の準備のために、400名以上の海兵隊員と水兵がスービック湾の自由港に土曜日到着しました。
米軍部隊の一部として、沖縄に駐留する第3海兵遠征旅団、及び第3海兵遠征軍の隊員らとその装備が、まもなく実施される2つの米比二カ国間演習、「タロン　ビジョン」と「水陸両用上陸演習（PHIBLEX）2007」に参加するために一時的に配属され、計約7,000人の米比軍の隊員が演習に参加します。
日曜日、エセックス水陸両用即応群に乗船する第31海兵遠征部隊の海兵隊員と水兵が、パンパンガ航空基地で、AV-8Bハリアー、KC-130ハーキュリーズ、CH-53Eスーパー・スタリオン航空機を用いたヘリコプター飛び降り訓練演習を実施しました。
これらの部隊は、フィリピン軍と二カ国間演習を始めると同時に、無料の医療・歯科プログラムや土木及び建設計画などを含む訓練場付近に住むフィリピン住民のためになる多くの民間・軍事演習に参加しています。
2006年10月16日から31日まで実施されるこれらの定期的な二カ国間演習は、相互運用を向上し、即応体制を高め、米比軍間のプロフェッショナルな関係を継続することを目的としています。
詳細につきましては、報道関係者の方々は、米国演習報道官、ブレル・パーマー海兵隊大尉、0915-200-0207、または報道チーフ、ジェリー・レイ一等軍曹、0920-225-8243までお問い合わせください。また、在沖海兵隊のホームページ、www.okinawa-usmc.mil にアクセスし、そのページの左側にある「What’s　New」の見出しの下の「タロン　ビジョン07」をクリックして、最新のリリースやデジタル写真を入手することができます。

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf...DA?opendocument

[quote=Marine,Nov 9 2006, 10:23 AM]
Maybe training a little harder would have made a difference Vaughn. People die when they don't know what or how to do it.

Made a difference in what gunny? The outcome of the war?
My point was that we were involved with the war on a daily basis. If anything, we would be the people providing daily data on the enemy’s status so it could be carried forward to the training cadre. I know all about people dying gunny, unless you have some facts stating we were derelict in our duty you need to sit on your opinion. Your insinuation that I could have trained harder and that would have saved one or more of my buddies is out of line gunny. Why not take your resourcefulness and site something specific where my lack of training got anyone killed?

[quote=vfguenley,Nov 10 2006, 03:13 PM]
[quote=Marine,Nov 9 2006, 10:23 AM]
Maybe training a little harder would have made a difference Vaughn. People die when they don't know what or how to do it.

Made a difference in what gunny? The outcome of the war?
My point was that we were involved with the war on a daily basis. If anything, we would be the people providing daily data on the enemy’s status so it could be carried forward to the training cadre. I know all about people dying gunny, unless you have some facts stating we were derelict in our duty you need to sit on your opinion. Your insinuation that I could have trained harder and that would have saved one or more of my buddies is out of line gunny. Why not take your resourcefulness and site something specific where my lack of training got anyone killed?

[/quote]
Well Vaughn, you said you didn't participate in any training exercises so I thought it would be safe to say y'all didn't train too hard.

I don't think hardly a day went by that if we weren't actually involved in an excercise then we would be evaluating what went right or wrong in the last exercise or we were planning the next exercise.

I know the Army Rangers, the 82nd, and the 101st did pretty much the same routine as the Marines. They trained hard so they would do what came natural when it all counts.

What did you fellows in the regular Army do in your spare time Vaughn?

I believe Vaughn is saying he was in a war. If you are in the middle of a war you can't just walk away for an exercise. When you were in the middle of the Grenada invasion did you stop fighting so you could have an exercise?

All the training happened before we went over gunny. Like I said before, I OJT’d into the 95B40 MOS and that was the last training I received until I got back to Ft Hood. We worked a 7 day week, depending on circumstances, at least a 12 hour shift. Days off or down time was a rare thing to be cherished.
We had many duties that it was imperative that they be performed on a daily basis. If for some reason we couldn’t sweep Hwy 15 three or four times a day we would be confronted with numerous land mines, command detonated booby traps and who knows what else as a result. Same thing with river patrols, we would be sorry if for some reason our sweeps were not completed. Late spring of 68 and we found ourselves in a 3 day firefight at the Ville of Baria in eastern three corps, a junction that split the road to the Aussies with the road to Saigon. During the 3 day engagement with us and the Aussies the VC did such a number on Hwy 15 that it took a week and several GI’s life’s to return the road to its normal hectic state. Hwy 15 had a 50 click run of no mans land that kept the nerves on edge through the whole period I worked there and we hated giving it back to the VC. Same thing on the river, so long as we were able to maintain patrols were would only see an occasional sniper and an even rarer firefight. Give the VC a day or two and all crap would cut loose.
All our training came in the way of SOP changes and an occasional change in directives, everything else was on the job training, better know as “duck and cover your azz”.

Well, that's different Vaughn. The way I read it was the Army took you in off the street, gave you a haircut, a uniform, a M-16, and dropped you off into Southeast Asia. I'm glad to hear you did train for what they put you through.

You know, the first time I ever got shot at I felt like it was a brand new experience. I'd seen dead men before (a couple from training accicents) but seeing a man freshly killed from bullet wounds is a unique experience too. But I remember what to do and how to lesson the chance I would end up looking like that Cuban a Ranger shot.

I think the best part about it was I didn't shoot anybody, I don't know how I'd a come to look back on it Vaughn. I was ready to do it but I'm glad I never had to be forced to pop a cap in someone's face.

Ducking and covering your azz is a learned experience; you ever just seen people get shot at and just stand around like nothings happening? I have and I bet you have too.

Darwinian law straightened that sh*t out post haste.

Training at Ft. Polk was sufficient to learn squad, platoon
and company tactics (with fire support), but I must admit
the days in the Southeast Texas and South La. woods with a .22 bolt
action or 12-gauge pump did just as much. I guess it's the Arizona
and New Mexico guys who have the leg up now.

I'll be happy if our guys can get out of the shooting gallery,
city patrols, and get back to Desert Storm tactics.

Well, my second day on Grenada I had the pleasure of telling a pair of 1st Lts. that they had the venecular for excrement between their ears where their brains ought to be, but not exactly in thoses terms. I was quite a bit crude about how I felt about their cognitive abilities.

But since someone was shooting at them I think they forgave me. It's just a damned good thing the guy shooting at them couldn't hit a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle.

I was really pissed because they were drawing fire, didn't even realize someone was shooting at them, and I was afraid one of my guys might accidently get shot by a miss aimed at them.

If a Marine or Ranger quality marksman had been shooting at them we'd been short two 1st Lts.