.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Friday, April 28, 2006

Picture of the Day - 3

















Renee Amick, mother of Jason Hendrix who died in Iraq.

posted by mikevotes at 5:56 PM

5 Comments:

  • For once (and don't get used to it,) no smart-assed comment from Rex Kramer.

    The patch on SGT (I'm guessing the rank; the collar insignia is fuzzy) Hendrix's shoulder is that of the 2nd Infantry Division...the last unit with which I served before leaving the Army.

    A bit of military-work info. When I left the service (1996,) the 2nd ID was comprised of 3 brigades. 2 were "forward-deployed" in Korea, and 1 was in Ft. Lewis, WA. The entire division's focus was on one area: A N.Korea/China incursion into S. Korea and/or Japan.

    So WTF is the 2nd ID doing in Iraq? Good question (and of course, I have an answer.)

    The Ft. Lewis-based 3rd Brigade was constituted from the 3rd Brigade of the 1st AD (Armored Division,) previously stationed in Germany. When the 3rd Brigade moved stateside, a portion of the team morphed into an entirely new kind of animal...the Army's first BCT (Brigade Combat Team.) Although still mostly a heavy-armor unit, it was joined up with infantry, artillary, air cav and others to form a rapid-deployment force that could be sent anywhere in the world within 24 hours.

    What? You thought a more mobile military was all Rummy's idea? Hardly.

    These days the BCT (and yes, I was a member of the Army's first) is the guiding principle throughout the Army. No longer are division's missions area-specific; the fact is divisions, in the traditional sense, no longer exist ( I served in 3, the 1st AD, the 2nd ID, and the 75th Ranger Bat...with the exception of the Rangers, all of the others are spread around the goal.) While the military IS more mobile, it has since lacked expertise in their areas of focus. In the past, soldiers like Sgt. Hendrix would have been specifically trained for years to fight against the Chinese military doctrines. Iraqi sects? Not so much.

    Ok, I'm done telling old Army tales. RIP soldier.

    By Blogger Rex Kramer, Danger Seeker, at 9:49 PM  

  • Thanks, Rex.

    That's really interesting. So, the description of a more "mobile" force also indicates and effort at a more morphable force.

    Thanks for the info. I never would have thought about troops being deployed outside their training tactics. Alot has been made about troops working outside their specialty, but generally that's not frontline stuff.

    I never even thought about how the redeployment out of Korea,for example, would effect applied tactics.

    I don't know if you'll come back by and see this, but does sticking units from all over the place together undr umbrellas significantly affect effectiveness or cohesion? In other words, how big a deal is it to put a unit out of Korea, one out of Germany and one out of a US base together. Does that cause major hiccups if they conduct operations together? Are there differences in what they would expect from each other? Would one group be more aggressive and get out in front of another in a larger unit more territorial battle like Fallujah?

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 10:20 PM  

  • Mike:

    Although soldiers all speak the same language for the most part, intermixing units unfamiliar with each other has the effect you might expect. That said, as rife as the modern battlefiend is with the possibility of small mistakes resulting in the deaths of many, soldiers WILL fight together for a common goal (i.e. surviving and destroying the enemy.) The real concern, for me, is the training of each separate element.

    I can only speak from my own experience, but when I was stationed in Europe at the end of the Cold War, every solider...EVEY soldier...was "Russian-focused." A junior NCO at that time, I had memorized Soviet tactical doctrine and had drilled into the soldiers under my command what to expect from "Ivan" on the battlefield. Later, when the wall came down, we trained endlessly for possible action in Bosnia. The point is, we knew who the most likely enemy was, how they fought, and how to defeat them (well, except, I should point out, for the Russians. Even when Europe was fully staffed, the goal was always to fend off the Red Army for 2 weeks...at a 90% casulaty rate...and keep them from the English Channel until re-enforcements could arrrive...but that's a cold war story for another day.)

    Years later when I rotated stateside, I found myself in a new culture. My particular unit (the Rangers aside) was, as mentioned earlier, Korea/China-focused. The training there was entirely focused on Chinese tactics, and we "war-gamed" scenarios as "predictable" as a crossing of the 38th parallel to one as far-fetched as a Chinese incursion into Alaska. My training was not theoretical; as a Ranger we re-conned N. Korean positions near the DMZ, crawled up to the Thai border with Laos, and on one particulary hairy instance, made water-borne dash from Manila to within sight of the shores of Hong Kong.

    My point is this: as a fighting unit, we were well-trained to deal with a specific potential enemy. As clandestine and sinister as that may sound, it was solid training policy. Now, more important than how diverse units may act in a BCT-setting is what is the potential liability for moving theatre-specific units into theatres for which they are not trained. During the Cold War, even National Guard units trained for specific theatres...and now those (marginally) versed in, say, Cuban beach assaults (as was the case here in Florida) are now parolling the provinces of Iraq. What you gain in mobility and possible veresaility you lose in expertise.

    And now, sweet Jesus, they're sending raw Navy recruits into the streets of Basra!

    There was an old saying in the Army that came about in the 1970's: The Army had to go into Vietnam to save the Vietnamese, but the Army had to leave to save the Army. Once again, what is old is new again...I'm afraid.

    By Blogger Rex Kramer, Danger Seeker, at 11:30 PM  

  • One more thing I should point out...

    Lest anyone reading this think I'm blowing myself up to be some sort of Rambo, the truth is I was more Gomer Pyle than Audey Murphy. Despite serving for years EXCLUSIVELY in combat units, despite being stationed and/or deployed in some of the world's hottest zones, not one time have I engaged an enemy in combat. The only rounds I sent down-range were on the shooting range; the only casulties I caused were simulated. Heck, like the dumb, young bastard I was, I INTENTIONALLY put myself in harm's way...and yet, nothing! Looking back, I thank God the Commanders-in-Chiefs I served weren't itching for a fight. On that note, when you read in the papper that X-many soliders died in Iraq or Afghanistan, pause a moment and realize that the dead solider, very much like me, had no idea what he was getting himself into.

    By Blogger Rex Kramer, Danger Seeker, at 11:42 PM  

  • Fascinating. I'm going to plug these comments in a post. If for some reason, you don't want me to, let me know here or there and I'll take it down.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 6:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home