thedrifter
03-31-03, 06:39 AM
03-30-2003
Train First for Combat Survival
While listening to the commentary about some of our soldiers recently taken prisoner in Iraq, I was struck by the fact that many people expressed surprise that “support” (maintenance) troops were so close to the front line. Doesn't this episode once again prove that the distinction between combat support and combat troops is really meaningless?
Shouldn't each of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines be first and foremost a combat soldier, with technical and other training given only after mastering basic combat tasks? Quite apart from the potential for attacks against so-called support troops, what happens if the nominally combat troops take casualties and need replacements?
During Gulf War I, a Marine battalion's support troops came under attack from a small Iraqi force (equipped with armored personnel carriers). The support troops, having been fully trained (like all Marines are) as riflemen, engaged and defeated them. The moral of the story is clear enough. There is no point to having a military in which we have non-combatant combatants (except for medical and religious personnel, who are not expected to fight at all). Were any of the support troops attacked in the current Gulf War even ready to defend themselves?
It is also interesting to note that one of the POW's (and one of the soldiers currently MIA) is a woman. Could the double standard in training (described in Col. Hackworth's 2002 article, “The March of the Porcelain Soldiers”, (SFTT.org) have created a situation that might have been avoided?
--Anthony Mirvish
Col. Hackworth's 2002 article
http://www.hackworth.com/article04032002c.html
Sempers,
Roger
Train First for Combat Survival
While listening to the commentary about some of our soldiers recently taken prisoner in Iraq, I was struck by the fact that many people expressed surprise that “support” (maintenance) troops were so close to the front line. Doesn't this episode once again prove that the distinction between combat support and combat troops is really meaningless?
Shouldn't each of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines be first and foremost a combat soldier, with technical and other training given only after mastering basic combat tasks? Quite apart from the potential for attacks against so-called support troops, what happens if the nominally combat troops take casualties and need replacements?
During Gulf War I, a Marine battalion's support troops came under attack from a small Iraqi force (equipped with armored personnel carriers). The support troops, having been fully trained (like all Marines are) as riflemen, engaged and defeated them. The moral of the story is clear enough. There is no point to having a military in which we have non-combatant combatants (except for medical and religious personnel, who are not expected to fight at all). Were any of the support troops attacked in the current Gulf War even ready to defend themselves?
It is also interesting to note that one of the POW's (and one of the soldiers currently MIA) is a woman. Could the double standard in training (described in Col. Hackworth's 2002 article, “The March of the Porcelain Soldiers”, (SFTT.org) have created a situation that might have been avoided?
--Anthony Mirvish
Col. Hackworth's 2002 article
http://www.hackworth.com/article04032002c.html
Sempers,
Roger