HOUSTON -- Members of a second National Guard unit that prepared for duty in Iraq at the Army's Fort Bliss compound have come forward with allegations that they were not adequately trained. The soldiers said in interviews, e-mails and official documents that they were sent to war earlier this year with chronic illness, broken guns and trucks with blown transmissions.
The unit's M-60 machine guns reportedly were in such bad condition when the soldiers deployed in February that one sergeant -- in a section of a post-training summary sent to his commanders that was titled "gun maintenance" -- wrote: "Perhaps we should throw stones?"
The allegations come a month after another National Guard unit alleged that its training at Fort Bliss was so poor that soldiers feared incurring needlessly high casualties when they arrive in Iraq early next year.
Although the military has defended its troop preparedness, the willingness of units to go public with allegations suggests growing concern among National Guard and reserve members.
In the summary document obtained by the Los Angeles Times, the sergeant reported that some soldiers had arrived in Iraq without ever having fired some of the weapons they would use in war. Military commanders at the Fort Bliss complex, which straddles the Texas-New Mexico line, had misread mobilization orders, costing the soldiers a month of training, the sergeant wrote.
"We have been called away from our homes and families for hostile operations. We are owed a chance to be trained properly and given the tools to obtain that objective," the sergeant wrote.
Fort Bliss spokeswoman Jean Offutt said Wednesday that the base has trained and deployed -- and in many cases redeployed-- 40,000 soldiers in the past three years.
"We have had very few issues," she said. "This is quite a surprise. But I understand there will always be some units who have things that they need to talk about or work on."
Lt. Jack Gaines, a spokesman for the Army's 91st Division, which trains soldiers at Fort Bliss, said: "The military takes care of its people."
He said the soldiers' concerns appear to be related to the changing role of the National Guard and reserve. "Citizen-soldiers" now make up about 40 percent of the troops in Iraq -- and shoulder a large share of the front-line combat roles.
"The preparation for combat is very strict," Gaines said. "It's very frustrating for a civilian soldier to go through that. But the truth is, it makes you a stronger, more disciplined person in the end, and that will keep you alive when things go bad."
Defense officials in Washington did not return phone calls seeking comment.
The allegations last month came from members of the 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, a California Army National Guard unit activated in August. The new charges are from members of Company F, 425th Infantry Battalion, a unit of the Michigan Army National Guard that is scheduled to return to the United States within two months. Company F has about 140 soldiers on its rolls.
Both units trained at desert compounds in New Mexico that are part of Texas' Fort Bliss Training Complex.
The document in which the sergeant summarized his unit's training is known as an After-Action Review -- or AAR -- and is fairly common in the military. This one was widely disseminated among Company F soldiers, five of whom said it accurately outlined concerns shared by the entire unit. The soldiers said the document was sent to commanders at Fort Bliss and the Pentagon.
The document was shown to The Times on condition that the name of the sergeant, who has extensive experience in both the National Guard and the active-duty armed forces, not be used.
Military analysts said care must be taken to distinguish between typical soldiers' complaints and legitimate concerns that speak to the military's preparation for Iraq and its execution of the war.
"When soldiers don't complain, I worry. That's when you know something is wrong," said David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland.
Segal said it was not surprising that the soldiers' weapons were in need of repair after their rigorous training. But he said it was distressing to hear allegations that the weapons were still in bad shape by the time the unit had deployed.
According to the AAR, the unit's pistols and grenade launchers still had "deficiencies" after they were supposed to have been fixed up for battle. And of the unit's 21 M-60 machine guns, "upon deployment to the theater we have a total of 3 guns that are deficient-free," the document said.
"That is something that should not be happening," Segal said. "Americans have the right to assume that their sons and daughters, when deployed, are being deployed with what they need to do the job."
Source: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-04/12-23-04/a02wn494.htm
The unit's M-60 machine guns reportedly were in such bad condition when the soldiers deployed in February that one sergeant -- in a section of a post-training summary sent to his commanders that was titled "gun maintenance" -- wrote: "Perhaps we should throw stones?"
The allegations come a month after another National Guard unit alleged that its training at Fort Bliss was so poor that soldiers feared incurring needlessly high casualties when they arrive in Iraq early next year.
Although the military has defended its troop preparedness, the willingness of units to go public with allegations suggests growing concern among National Guard and reserve members.
In the summary document obtained by the Los Angeles Times, the sergeant reported that some soldiers had arrived in Iraq without ever having fired some of the weapons they would use in war. Military commanders at the Fort Bliss complex, which straddles the Texas-New Mexico line, had misread mobilization orders, costing the soldiers a month of training, the sergeant wrote.
"We have been called away from our homes and families for hostile operations. We are owed a chance to be trained properly and given the tools to obtain that objective," the sergeant wrote.
Fort Bliss spokeswoman Jean Offutt said Wednesday that the base has trained and deployed -- and in many cases redeployed-- 40,000 soldiers in the past three years.
"We have had very few issues," she said. "This is quite a surprise. But I understand there will always be some units who have things that they need to talk about or work on."
Lt. Jack Gaines, a spokesman for the Army's 91st Division, which trains soldiers at Fort Bliss, said: "The military takes care of its people."
He said the soldiers' concerns appear to be related to the changing role of the National Guard and reserve. "Citizen-soldiers" now make up about 40 percent of the troops in Iraq -- and shoulder a large share of the front-line combat roles.
"The preparation for combat is very strict," Gaines said. "It's very frustrating for a civilian soldier to go through that. But the truth is, it makes you a stronger, more disciplined person in the end, and that will keep you alive when things go bad."
Defense officials in Washington did not return phone calls seeking comment.
The allegations last month came from members of the 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment, a California Army National Guard unit activated in August. The new charges are from members of Company F, 425th Infantry Battalion, a unit of the Michigan Army National Guard that is scheduled to return to the United States within two months. Company F has about 140 soldiers on its rolls.
Both units trained at desert compounds in New Mexico that are part of Texas' Fort Bliss Training Complex.
The document in which the sergeant summarized his unit's training is known as an After-Action Review -- or AAR -- and is fairly common in the military. This one was widely disseminated among Company F soldiers, five of whom said it accurately outlined concerns shared by the entire unit. The soldiers said the document was sent to commanders at Fort Bliss and the Pentagon.
The document was shown to The Times on condition that the name of the sergeant, who has extensive experience in both the National Guard and the active-duty armed forces, not be used.
Military analysts said care must be taken to distinguish between typical soldiers' complaints and legitimate concerns that speak to the military's preparation for Iraq and its execution of the war.
"When soldiers don't complain, I worry. That's when you know something is wrong," said David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland.
Segal said it was not surprising that the soldiers' weapons were in need of repair after their rigorous training. But he said it was distressing to hear allegations that the weapons were still in bad shape by the time the unit had deployed.
According to the AAR, the unit's pistols and grenade launchers still had "deficiencies" after they were supposed to have been fixed up for battle. And of the unit's 21 M-60 machine guns, "upon deployment to the theater we have a total of 3 guns that are deficient-free," the document said.
"That is something that should not be happening," Segal said. "Americans have the right to assume that their sons and daughters, when deployed, are being deployed with what they need to do the job."
Source: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-04/12-23-04/a02wn494.htm
