PDA

View Full Version : Guard, Reserves bear higher share of casualty rate


troxy18
10-10-2005, 10:40 PM
discuss this
October 10, 2005

Guard, Reserves bear higher
share of casualty rate

By Robert Burns
Associated Press

The National Guard and Reserves are suffering a strikingly higher share of U.S. casualties in Iraq, their portion of total American military deaths nearly doubling since last year.

Reservists have accounted for one-quarter of all U.S. deaths since the Iraq war began, but the proportion has grown over time. It was 10 percent for the five weeks it took to topple Baghdad in the spring of 2003, and 20 percent for 2004 as a whole.

The trend accelerated this year. For the first nine months of 2005 reservists accounted for 36 percent of U.S. deaths, and for August and September it was 56 percent, according to Pentagon figures.

The Army National Guard, Army Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve accounted for more than half of all U.S. deaths in August and in September — the first time that has happened in consecutive months. The only other month in which it even approached 50 percent was June 2004.

Casualties in Iraq have shifted toward citizen soldiers as their combat role has grown to historic levels. National Guard officials say their soldiers have been sent into combat in Iraq in numbers not previously seen in modern times — far more than were sent to Vietnam, where active-duty troops did the vast majority of the fighting.

Charles Krohn, a former Army deputy chief of public affairs, said the reservists are taking up the slack for the highly stressed active-duty Army.

“Decisions made years earlier made going to war in any significant way impossible without Guard and Reserve participation. But I can’t imagine anyone postulated the situation we face today: We don’t seem very anxious to bring back the draft and we can’t get enough volunteers for a war that is not universally popular,” Krohn said.

Forty-five percent of all Guard and Reserve deaths since the start of the war — 220 of the 487 total — occurred in the first nine months of 2005, according to Pentagon figures. The deadliest month was August, when 49 Guard and Reserve members died.

The mounting casualties among reservists in Iraq has been overshadowed by the attention focused on a rising overall U.S. death toll, now approaching 2,000. It complicates recruiting for the National Guard and Reserve, which often attract people who think of the military reservists’ role as something other than front-line combat.

Gone are the days when the National Guard and Reserve served mainly as “rear-area” support, far from the front-line fighting.

In Iraq the front line is everywhere — on rural roads where Guard and Reserve soldiers drive supply trucks, at urban checkpoints, in remote villages and at major supply bases. Some units also have been attached to active-duty units with the specific mission of conducting offensive operations.

The casualties have contributed to what has been the most challenging time for the Guard and Reserve since the military became an all-volunteer force in 1973. In addition to fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and helping keep the peace in the Balkans, the Guard in particular was called to action in large numbers for rescue and relief from hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

At one point this year more than half of the combat forces in Iraq were National Guard.

“That’s a first,” said Army Maj. Les Melnyk, historian for the Pentagon office that manages the Army and Air National Guard. “The Guard can’t claim that (level of combat) for World War II or World War I — the other major wars we fought in. Never more than 50 percent of the combat forces were Guard.”

At present, of the approximately 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about half are reservists: 49,000 Army National Guard, 22,000 Army Reserve and 4,000 Marine Reserve, according to figures provided by those organizations.

The trend is almost certain to be reversed next year, when the active-duty Army is scheduled to make a proportionally larger contribution to the overall force. The number of National Guard brigades in Iraq, for example, is scheduled to drop next year from seven to two.

Since the Vietnam era, the military has given the Guard and Reserve more vital support functions like military police and engineers, so that any major conflict would involve more than just the active-duty force. Thus it was inevitable that a sizable portion of the force in Iraq would be Guard and Reserve; what has made the Iraq experience so different is the large numbers of reservists getting killed and wounded.

At least 300 soldiers of the National Guard, 78 of the Army Reserve and 93 of the Marine Corps Reserve, have died in the Iraq conflict. The Navy Reserve has lost 13, the Air Force Reserve three and the Air National Guard one. Together that is one-quarter of the total U.S death toll, which stood at 1,947 on Monday, by the Pentagon’s count.

Lt. Gen. James Lovelace, the Army’s deputy chief of staff for operations, said in an interview that the increased reliance on the Guard and Reserve in 2005 was deliberately planned to allow active-duty units like the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne Division to complete a reorganization before they returned to Iraq.

“It bought us the time we needed,” Lovelace said.

Liberator13
10-10-2005, 11:08 PM
Exactly, they don't have the amount of training and experience as the full-time soldiers do. They most likely don't trust eachother and work as a team as well either, as well as probably don't receive the same amount of support.

TacticalVirus
10-10-2005, 11:10 PM
It's simple really. Reservists spend the other 25 days a month working a civvy job. That trends is 'strikingly' apparent in exercises between reservists and regulars, reservists always suffer huge casualities and fail to accomplish their objective more often than not.

troxy18
10-10-2005, 11:56 PM
if you read the article there are more national guard soldiers in combat duty than in the start of OIF 1. the training issue isnt really that big, almost all combat units going over there to be infantry have at least 6 months with training in ft irwin, jrtc, and whatever major mob bases they are mobed out of. when active duty units are sent over to Iraq they go through the same training. the one thing that the national guard units need to do is get themselves out of the mindset of being a civilian, dillydallying around not getting a mission accomplished.

Secret Squirrel
10-11-2005, 06:52 AM
if you read the article there are more national guard soldiers in combat duty than in the start of OIF 1. the training issue isnt really that big, almost all combat units going over there to be infantry have at least 6 months with training in ft irwin, jrtc, and whatever major mob bases they are mobed out of. when active duty units are sent over to Iraq they go through the same training. the one thing that the national guard units need to do is get themselves out of the mindset of being a civilian, dillydallying around not getting a mission accomplished.

They get the training for six months before they leave, but an active unit has that training all the time, so the leadership doesn't have to spin up as much to be ready to go. I'm sure another part of it though is the uneven equipping of the guard units relative to the regular force. They get the same body armor, but I know they still aren't equipped as well, especially during their training.

troxy18
10-11-2005, 08:32 AM
the difference between my national guard company and the active duty companies in the same battalion was that they got M4's instead of the M16's we got.

what about the education level of soldiers in the guard compared to the active army, almost all the specialists and higher in my unit in Iraq either completed college or was still in college, we were able to run a convoy in an emergency in less than 15 minutes(it happened more than once) the active army unit that replaced us was all ate up, all about the pcc/pci's they would spend all day out with the vehicles as a group doing unnecessary pmcs's and crap. never battle drills or anything really useful. their vehicle teams were dumber than bricks, their first right seat ride they had three different occasions when vehicles entered the convoy, and the trail vehicle got rear ended by a civilian vehicle, our first ride a year beforehand was a mad-max dash across baghdad in eight minutes from camp to camp 15 kilometer drive.

TFS
10-11-2005, 01:24 PM
You're all half-right, half-wrong.

True, as "weekend warriors" we don't get the same combat training as regular amy folk do (usually at least one day a week), but we have skills they lack as well.

Because of our civvy jobs, we are more skilled at our MOS duties. An engineer who works on engineering 5 days a week will be better at engineering than one who only engineers 2-3 days a week. Simple logic.

On the same token, since the regs can and do devote more time to combat training, they are better equipped for combat. Jessica Lynch's unit got ambushed because someone couldn't read a map, and very few of them knew how to operate the M16-A1 assault rifle (basic weapon used by ALL troops), let alone the heavier, more useful (in that situation) crew-served weapons mounted on the humvees, like the MK-19 and .50 cal. Unless you train regularly, you will not be able to work these weapons without some issues in a high-stress situation. This renders us less able to defend ourselves in many cases.

I wouldn't say we don't trust each other as well as the regs do. I just got back to my unit this month, and it was an overnight drill. They welcomed me with open arms, taught me stuff, treated me as a member of the team, asking my thoughts and valuing my input as if I had been there over a year or so. Plus, no one had locks on their wall lockers in the barracks. There was no theft at all. Pure professionalism. My personal experience, but in talking to other soldiers through out the military with various experiences of their own, it seems to be the standard across the board. Take that for what you will.

Interesting note: insurgents are less likely to attack a unit if they are able to identify it as a combat arms unit, such as infantry, special forces, etc. They know combat arms units train day in and out for combat and are at the top of their game when it comes to fire-fighting. Other units, like mechanics, engineers, cooks, and all that, spend most of their time doing other things, whether regular military or reserve/NG. The insurgents know this and use this to their advantage. They're targeting the soldiers they know don't train persistantly/solely to fight. I think that will have a serious effect on these numbers.

It's not just that we're not as combat efficient, but they're also targeting those that aren't combat arms.

Secret Squirrel
10-11-2005, 01:47 PM
It's not just that we're not as combat efficient, but they're also targeting those that aren't combat arms.

That may well be hitting it on the nose. In the US we stacked a lot of support units in the reserves and the guard (to force the president to call up the guard in order to go to war). I know we have a lot of national guard combat units too though. Hell I don't know. I'm sure there's a reason, and I have the typical active bias that we train better and more often than the reserves/guard. These days though the difference isn't nearly as great as it was 5 years ago.

TFS
10-11-2005, 01:58 PM
That may well be hitting it on the nose. In the US we stacked a lot of support units in the reserves and the guard (to force the president to call up the guard in order to go to war). I know we have a lot of national guard combat units too though. Hell I don't know. I'm sure there's a reason, and I have the typical active bias that we train better and more often than the reserves/guard. These days though the difference isn't nearly as great as it was 5 years ago.
No, it isn't as great. They're also restructuring everything now too. My unit's disappearing in 14 months. I think it has to do with these kinds of numbers.

troxy18
10-11-2005, 02:17 PM
yeah my armor unit is changing over to cav scout to be "lighter." and they are fucking around with training and funding, also state is switching us from our old division to one of the enhanced separate brigades in the state so hopefully we get better equipment.

Nocturnal
10-11-2005, 02:56 PM
yeah my armor unit is changing over to cav scout to be "lighter."


I thought the current plans were to make most units Heavier?

TFS
10-11-2005, 03:12 PM
I thought the current plans were to make most units Heavier?
No, this has nothing to do with that. This is just to make funding and equipment distribution more appropriate and streamlined. They're trying to make sure all guard and reserve units are properly equipped, which somehow translantes into completely uprooting people and sending them to new units altogether.

troxy18
10-11-2005, 03:17 PM
No, this has nothing to do with that. This is just to make funding and equipment distribution more appropriate and streamlined. They're trying to make sure all guard and reserve units are properly equipped, which somehow translantes into completely uprooting people and sending them to new units altogether.
they didnt uproot me they just changed the land underneath me, same armory, same commander, some new faces, and a different unit name and patch.