Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Army Guard now says its Iraq troops figure was inaccurate

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 06:54 AM
Original message
Army Guard now says its Iraq troops figure was inaccurate
The Army National Guard said Monday it had given USA TODAY an inaccurate count of the total number of Guard troops in Iraq (news - web sites) since the beginning of the war in March 2003, but still could not provide a precise count.


USA TODAY used the inaccurate Guard numbers to construct an analysis that showed part-time troops from the Army National Guard were more likely to die in Iraq than their counterparts in the active-duty Army.


Without more precise figures, there is no way to accurately compare death rates between various branches of U.S. military forces during the Iraq war.


The Guard said last week that 37,000 Guard troops had set foot in Iraq since the start of the war. On Monday, Guard spokesman Scott Woodham said 90,972 Guard troops had been ordered to Iraq, but he could not say how many had actually gotten there, and how many were in mobilization stations or on their way.

more: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&ncid=716&e=23&u=/usatoday/20041214/ts_usatoday/armyguardnowsaysitsiraqtroopsfigurewasinaccurate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
slor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
1. Inaccurate, in that it told the...
truth, and that is always wrong to this administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. exactly...
but it seems to me, this will become another story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UL_Approved Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
3. Voted 5 with both my Yahoo accounts
Its still at 5.0.

With regards to the story, I hope that the Pentagon gets nailed to the wall for this crap. At some point, they will have to admit that they don't have ANY figures because they were either lost or not taken at all. The Iraqi death toll is another statistical scandal in the works. I just am not proud of the U.S. any more. The people here as a whole don't seem to get the picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. The people here as a whole are being FED the wrong picture.
CNN has just as much blood on its hands as bu$h does.

:argh:
dbt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UL_Approved Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. It all goes hand in hand
Bush and the Corporate Thieves are all as guilty as sin. Pieces of the puzzle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
6. Wouldn't that mean that the story they've been using
of the Guard making up approx. 40% of the ground troops would be wrong then? That would certainly increase the percentage of ground troops that are Guard and Reserve. This would make yet more previous statements lies would it not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. STOP MAKING SENSE!!!!
:evilgrin:
dbt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. yes, it would
and it shows that the Pentagon hasn't a clue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Good Catch!
Thought the same thing, only you had already posted. Nice going!
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massachusetts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
8. BU$HCO AND TEAM
MAY THEY ALL ROT IN HELL!:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: ANOTHER DAY AND I'M MORE PISSED OFF!

WHEN THE "F" WILL WE AS A COUNTRY COLLECTIVELY WAKE UP!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yorkiemommie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
11. rated a '5'
every single day more damaging news from this administration. and yet, red america shops and looks forward to four more years. i am just sickened by it all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az_lefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
12. Rated a '5'
they were telling the truth before, now their lying to cover it up. Fuck these assholes!
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
13. Which way to lie?
More guard troops brings down the ratio of their dead to total dead.
But more guard troops makes the whole manpower thing look worse.

Hmmm...this will take some thought on the part of Rummy et al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
14. Shades of Vietnam! The same thing happened there.
Edited on Tue Dec-14-04 12:42 PM by TahitiNut
When Nixon won in 1968 with a promise to "bring the troops home" he found that the Pentagon couldn't provide accurate data on how many military personnel were actually serving in Vietnam. They could only cite 'final' data that was more than 6 months old -- and which was notoriously inaccurate, as shown by updates up to a year later.

That's when yours truly was given the job of designing and implementing the "USARV Strength Accountability System" ... to identify and tabulate each and every service person under USARV Command in Vietnam and their current status.

The 'trick' was to intercept the processing Morning Reports. As anyone who has served in the military should know, every military unit worldwide files a report each and every morning that indicates any change in duty status of individuals assigned to their unit. This is reported by every military unit at the company (or equivalent) level. These reports, typically completed by company clerks and signed by the C.O., were submitted and transported/transmitted to USARV HQ Command every day. At the HQ level, the reports were assembled and aggregated. Since the time it took to receive these reports varied, the "as of" date for any lowest level of reporting command (usually a company) varied widely. An infantry company, for example, might be deployed in an outlying area and at firebases, and have squads and/or platoons conducting LRPs and other 'remote' duties. Thus, the time it'd take for changes in personnel status (alive, sick, dead, etc.) could be prolonged for up to a month (and occasionally more) for some units. Tragically, however, one could project with some degree of statistical certainty the number of personnel who'd be injured or killed among such delayed reports. That was the key.

Thus, the Strength Accountability System was completed by mid-1969 ... and provided the Pentagon with data that was 99.9% accurate at the battalion (or equivalent) level within a 7-day window. (Needless to say, they were shocked when they got the real numbers.) The system accounted for personnel at the aggregate level by rank/grade, MOS, and service (RA, US, NG, AR, etc.) ... as well as geographic location within Vietnam. (Also needless to say, the system and the data were HIGHLY classified.)

It's sad to see they've succumbed to chaos yet again. The first job of any military command for the last 4,000 years is to know the current location and condition of their own forces. This is the most basic tenet of warfare, and it's unchanging. The second job is to know the same for the enemy. Everything else is subordinate to and dependant upon how well Jobs #1 and #2 are done. These are the rules of warfare. They're basic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-14-04 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. current location and condition takes a backseat to political expediency
Rove smiles as FOX reports.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC