Iraq commanders say no to breaks in combat (More Combat Time than WWII)

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Army Times

U.S. commanders in Iraq are rejecting a recommendation by Army mental health experts that troops receive a one-month break for every three months in a combat zone, despite unprecedented levels of continuous fighting and worsening risks of mental health problems.

Instead, commanders are trying to give troops two to three days inside heavily fortified bases after about eight days in the field, said Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, chief aide to the ground forces commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno.

“We would never get the job done of securing if we went out for three months and came back” for one, Anderson said.

U.S. forces in Iraq spend more time in continuous combat without a break than those who fought in Vietnam and World War II, according to Army psychologists who studied troops in Iraq.

----

U.S. commanders can’t match the World War II policy, Odierno said in a news conference late last month. “Even in World War II and other times ... we would pull forces off the line and bring them back on. Here we don’t do that,” Odierno said. “They are out there consistently every single day. So you have to be mentally and physically tough.”

Read more: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/06/gns_monthoff_070618/

---

F*ckers - IMHO past time for the troops to lay down their guns and just refuse to go out. Can't court martial everyone!

[Kagemusha]

1. This should sober up the "they didn't take breaks in WWII" crowd.

Not that it will, but it should.

[RamboLiberal]

2. Problem is the media won't push it

By the same time frame in WWII the troops were coming home and Japan, Germany and the rest of Europe were being rebuilt!

[JoFerret]

3. link gone AWOL

.

[RamboLiberal]

4. Army Times links don't seemt o work correctly after posting

Just go to the main page http://www.armytimes.com/ and look down the stories. It's still there.

[Ilsa]

7. With the Army Times, you always have to start on the front page. nt

[superconnected]

5. I don't like this statement

“Even in World War II and other times ... we would pull forces off the line and bring them back on. Here we don’t do that,” Odierno said. “They are out there consistently every single day. So you have to be mentally and physically tough.”

Because it implies that the ones who combat gets to aren't mentally and physically tough.

I think they are asking for a sub-human quality in expecting combat not to get to people, not simply toughness.

[BornagainDUer]

6. This article is total bullshit!!

WWII soldiers spent only 1/6th the time Vietnam Era soldiers spent on the battle field (40 days/year compared to 240 days/year). This is due to the better transportation to and from the battle field. I'm sure the Iraq soldiers are spending the same or more time than Vietnam era soldiers.

[Kagemusha]

9. Er, if WWII had taken place in the geographical area of Vietnam

WWII troops would've spent a lot more time on the "battlefield" too. Just saying. It's not exactly something they had a choice over. It was a world war. It's just that the better transportation was nonetheless over a much, much smaller slice of territory.

[BornagainDUer]

10. The point is that WWII vets only had 1/6th the time in combat. This is

very important when you consider the psychological effect.

[Javaman]

8. Keep the meat grinders going you pricks!

I loath them.