"I wouldn't join an army that didn't care about me as a human life"

Money and Benefits lend themselves to be huge motivators of any decision.

Also, IMO, it seems almost suicidal (or a severe lack of common sense) to operate vehicles up and down roadways potentially laced with IEDs.

Yer, Australian officers are trained for 18 months at Duntroon before being commissioned, and I too am a big believer they should all spend 12 months as a private soldier before being able to attend officer training, just so they know what its like to be a soldier, before they attempt to command them.

I guess that we are all in agrement than that officers should spend time as enlisted before going to Officer Candidate Scool as it is termed in the US. OCS is mandetory upon entry no mater if they went to the acedemy or not. How ever I think that they need more than a year, I like 3-4 myself, befor being acepted to OCS.
Cross training, it happens a lot. I was cross trained as infantry, indirect fire, and demolition. Furthermore I had to have a working proficiancy of every weapon in the Battalion arsenal ie. Carl Gustove, AT4, sniper rifles both 7.62mm and .50 cal(12.7mm), 40mm grenade launcher, 12 guage shotgun, variouse anti personel and anti armore mines, Sattalite and am/fm comunications, calling indirect fire as well as close air support, and Naval fire. Every soldier, at least in the Army, is cross trained.
Yes it is not a warm fuzzy feeling to know that there are 15% casualties expected, but reality is people die in combat. The U.S.A. has had more problems with fratrisie than other countries. They also commit more troops than any other country so just maybe there is a corolation?
I also agree that there is more training that could be done. Training costs money and the American people don't want to spend money on training as much as they do saving some damned spotted owl or redeaded woodpecker. You are corect in that there has never been a millitary on earth that has had enough training,....Has there?

Absolutely mate, no military can fully prepare any soldier for war the first time, only experience itself can do that. They can prepare a soldier though fairly well if armed with all the right training, education and as much field experience as possible. Anything less IMHO, is sending any soldier in to be murdered.

Its interesting though isn't it, how the civilian population view how money is spent within their countries military? They are happy to push for their country to step into other countries and help them, yet when in peace time, they aren't happy to have the money spent, however; when troops are sent into conflict, and deaths occur at high rates, they really have to weight up the cost of life! Is it cheaper to train a less effective soldier and roll the dice on their life, or is it actually more economical to the civilian population to spend more money on training less troops, achieving the same outcome, then bringing home the majority of lives intact??? We know the answers, but I see it here with the news and when Australians are in a zone of conflict, they change their mind near as much as their underwear, without fully understanding the full scope of military force and conflict zones. Lets be honest, if you have been on peace keeping, war itself, humanitarian aid even, they all resemble one another really, its only the rules of engagement that seem to change, as the threats are still pretty high, some obviously higher than others.

Here in the UK when we enlist it is to prepare to get ready to go to war. Even if you are a Sapper, Mechanic, Signaller, Pioneer, Cook or Pay Clerk. You are trained as a soldier first. And then you train for your trade, but you are always a soldier first.
When I went in I did 2 years learning my trade as I joined when I was 16, and you are not allowed to fight until you are 18. By the time I was posted to my unit, I was ready, but my training always continued. I was trained on SLR, Rifle and then SA80, Browning Automatic, SMG, LMG, GPMG and HMG. Also on 80mm Mortar, Gustav, Hand held SAMs, grenades, and then we trained on foreign weapons, AK47, and M16s. I actually found the AK47 a much better weapon than the M16 or SA80. When the battalion became Armoured Infantry we trained on the Warrior, I did a troop commanders course up in Sennelager, in Germany, where we were taught the job of driver, radio operator and of course commander, so that I could do everybody else's job.
Being in the British Army we have the advantage over our American Allies in that because we have so much experience in operations in Northern Ireland dealing with the IRA, that down in Basra we have less casualties because of that, in dealing with insurgents in built up areas.
I agree with Anthony in that no new soldier can even imagine to think about being in action until they actually do it for the first time. Or to make the training as so realistic as possible and I don't know if you can do that without putting them into action for the first time so that they can learn and hopefully come out of it alive and in one piece.
Scott

I must agree with you Scott, being the only benefit coming from the IRA was that UK soldiers got so much experience in order to prepare themselves for further combat roles, especially urban. Australia being the same, everyone is trained to do everyone elses job surrounding them, up and down the chain, because if one life is lost, another person can immediately step into that position without much thought. This is certainly part of cross training.

That is actually another bug up my butt mac about what the US leaders put their troops into. They devalue the life of soldiers by placing them within situations that they full know are extremely dangerous, far to much, too often. There are always safer methods and alternatives to achieve any aim, and I believe this is where the US leaders neglect their roles in protecting their troops, and too many lives are lost for these very actions.

You pick one route as a major one, then you arm it to the hilt at every possible angle, monitor it from every angle, ensure it is highly guarded and secure, precautionary methods in place for suicide bombers, ie. pre-post stops where vehicles must pullup and be inspected by cameras or other means that technology allow us to now utilise, instead of sacrificing human life each time. You generally can assimilate between a suspect vehicle or not, and when human contact should be used vs. not used. We have technology, yet too many human lives are still lost. Devasting IMHO.

I aggree with Ranger on most the points but I think the main problem with friendly fire now is the fact that the millitary (everybody's) relies WAY too much on modern technology. In ALL of the friendly fire cases I've read about high tech weapons systems were the main tool they put everything into. In almost every case right after weapons were fired pilots and weapons operators had doubts that what they were told by these systems was reliable. It's the same in lawenforcement too. We are getting too dependant on our computer systems and the younger guys don't know what to do when the system goes down. Advanced training kinda goes out the window when your being shot at then everybody is a grunt.

Absolutely Terry, technology must be used within reason obviously, like everything in life. Some things just can't be replaced as effectively as simply sending a person in to do a job.

i have trained with both english and american soldiers and both us army and marines and it all comes down to training.
i found the english to be totally professional and a joy to work with,however i found the us soldiers similar to our ary reserve but the marines are squared away with their attitude alot better than the army.
when i was in england i went and saw the memorial for the soldiers lost in the gulf and read the story and it gave me the shits very much.
accidents do happen but most learn from them, i have been in a exercise with american troops (army) and didnt have a clue what was going on around them.
they didnt know who was in front or beside them,now that is either not being smart enough to ask or not being properly breifed by officers.