Generation Kill

[Sitzkrieg]

Having both read the book and watched the series, the series diverges from the book in many instances. The book itself is embellished by the author, your choice as to how much.

Better book is "One Bullet Away" by Nate Fick (Bravo Company, 2nd Platoon commander depicted in "Generation Kill"). Probably much more accurate account, especially of his problems with the Company commander ("Encino Man") and "Kasey Kasem". It wasn't nearly as dramatic as it was protrayed in the series, which was even more dramatic than the book. I think Fick has been critical of "Generation Kill", calling parts of it BS.

Two of the Marines in the interview with Evan Wright were "technical advisors" to the show, Reyes and Kucher. Reyes comes off as a complete douchebag. Not sure about Kucher.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

[Apocal]

Well Apocal, you weren't exactly doing yourself credit either, flying off the handle at Cpl Steiner quite unfairly, and unlike him taking a direct jingoist swipe. Read his post again. It isn't as bad as you think it is.

A short sentence intro and four words is hardly "flying off the handle." More to the point, people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

I am trying to not get sucked into this kind of discussion, but things like this upset me quite a bit, since I spent the better part of my adult life wearing a uniform.

The Lt in charge of the platoon also wrote a book, "One Bullet Away" IIRC. He does little, if anything, to refute what what was written in GK, except he is quite a bit more sympathetic toward LTC Fernando.

And some Marines were prosecuted for various things in the aftermath, mostly relating to badmouthing the chain of command. FWIW. Sgt. Person was not one of them. Nor GySgt (or is it 1SG now?) Colbert.

[Imperial Grunt]

I thought GK did a great job of showing the way soldiers/marines interact between each other when in the base camp, the first episode. I was thrilled that someone had really captured the way soldiers talk to each other in the motorpool and or ready line. But after that it went down hill really fast.

I was not a Marine, nor part of that unit, but I can tell you that most of the actions I saw in GK would have resulted in court-martials, without a doubt. No one in any command I ever served in was so eager to get into combat that they acted like they did in this show. If the stories are true the group of Marines that were part of the script writing needed to be court-martialed for not reporting some of the actions in the show, if they were true.

All in all my opinion of marines took a step backwards, either they made crap up to show the Corps in a bad light or they let criminal actions go without doing something about it, either way they were wrong.

Edit Note: I really like these forums and would hate to see them become what other ones are. I think this is best a topic left alone.

I concur. That is why I have not watched it. I don't want to get frustrated, even though I now it is all a result of the journalist and disgruntled Marines. Same with the book. And movie "Jarhead". All vile trash.

[Apocal]

LTC Shoup's commentary on GK.

Evan Wright provided a rather detailed comment somewhere a third down the comments section.

[Imperial Grunt]

As a Brit, all I can say is I hope the Marines aren't really like they are portrayed in GK, but I suspect to a large extent they are. I have seen documentaries of British forces in action and if they behaved like those Marines in the series they would be kicked out. The Marines in the series come across as really unprofessional, singing and joking around when they should be serious, focused, watching for enemies etc. The indiscriminate killing of civilians in several episodes is also worrying, if that's what really goes on.

I read a book called "3 Para" about the British Paratroop Regiment in Afghanistan, and in several chapters the Paras meet up with US convoys and patrols of various types. The Paras were similarly unimpressed with their behaviour!

Sorry to sound like a "Brits bashing Americans" rant but from what I have seen so far of GK I suspect it won't go down too well in the UK and will just reinforce long held stereotypes of how Americans are "trigger happy cowboys".

I have trained with Royal Marines and worked briefly with the Black Watch when a battalion of them relieved us (26 MEU) in north Babill province. Brit forces are universally professional and their soldiers are older and usually more experienced. US forces tend to be younger and on their first enlistment. The US has more of a quality spread amongst different kinds of units, especially between combat units and support units. But in terms of combat power and tactical capability, I observed little difference, just different techniques. And in some cases US skill sets exceeded Brit skill sets. For example when I was doing some sniper training with Royal Marine snipers, we found out that they rarely train to shoot past 600 yard whereas Marine snipers routinely practice out to 1000.

Its all relative, and the bottom line is that we are allies in the same fight.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

A short sentence intro and four words is hardly "flying off the handle." More to the point, people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

Did you, or did you not react badly to Cpl Steiner? Do you think that on second reading of the offending post you were correct in doing so? Those are the questions at hand.

As for me throwing stones, I know a saying about that too: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and with you clearly being without sin, I thought it was my turn.

Look, I bear no ill will, but you needed to be told you were acting foolish.

As for the accuracy of GK: I think Wright probably didn't get it far wrong.

It is those that got painted in a bad light that decried the accuracy. They would, wouldn't they? I've had my share of NCOs/officers that were either unbalanced, clueless or both and have no difficulty believing that Wright saw some of that. Some of it may have been blown out of proportion, but I'd be very surprised if it was flat out made up.

I recall reading that the USMC has since warmed up to the book. If correct, that seems to indicate it wasn't a completely made up hatchet job.

[Cpl Steiner]

Well, if it's gonna be that kinda thread...

Nice job in Basra.

Just catching up with this thread since coming home from work. I see my post about what I thought of GK has stirred up quite a hornets nest!

First, regarding Basra, I see that as being more a failure of the British Government rather than the British Army - and specifically the change in PM from Tony Blair to Gordon Brown. I think Brown viewed Iraq as "Blair's War" and was determined to pull troops out regardless of the situation on the ground or how it would affect relations with the US. It certainly wasn't Britain's finest hour, but you can hardly blame the military for that. Brown was instrumental in what happened.

Back to GK! Contrary to what you might be thinking, I am not a knee-jerk anti-American bigot like many Brits I know. I have read "No True Glory" and "Back Hawk Down" and know that many American soldiers are highly professional. However, I do think there are some distinct "nationality" differences between British and American units.

I am reminded of an incident from the Iraq war, widely reported over here, in which a British helicopter came under fire from an American unit. The pilot put the chopper down by the Americans, got out, and asked one of them, "when's the last time you saw an Iraqi flying a f**king helicopter!"

Although stereotypical, there does seem to be some truth in the idea that American soldiers are more willing to pull the trigger and ask questions later than their British counterparts. It also seems true that whenever civilians are involved in war zones like Iraq or Afghanistan, they are happier to see British soldiers around than American ones because they are more afraid of the Americans.

I don't wish to go on making any more comments of this nature but some of the scenes in GK, such as villages full of women and kids being shot up for no reason, are not a good advert for the US military.

[Ryujin]

I don't wish to go on making any more comments of this nature but some of the scenes in GK, such as villages full of women and kids being shot up for no reason, are not a good advert for the US military.

As I believe was mentioned before, a lot of those things in the series were later refuted. I'll certainly agree it doesn't help the US military and since there are so many US troops compared to other coalition forces, any way you look at it they'll be responsible for the most "incidents". I don't know if US troops are actually a bigger hazard to civilians (I'd think not), but what people perceive, not the truth, is what matters with something like this.

[GSX]

Blaming the military for doing a poor job of civil reconstruction is like blaming your carpenter for doing a crap job wiring your electrical system.

At any rate, I don't see how that compares to the UK's military failures in Basra. Perhaps you can enlighten me. OTOH, just the fact that four words provoked a paragrap from you is rather telling all it's own.

Would I be correct in saying it wasn't exactly your finest hour?

Well, I dont think Iraq has exactly been the US finest hour either to be honest. I kind of view the whole episode as myopic on the part of both our governments. The fact that we have gotten out of it is a bonus from my point of view.

That being said I dont think we [the Brits] have enough troops to do a proper job anywhere right now, including Afghanistan. I think the politicians say, lets do this and its been incumbent on the Armed Forces to just say OK, instead of saying not possible. We have the same 'can do' attitude and at times it becomes silly.

Was Basra a failure or is the cause ultimately a joke? And realising this, did the UK commanders make decisions based on keeping UK casualties to a minimum and keeping the local populace onside? I have no answer to that though.

The bottom line for me is this, is Iraq and the average Iraqi more secure now than it was in 2002. I dont have an answer to that but I do know that the previous regime while terrible did keep the fundamentalist element under wraps. I dont think Al quaeda operated in iraq before 2003. Still, time will tell.

[GSX]

I have trained with Royal Marines and worked briefly with the Black Watch when a battalion of them relieved us (26 MEU) in north Babill province. Brit forces are universally professional and their soldiers are older and usually more experienced. US forces tend to be younger and on their first enlistment. The US has more of a quality spread amongst different kinds of units, especially between combat units and support units. But in terms of combat power and tactical capability, I observed little difference, just different techniques. And in some cases US skill sets exceeded Brit skill sets. For example when I was doing some sniper training with Royal Marine snipers, we found out that they rarely train to shoot past 600 yard whereas Marine snipers routinely practice out to 1000.

Its all relative, and the bottom line is that we are allies in the same fight.

I would go along with this. I have worked with US Air Force, Army and Marines in my time and your Senior NCOs and Officers are very good. What often lets you down is your enlisted cadre, but as you say, they tend to be younger and a lot of them join for differing reasons (College funds etc). A lot of our practices are very different but I do think the end result is the same. However a lot of your ROEs are totally different. Which is OK for you but leads to some confusion when acting jointly.

[Blackcat]

"For example when I was doing some sniper training with Royal Marine snipers, we found out that they rarely train to shoot past 600 yard whereas Marine snipers routinely practice out to 1000."

Imperial Grunt,

Just out of interest, in which year were you training with the RM Snipers?

[Cpl Steiner]

I have to agree with GSX - Iraq was a disaster for all concerned - The US, Britain, and most of all Iraq. Granted, Saddam was a bad guy, but that's not why we went to war. We went to war because we were told it was crucial to our national interest, because Saddam had WMD which he was prepared to give to groups like Al Quaeda to threaten the West. That, we now know, was utter nonsense. Instead, we now have home grown terrrorists from Bradford in the UK and possibly now Fort Hood in Texas, who commit atrocities because they are incensed by what was done in places like Iraq. The Iraq war has made us less safe, not more safe.

Anyway, that's all history now. We are where we are, as they say. However, it will take many years for the wounds of that conflict to heal, if they ever do.

[Imperial Grunt]

"For example when I was doing some sniper training with Royal Marine snipers, we found out that they rarely train to shoot past 600 yard whereas Marine snipers routinely practice out to 1000."

Imperial Grunt,

Just out of interest, in which year were you training with the RM Snipers?

It was at Quantico, back in 1998.

[Imperial Grunt]

I would go along with this. I have worked with US Air Force, Army and Marines in my time and your Senior NCOs and Officers are very good. What often lets you down is your enlisted cadre, but as you say, they tend to be younger and a lot of them join for differing reasons (College funds etc). A lot of our practices are very different but I do think the end result is the same. However a lot of your ROEs are totally different. Which is OK for you but leads to some confusion when acting jointly.

Well, I would not go along with the word "often". One of the reasons I am still in the reserves is that I have always been impressed by the discipline, espirit de corps, and camaraderie that exudes from young Marines. During both of my tours in Iraq, it was awe inspiring. Throughout my career, there have been bad seeds-both enlisted and in the officer ranks, but the Marine Corps is usually efficient of getting rid of them most of the time, but every organization has its malcontents. The main characters in GK definably fall in that category, but they are the exception and not the rule. Most enlisted Marines work very hard and are very professional. I have been told by several Brit and Australian military guys that they loved their experience working with American Marines. (It is kind of funny to me that so many Brit and Australians say "American" Marines, when we always call ourselves "US" Marines). The 10% rule (consisting of less than average performers and malcontents) for a smaller force is always going to show less "bad" things happen. So when you compare the US Army and Marine Corps to the Brit Army and Marine Corps, of course there are going to be less "incidents" for the Brits.

The biggest difference in capability between US and Brit military capability (and any other military on the planet) is the US's ability to project power abroad at the operational and strategic level. No one comes close to the US military. No one can bring the combined arms combat power to the fight-anywhere in the world- like the US Army and US Marine Corps can. And that machine works 24/7 at a very high tempo. It was so awesome to see during OIF.

[Squatdog]

Well, if it's gonna be that kinda thread...

Nice job in Basra.

You mean keeping Basra pacified for several years, until the British forces announced their intention to leave and a Mahdi Army renta-mob from AMERICAN-occupied Sadr City and Najaf moved in and started whipping up trouble?

Thanks for exporting your problems south!

[GSX]

The biggest difference in capability between US and Brit military capability (and any other military on the planet) is the US's ability to project power abroad at the operational and strategic level. No one comes close to the US military. No one can bring the combined arms combat power to the fight-anywhere in the world- like the US Army and US Marine Corps can. And that machine works 24/7 at a very high tempo. It was so awesome to see during OIF.

This is both impressive and awesome and no one comes close to the US ability to fight and win a battle anywhere in the world. We all know we can never approach that ability and so it does lead to a lot of jealousy at times from other nations and Im definitely included there.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

And then you realize they have a trillion dollar defence budget.

If you take in to account the resources of the US military (staggering funding, a large, educated recruitment pool) they aren't all that impressive. Sure, they can beat any one rival, with some ease and that's all that counts if all hell breaks loose.

But bang for your buck I reckon the US is not all it can be.

[Apocal]

Did you, or did you not react badly to Cpl Steiner? Do you think that on second reading of the offending post you were correct in doing so? Those are the questions at hand.

After such remarks on the professionalism of a military I presently serve, I feel I was entirely justified in congratulating the Brits on the job they did in Basra. Re-read what I wrote: I included no jingnostic statement, no attack upon professionalism, etc.

I recall reading that the USMC has since warmed up to the book. If correct, that seems to indicate it wasn't a completely made up hatchet job.

The fact that the majority of the enlisted Marines in the book either left honorably after their term of service or are currently staff NCOs should also tell you as much.

[Imperial Grunt]

And then you realize they have a trillion dollar defence budget.

If you take in to account the resources of the US military (staggering funding, a large, educated recruitment pool) they aren't all that impressive. Sure, they can beat any one rival, with some ease and that's all that counts if all hell breaks loose.

But bang for your buck I reckon the US is not all it can be.

I am not sure what you mean, unless you are talking about how a US Marine is not a good as skier as Finnish soldiers, not as good as mountaineer as a Royal Marine, or not as good as jungle soldier as a Thai Marine. Sure all of them have better field skills in their own environments. But they only train for those environments, with the exception of the Royal Marines (who do emphasize mountain warfare).

I served with a commander that served with the Norwegian Marinejegerkommandoen. He praised their field skills and said they could all ski circles around the US Marines with him, except for one guy from Colorado who grew up sking. But when it came down to marksmanship and shooting skills, the Marines were always on top, hands down. That is because that is emphasized by the USMC, much more so that trying to be expert in field skills in all environments.

As an assault infantry force that can operate anywhere, striking from the sea or operating on land, US Marines account for themselves very well. And in terms of small unit tactics, use of combined arms, marksmanship, etc..they are among the best in the world. Coupled with the operational and strategic might of the US military, they are the best in the world. Same for US Army combat forces.

Any military unit will make mistakes, use the wrong strategy, make a wrong assumption and blunder. That happens. But in terms of training and manning its military, the US had adopted for what works for its Nation and the demands on its global commitments.

The US could for example, adopt the British Regimental system, and try to work that way, although there is no historical support for that (the US historical system is the use of civilian militia and a restricted military). That would create "better" US infantry in my opinion, man for man. But it would limit how many brigades and battalions were available, and there would certainly not be enough to cover the US's global commitments.

Because of the high amount of opportunity in the US, the military would have to pay a man alot to stay a corporal for 10 years as well. So such a system would even be more expensive.

One way the US military would become hugely more efficient would be to simply revamp the process of how military contracts are given out and procurement. That is one reason why the budget is so large. I am all for that, but their is a reason why all that bureaucracy is in place, although it is very frustrating at times.

I am sure back in the day, some non-Spartan would say, "well..they might be the best at forming a shield wall and holding a line, but they suck at riding horses". So, they are not the best they could have been? Right?

Every military force has its strengths and weaknesses. No one is the all out best at everything. But the US can beat any one rival easily and can beat more at the same time (although holding those victories and spreading democracy is much harder-another topic), and that is without so much as a hiccup with its domestic life.

[Imperial Grunt]

After such remarks on the professionalism of a military I presently serve, I feel I was entirely justified in congratulating the Brits on the job they did in Basra. Re-read what I wrote: I included no jingnostic statement, no attack upon professionalism, etc.

The fact that the majority of the enlisted Marines in the book either left honorably after their term of service or are currently staff NCOs should also tell you as much.

I don't know of anyone who has warmed up to GK in the USMC. As far as the Marines careers go, unless formal charges were ever pressed, they would not be forced out or get a bad conduct discharge or worse. GK and the book Jarhead are generally loathed and they are pretty much written off as garbage overall.

There is a marked difference in an analysis of the Marine Corps by a professional journalist, like Thomas Ricks than by a Rolling Stone reporter who is trying to sell a book to a liberal, hollywood-centric crowd. Read Rick's book "Making the Corps". He was an "embed" for Somalia and then researched the Marines after that. He covers the Marines, good and bad. It is much more accurate and everything is fully researched.

He also has two great books about Iraq, "Fiasco" and "The Gamble". I highly recommend them both as well.

[Yair Iny]

And then you realize they have a trillion dollar defence budget.

If you take in to account the resources of the US military (staggering funding, a large, educated recruitment pool) they aren't all that impressive. Sure, they can beat any one rival, with some ease and that's all that counts if all hell breaks loose.

But bang for your buck I reckon the US is not all it can be.

Elmar, i'm not american, so hopefully you don't see this as a jingoistic response. But I'm not sure what you mean about the bang for the buck thing. Of course, the higher the budget, the more wastage is going to be and the less properly exploited it will be (in relative terms). But this military budget, with as much bang for the buck as so happens to be, supports the strongest, most sophisticated armed force in the world, one that, let's face it, is the guarantor of peace and stability for all Western countries, the Netherlands included.

And as an aside, in regards to bang for the buck, the Marines, specifically, don't have that big a budget, but I doubt there are any finer regular infantrymen in the world. If the US Army was able to operate at the efficiencies and coordination levels of the Marines (which it can't due to its size), it would be far more powerful than it already is. And I doubt other armed forces are at the level of the USMC, I know the IDF first hand from my service there, and I can tell you, for example, most certainly, that it doesn't reach the same level of Air Land coordination.

[Secondbrooks]

But I'm not sure what you mean about the bang for the buck thing.

I'd take a educated guess... Not being educated and poor at guessing, i'm rather aware of results. But man can try, can't it?

Well it's besically same thing what men with small pen1ses says: "it's not about size but about skills and dedication". Men with large pen1ses ofcourse sees it differently. Blasted idiots.

Same with smaller nations looking at their population base, budget, size of military and compare it to their estimated effect on things and draw their conclusions from there. Gee we sent 200 troops on that place which is close to absolute maximum we can. Troops worked nearly flawlessly. We are main contributors, cheers! From Large Military's point of view it doesn't count a ****e.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

It wasn't a comment I made with ill will, those that have read it that way may want to control their kneejerk reaction a bit.

All I'm saying is that amidst the compliments for the US military, the pricetag deserves a mention. In the comment that lead to ***** speculation I even gave it the credit of being the best there is. But anyone not concerned at the cost of it in regards to what the US is getting in return, is a damn fool.

The USMC, whom I hold in VERY high regard, are sort of making my point. Being last in line for new equipment (heck, last in line for old equipment) they are probably the finest large fighting force in the world. And that's my point.

US military is awesome. Their funding is awesome², so why are only the Marines awesome²?

[Cpl Steiner]

Just done a little checking on Wikipedia, and here are some interesting figures:

US Defence Budget: $664 billion; Ranked 1st in the World

UK Defence Budget: $64 billion; Ranked 3rd in the World (behind US and China)

Countries Ranked by Military Expenditure

So, despite having the 3rd highest defence budget in the World, the UK still spends less than a tenth of what the US spends on defence. Even China, in 2nd place, spends only about $80 billion. This is something Americans should remember when they ask for their allies in NATO to "do more".

I tried deducting each country's expenditure from the US's to see how many of them would add up to the US's budget and gave up after getting to Mexico. Basically, the US budget is larger than the combined budgets of all the other major powers on the planet. It does makes you wonder why the US has to spend so much on defence?

Another thing to remember. The British Army has only about 100,000 personnel. Of that I think they only have about 30,000 that can be regarded as front line combat troops. When you consider that the UK currently has committed something like 10,000 men to Afghanistan, it represents a very large percentage of the UK's land forces.

A bit off topic, but something to think about nonetheless.

[Blackcat]

"US Defence Budget: $664 billion; Ranked 1st in the World

UK Defence Budget: $64 billion; Ranked 3rd in the World (behind US and China"

I think there are some dangers in doing a direct comparison in such terms. Firstly the UK defence budget is currently about £35bn, so the exchange rate needs to be taken into account. Then there is the issue of what is actually included in the figures (e.g. in the UK the cost of war fighting al la Afghanistan is taken from Treasury reserves and not from the defence budget).

A more useful comparison is, perhaps, the percentage of national wealth that each country spends on defence. Even then one might not get a true picture. For example, India spends less than the UK in absolute terms but has much larger armed forces; whether those forces as capable is a moot point (but then quantity has a quality all of its own).