I also noted the fat rate figters used their ammo at newsclips (what seemed) at "unseen targets". Also no movement that I noticed (ie movement on contact, to keep situation fluid for the enemy)

Not that I mean to "bash" anyone, but I do mostly agree with you. Just the other day I was watching a BBC news footage of American marines outside of the city; one soldier had taken a good position by a derelict building, and was fireing aimed (if somewhat rapid) shots in the direction of Faluja. His mistake being that he was holding his rifle so tightly into the side of the wall, that the rifle was violently jerking to the right with every shot, his rounds no doubt completely missing whatever he was shooting at. How to shoot from the knealing supported position is one of the basics of shooting... you would expect a marine to know how to..

Well, I think you are correct in most of your points. The issues you bring up would be mistakes by the Army training standards for infantry. However, there are some things to keep in mind. 1) The actions of a unit or a couple units do not necessarily reflect the readiness of the whole force. All and all US infantry has performed pretty well in recent history. 2) Are you positive they were infantry? One of the major issues I've had with the US Iraq policy, is because of the lack of boots on the ground other MOS's are being used to do patrols. I remember having seen some SP Artillery guys doing a dismounted patrol in Baghdad and it made me cringe just watching them. 3) For most of these troops, it's probably the first time anyone has actively tried to kill them.. Yes there is training, but the first time someone takes a shot at you.. things are a little different. 4) Use of reserves. I agree with you, that the US needs to work on its training for reserve units. I served both active and reserve Infantry and the difference was day in night. "As citizen of an allied nation, I'm not trying to be smart or play one upmanship, but the US really needs to look at the way it trains its troops. Try looking at a few nations that use the British model, if you want some tips. It would be better at keeping your boys and girls alive, than all the high-tech wizardry you buy for them" Well, in regards to this - I do grow annoyed with the "US depends on high tech" stereotype. The media and the brass focus on it but it has very little to do with infantry training. The highest tech gizmo's we used were pretty much the night vision and GPS and even then I still spent far more time using a compass and doing land navigation courses than I care to think about. The issues you mention are all contrary to the training that I'm aware of. If some units are not meeting the standards I'm sure it will be addressed.

"1) The actions of a unit or a couple units do not necessarily reflect the readiness of the whole force. All and all US infantry has performed pretty well in recent history." I thought of that, but I've seem similar instances in other clips. "2) Are you positive they were infantry? One of the major issues I've had with the US Iraq policy, is because of the lack of boots on the ground other MOS's are being used to do patrols. I remember having seen some SP Artillery guys doing a dismounted patrol in Baghdad and it made me cringe just watching them." As my handle suggests, I wasn't in the infantry and I cringed. Most of the issues at stake are contrary to training done for every cook whose been through basic training in the Australian Army, especially after they have been worked. "3) For most of these troops, it's probably the first time anyone has actively tried to kill them.. Yes there is training, but the first time someone takes a shot at you.. things are a little different." As they say about learning to fly, you start with a bag full of luck and empty bag of experience. The idea is to fill the bag of experience before you empty your bag of luck. Still, I hope my training would have served me better than these guys did. "4) Use of reserves. I agree with you, that the US needs to work on its training for reserve units. I served both active and reserve Infantry and the difference was day in night." I agree on this, as I've done the same. However, I would expect that the reserves would be worked up before deployments, to a better standard than this.

Well, not sure how to further respond. Maybe some of the Marines around can comment. All I can tell you is that the gigs you mention would have been unacceptable in any training I was ever part of. So to answer your question, yes US troops are trained better than that. However, I'd like to stress that the environment they are in is a lot more chaotic and stressful than even the best of training provides for. I'm also a little loathe to critique it when I not there with them.

it's hard to critique without longer bits of footage than we normally see on the news. 30-45 seconds just isn't enough to assess what's going on in anything but the basest terms.

I agree with you guys that news footage doesn't tell the whole story. If this were an isolated clip and if I hadn't had similar deficiencies in US training pointed out to me, by experienced Australian, New Zealand and British soldiers who have exercised with the Americans, I would discount it. However, there appears to be a pattern to me. That said, I'd be well and truly open to plausible explanations of why this pattern might not represent the true state of US infantry indivudual skills.

Well, a final thing to take into consideration, particularly with the rotation schedule Iraq seems to have for US units.. There are probably a good number of troops that are more or less fresh out of training. One of the big differences between the US and UK / Austrailian militaries is the turn over in troops. I'll make the argument that you really are not fully trained until you have spent a year or more with your unit after Basic and AIT. Normal US training rotations take that into account in training cycles. Generally when you seem to pick up a lot of new troops you normally go into a long and pretty intense train up for 6 or 8 months. However, the commitment Iraq is requiring may not be allowing for it. That might be the push for the "stop loss" orders that are making the press here and stirring up the nonsense "back door draft" BS. Commanders are probably unhappy with the prospect of loosing troops with years of experience to be replaced by relatively new troops. But thats just speculation on my part.. and thinking about the age of some of the casualties..

"Well, a final thing to take into consideration, particularly with the rotation schedule Iraq seems to have for US units.. There are probably a good number of troops that are more or less fresh out of training." Still, you probably couldn't be a US Army or Marine corp NCO nowdays and not have some combat experience. They should be kicking the newbies in the arse, until they spread out. I didn't hear one Sergent shouting at his men, throughout the entire engagement. I saw another clip today with more troops huddling far too close together, though I saw my first deliberately aimed shot from an M-16 and some of them were patrolling their arcs, so at least that tells us some of them learned something during basic.

Just curious where you are getting all the video clips? It sounds like the ozzie news is covering this better than the US news (although, sadly, that doesn't surprise me...)