Skip to comments.Slain Utah soldier told family he didn't expect to survive sixth combat tour
Posted on 10/25/2007 1:18:42 PM PDT by TheDon
Ismael Rougle knew. He served in the Army during the Vietnam War and suffered the loss of good friends there.
And though she liked to pretend otherwise, Nancy Rougle knew, too. Her son feared that this would be his final combat tour and had told her so. They all knew the cost of war. "But not like this," sighed Ismael Rougle as he struggled to consider a world without his eldest son, Larry. "No, not like this." Ismael Rougle learned Tuesday afternoon that his son, a 25-year-old U.S. Army sniper, had been shot in the stomach and killed in Afghanistan's volatile Kunar Province. On Wednesday afternoon, the grieving father was bent under the hood of an old truck, his oil-stained hands contorted behind the leaky radiator as he recalled the day his then-17-year-old son had come home to say that he was going to join the Army. "I'd never suggested it," said Ismael Rougle, who had served 25 years in the Army. "But he had it in his mind that this is what he wanted to do. And he was so proud."
Two years later, in the wake of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Larry Rougle departed for his first combat tour. He was 19. Over the six years that have followed, family members said, Larry Rougle served two more tours in Afghanistan and three in Iraq. "Six tours," Ismael Rougle said. "Six." Family members say Larry Rougle never complained about being called away from home, not even after his then-wife gave birth to a daughter, Carmin Jade, now 3 years old. He loved the girl more than anything, they said, but remained proud to serve and committed to victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
6 tours? Must have re-upped.
Islam cost us another good man....
Likewise. God bless this fine man / warrior and his entire family.
most of your military don’t have a problem deploying at all. the like the adventure, an opportunity to serve, and tax free money. They don’t like back to back multiple tours with little down time. Those that are active are pretty much doing what they want to do as a career. All they need is a little time off 18 months or so between tours to decompress, to reconnect with families.
Combat death is always considered a possibility, and its a roll of the dice. If one doesn’t want that risk, they shouldn’t volunteer. Even so, most are proud to serve and we shouldn’t grieve over this families loss. Believe me, his sacrifice is our nation’s gain. If Afhganistan falls, Pakistan falls. And Pakistan does have nukes and Al Queda.
Our nation should be proud we have young men and women to fight the fight that the idealistic, rose-colored glassed cowards refuse to fight themselves, except through denigration of efforts, and failure to acknowledge our soldiers successes. Twenty years from now, this man’s efforts will be remember for a long time in his community. Especially when the full scope and depth of the threat that seeks to kill us is revealed.
That's the problem, they're getting a whole lot less than that. The new Joint Chief's chairman addressed NCOs recently and said how he was hoping soon to reverse the current rotation of 15 months deployed and 12 months back in the states. That's still short of the 18 months you spoke of.
If we are serious about this war reinstate the DRAFT then lets see what happens.
And that’s where the navy is coming in. When Mike Mullen was CNO he spoke at the OKC Navy Ball last year and told the sailors in the hall to “get ready”. Big Navy and reservists are being used as filler for army jobs due to the wearing down of the army and guard. Now that he is the CJCS, he has to ensure that his money is where his mouth is. Navy can drive trucks, fix em, do security, staff jobs, we are doing it all. AND we can to “play army” with all our new gear, something we have wanted to do at one time or another since we were 6 years old. Army just needs to be a little more generous on the side SAPI plates for the IBA.
I have no problem with that. Also pass a law that all Congressional members immediate family members and cousins age 18 -25 are the first to be drawn up. THAT will truly show the world our nation’s committment.
We may not have needed the short turnarounds had Algore, under the direction of Komrade Klinton, reinvented the Armed Forces by reducing the standing army by 40%.
The draft would be needed if Congress funded the doubling of the size of the military. Since they will not fund a rapid increase in the size of the military a draft is not needed.
Liberals dream of a draft only for the protests it will bring to the colleges, just like the 60s. Burning draft cards, sit ins, if they get real lucky they might even bring about another Kent State - Oh, think of the fun they could have with that in the MSM.
I salute all in the service to our country today. Volunteers each and every one.
I blame Bubba Clinton’s “peace dividend”. He cut the military size down, relied more on the National Guard, and spent the money on personal projects.
How is it possible to serve 6 tours in the 6 years, since the war started in Afghanistan on Oct. 2001?
Those must have been very brief “tours”, or tours split between Iraq and Afghanistan and counted as two tours....
Something doesn’t add up...
And what, exactly, had George Bush done to reverse that?
Yeah, but Bush has had time to reverse that, hasn't he?
the folks I talk to, the ones still active, with the 1st CAV and the 4th ID, a few at Campbell, the ones who finally got out and are attending the community college that I’m the VA manager of, all pretty much say that they’re tired of all the deployments- the so called “dwell time” is bullshit...after a month of recovery, they were right back in the field, ramping up for the next trip...speaking only for myself, and my experiences, adventure went out the window with first contact...I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I do grieve over this young man and his family...I’ll hold one up for him at the VFW Saturday...
Not to defend Clinton but senior Bush began the destruction of our military.
We had the draft during Viet Nam. Opposition to the draft was the primary tool the anti-war crowd had to turn public opinion against it.
And we would give the Democrats that weapon again because????
The volunteer military is working quite well, thank you.
Bump ! Bump! Bump!
We need a draft of ALL citizens 18 -25 because that shares the burden of the war fairly.
No one gets to be an arm chair general cheering the children and loved ones of OTHERS on, they get to pray for their own.
The loss of good paying jobs and the high cost of college is driving middle class kids with no where else to go into the service.
I say a shared sacrifice is needed
No need for draft...just need folks from Ft. Livingroom to enlist...
Okay...you take the first watch (with) or be in the foxhole with the person that was drafted and didnt want to be there...go ahead...
For those of you wishing for a draft, please think very carefully about your position...
An all volunteer, professional, military...is far better than a conscipted one.
I consider it no sacrifice to die for my country. In my mind, we came here to thank God that men like these have lived rather than to regret that they have died.
General George S. Patton
“pretty much say that theyre tired of all the deployments- the so called dwell time is bullshit...after a month of recovery, they were right back in the field, ramping up for the next trip...speaking only for myself, and my experiences, adventure went out the window with first contact...”
Bottom line is we don’t have the troop levels for a sustained combat environment in two theaters. That is why troops are being put through the mill. The effort, mission, and purpose is entirely worth it in my opinion and I acknowledge that that is up for debate with others, but Afghanistan cannot be allowed to fall, i.e. NATO pulling out. Too much catastrophic risk with Pakistan. Soooo, where do we go from here? A larger standing army, shorter tours, longer periods of down time. When you look at the big picture, and whether people want to acknowledge this or not, but our nation has NOT been placed on a war time footing: We don’t have a draft, we have not taken out Tehran, and we don’t strike AQ in Pakistan, and we could be more functional in Iraq by letting Iraqis go out on patrols and get their asses blown up for their country and we provide air and spec op support. I’ll step down now.
Amen. God bless and comfort the Rougle family. Deepest thanks and appreciation for Larry Rougle’s service to our country. Heartfelt prayers.
Then if we are not going to have a draft, we need a greater troop capability to handle the two war front, which costs money. Why doesn’t Bush ask for it? Do you think we have enough troops? Standby for my answer.
Ha ha. At least somebody is getting it, and isn’t afraid to voice it publicly. AAand, bombardment is not troops on the ground, thus, no occupation. Terror from above. I’m concerned about that year of food in the basement, though.
Well said. I have to agree.
You got it! - People suggesting we need a draft are complete fools - full stop - end of discussion - They don't have a clue about today's modern military and the warriors fighting in it -
We do not need a draft in the least - And those serving absolutely don't want one.
You imply something I did not.
Since you did ask, I do not feel that combat arms strength is where it should be. Congress should have been more aggressive on funding increases to our military numbers since 9/11. Right now its in little spurts here and there.
To grow a fighting unit takes time. Funding a Division’s worth of troops takes 1) Funding 2) Pulling the leadership and cadre from other units thereby weakening them 3) Bringing in the privates and staffs 4) Training the individual tasks and then 5) Training the collective tasks. It takes time, time we’ve been wasting since 9/11.
Me? I’d like 4 more Mec Divisions and two or three SF Groups - but what do I know about such things?
I agree with you about the adventure part too. After the first time it is kill or be killed, it’s just very damn serious business that you want to be over as soon as possible and for all the suffering experienced along the way to mean something important when it is finally over.
“It takes time, time weve been wasting since 9/11.”
You got that right. Its like 9/11 was the “Movie of the Week”, and that’s so...’last year.’
Europe will wake up when one of these fanatical groups decides to try and smoke the pope, or blows up the Louvre. These maggots go for impact.
“Yeah, but Bush has had time to reverse that, hasn’t he?”
Agreed, more than enough! Too busy leaving no child behind I guess.
I've been married to a soldier for almost two decades... and you're right. Most of them do love it. Right now the biggest disagreement between my husband and myself is that I want him to get out at 20 years and he wants to stay in for the full 30. I keep trying to get him to use his imagination and see that there are other things to do in this world than serve! lol!
Yes, grieve for the families. They lost someone who meant the world to them.
But remember: G-d doesn't allow good soldiers to die, He reassigns them to Heaven.
In no way am I implying that the soldier featured in the above article is less than a hero or that his family is exaggerating his service record. I am replying to a comment made by a fellow FReeper. I am relating a personal experience that has *nothing* to do with the above stated soldier. If this offends you... get over it.
Carry on! ;-)
Those must have been very brief tours, or tours split between Iraq and Afghanistan and counted as two tours.... Something doesnt add up...
I met a fellow military wife who proudly told me her husband served over 30 tours in 12 years... I was surprised and more than a bit confused.
Turned out she was counting every school and two-week field problem. Did a good job of painting herself as a victim.
Isn't a tour defined as more than 6 months in a combat zone? My DH served in Kosovo and Kuwait and doesn't count them as tours. (No combat stripe... no tour.)
Why? Is it the pay? The pay's OK. Not the greatest, definately not terrible. Is it the medical? Tricare is a pain the butt sometimes, but I can live with it. Am I proud of him? YES! Do we love our country and our armed forces? Without a doubt.
Are we human beings who get tired? Yup.
I once had a fellow FReeper who admonished me for expressing such views. He said that I wasn't being supportive.
I've ironed BDU's, sent countless care packages, waved my husband's pictures in front of toddlers' faces so they wouldn't forget their father, fixed broken pipes and cars, managed the finances, managed life-threatening illness.. all on my own so my soul mate could put his life on the line to kick terrorist butt overseas so every American can continue to enjoy their double half-caff without a suicide bomber blowing them up. The mission has *always* come first. I'm an army wife. IMHO, I deserve to be tired and to gripe to my heart's content. To be perfectly honest, the thought of this next 15 month deployment is draining me.
Unless you've lived the life, you have no idea how hard it can be. Mine is one story in a hundred thousand. Do I regret my life? Absolutely not. Do I wish some things could've been different? Who doesn't? We made a choice, as a couple, that we were going to see this through to the end. But the troops (official and unofficial) are really getting tired and could sure use some reinforcements.
(And will somebody *please* shut up those Liberal blankity-blanks who're emboldening the enemy and costing our men their lives? If it weren't for those traitors, I think this mess would've been over by now. I'd really appreciate that. Thaaanks.)
The reductions started a long time ago. Post any war, but certainly post Vietnam. The AF I belonged too was 800,000 strong in the 1960’s. Now it is 350,000 and doing as much or more than when I was in.
That's kind of a goofy thing to write
You may recall that the draft ended in the 1970s but the reductions in force (RIFs) down to the current force structure didn’t begin until the mid to late 1980s. In between, it was all volunteer force being sustained on the hard work of recruiters in the face of a growing economy and a pretty negative attitude towards the military coming out of the Vietnam War.
The real constraint on substantially increasing the end strength is not really manpower or money. It is lack of justification to keep that many well armed, well trained, and well paid service personnel on active duty without a clear requirement. A requirement arising in response to a serious military threat (or threats) to the nation along with a clear idea of what the force structure must be in order to meet and overcome the threat(s).
Looking back to the Cold War, Korea, and WW II is a mistake because the next major war the United States fights will be a “come as you are” war that may have all of the important issues for the war decided in its opening round. Consequently, you have this conflicting demand for economy on one hand (because paying, equipping, and training these forces to keep them in continual readiness for employment is very expensive) and the political demand on the other hand that the force be sufficiently big and powerful to deal with a simultaneous outbreak of major and minor regional conflicts and ultimately win them all. Win them all, I might add, without experiencing a lot of casualties to upset the political situation at home.
That's a tough hand of cards to play successfully in today's superheated and hyperpartisan politican environment.
“the reductions in force (RIFs) down to the current force structure didnt begin until the mid to late 1980s.”
I was in West Germany in the mid-70s when the RIFs began.
Well the Smirking Chimp and Republicans have been yelling war for what 6 years now? Where have they ever put the money where their mouths are? The current Vice POTUS was one of our nations worse as far as gutting our military while Sec of Defense. No one not Bush, not either Sec of Def, not congress has done one single thing for our troops but give CHEAP lip service and gather photo opps for themselves.
The state department is running this war and we see the end results. It's a political war making friends of politicians richer. Had Bush went in and ordered Iraq leveled and pulled out I might have a different opinion but Bush is a liar. That can be proven by his comments on Nation Building second debate with Gore in 2000. Bush or Gore they are one and the same even the Smirking Chimp told us so.
In short the Bush Dynasty has been a living disaster for our military. It was indeed under Poppy that the gutting began. The cuts were already too deep and the problems well under way when Clinton took it even further. In the mean time what has Bush Jr actually done for our troops? NOTHING! I can say the same for Hillary Clinton, Lott, Nancy, Reid, Hassert, Frist, and the rest of them. What our elected are doing in both the Democrat and Republican parties to our military is a disgrace and both parties are just that a Disgrace to the blood spilled to make this nation free. Any elected leader that even dares to challenge establishment leadership and demand it follow the Constitution is immediately labeled a loon it seems.
Bush is about as detached from reality as any POTUS in our history. He ties LBJ in agenda. He ties Jimmy Carter in ignorance and incompetence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.