In statistics, you take a sample

[Flasch186]

So lets say 2500 troops out of say 5000, complain that they dont have the proper armor. The Def. Sec. says they pressing manufacturers to make it as fast as they can yet its been 3 years. I was hoping that now that there is no election the pres./ and his admin. would be able to see faults and make change. Unfortunately I guess its not the way its going to be. I cant believe that they will continue to allow soldiers to fight this war without what they need, and dont mention the 80 something billion becuase tank armor wasnt even a part of the bill....but bombers were. How many bombers are we using now!! I wish Rummy wouldve been let go...just horrible.



Rumsfeld faces tough questions from troops
Defense chief speaks to soldiers heading to Iraq


CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- After delivering a pep talk designed to energize troops preparing to head for Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld got a little "talking to" himself from disgruntled soldiers.

In his prepared remarks, Rumsfeld urged the troops -- mostly National Guard and Reserve soldiers -- to discount critics of the war in Iraq and to help "win the test of wills" with the insurgents.

Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own -- not of the war itself but of how it is being fought.

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly three years after the war in Iraq.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson said after asking again.

Rumsfeld replied that, "You go to war with the Army you have," not the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents' weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive device.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

Asked later about Wilson's complaint, the deputy commanding general of U.S. forces in Kuwait, Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, said in an interview that as far as he knows, every vehicle that is deploying to Iraq from Camp Buehring in Kuwait has at least "Level 3" armor. That means it at least has locally fabricated armor for its side panels, but not necessarily bulletproof windows or protection against explosions that penetrate the floorboard.

Speer said he was not aware that soldiers were searching landfills for scrap mental and used bulletproof glass.

During the question-and-answer session, another soldier complained that active-duty Army units sometimes get priority over the National Guard and Reserve units for the best equipment in Iraq.

"There's no way I can prove it, but I am told the Army is breaking its neck to see that there is not" discrimination against the National Guard and Reserve in terms of providing equipment, Rumsfeld said.

Yet another soldier asked, without putting it to Rumsfeld as a direct criticism, how much longer the Army will continue using its "stop loss" power to prevent soldiers from leaving the service who are otherwise eligible to retire or quit.

Rumsfeld said that this condition was simply a fact of life for soldiers at time of war.

"It's basically a sound principle, it's nothing new, it's been well understood" by soldiers, he said. "My guess is it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used."

In his opening remarks, Rumsfeld stressed that soldiers who are heading to Iraq should not believe those who say the insurgents cannot be defeated or who otherwise doubt the will of the military to win.

"They say we can't prevail. I see that violence and say we must win," Rumsfeld said.

[BucDawg40]

Just watch Fox News and repeat "All is well... All is well... All is well..."

[flere-imsaho]

Rumsfeld replied that, "You go to war with the Army you have," not the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

Clearly spoken by someone who's never been near ground combat (Rumsfeld was a Naval Aviator from 1954-1957).

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

Well, I'm sure that's reassuring....


I'd like to point out that National Guard troops leaving Iraq these days at the end of their deployments are instructed to leave their personal body armor behind (even if it was sent to them by their families), so that newly-deployed NG units can use it, since they continue to be sent to Iraq without body armor.


Someone wake me when this clusterfuck is over.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Can't have it both ways -- can't have everything that the military needs & bitch, whine, and moan about every dime that's spent on the military

(not that you've done that griping Flasch, that's a general audience observation)

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Can't have it both ways -- can't have everything that the military needs & bitch, whine, and moan about every dime that's spent on the military.

I'd like to know how we manage to spend billions of dollars on the military every year and still fail to send military units into the field with proper armor for their vehicles and their persons.

Until someone answers that I'll continue to bitch and moan about the money being spent on defense because it clearly isn't being spent on things like, oh, I don't know doing everything possible to protect the lives of servicemen and servicewomen.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'd like to know how we manage to spend billions of dollars on the military every year and still fail to send military units into the field with proper armor for their vehicles and their persons.

For starters, "proper" anything depends upon the nature of the conflict. What works against, say, homemade bombs, is essentially useless against a traditional military opponent.

Given the number of family & friends I've had in uniform, and currently have in uniform, I'm as interested as anybody not in combat in having them equipped with everything needed and beyond ... but I'm also realistic enough to recognize that situations aren't created overnight nor can they be solved overnight.
And in terms of military equipment & supply, three years isn't much more than "overnight".

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

For starters, "proper" anything depends upon the nature of the conflict. What works against, say, homemade bombs, is essentially useless against a traditional military opponent.

The thing is, though, that IEDs weren't unknown in the Middle East before the Iraq invasion. Many strategists warned of an insurgency war, post-invasion, and in fact the U.S. military's own wargames arrived at that, amongst other, conclusions. Despite this, it appears that overall military strategy for this campaign largely ignored these warnings. As a direct result, soldiers have died.

And in terms of military equipment & supply, three years isn't much more than "overnight".

I understand this, and I'll agree with you, to a point. For instance, the retrofitting of armored vehicles to withstand IEDs is not something the military, in its current incarnation, can achieve in probably less than ten years. You're not going to fix that right now. One could argue that these are exactly the kinds of issues the DoD should be looking at, over the long term, and funding, as opposed to, say, B1 Bombers, which grow more obsolete, vis-a-vis our military needs, each day.

On the other hand, shelling out $X to buy sufficient body armor for all deployed and deployable troops is definitely something that can be achieved quickly. Perhaps not through "normal" military channels, but all it would take is some prodding by the CIC and a quick appropriations bill through Congress. Barring that, the DoD could simply re-jig some finances to accomplish this.

The point is, there continue to be plenty of areas where the Administration has failed to do the utmost it can for the soldier on the ground. As someone also with friends and family in uniform and deployed, I find that worrying, disheartening, and scary (no deaths yet, but you live in constant worry).

I hate to say this, but I wonder how different some of this would have been if Bush, Rumsfeld, et. al., had served on the ground, in combat, themselves. Note, for instance, the suggestions Colin Powell had for the Iraq invasion, which were dismissed and/or not acted upon.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'd like to know how we manage to spend billions of dollars on the military every year and still fail to send military units into the field with proper armor for their vehicles and their persons.

Until someone answers that I'll continue to bitch and moan about the money being spent on defense because it clearly isn't being spent on things like, oh, I don't know doing everything possible to protect the lives of servicemen and servicewomen.

Well, let me see:

- Cost of the ships / planes to get them there, and the cost of the ships / planes to protect those ships / planes on the way, including their regular maintenance.
- Cost of the fuel for said ships / planes.
- Cost of the ships / planes to ship supplies to them there, and the cost of the ships / planes to protect those ships planes on the way, including their regular maintenance.
- Cost of the fuel for said ships / planes.
- Cost of the clothing, food, medical equipment, weapons, ammunition, etc being shipped over there for them to use.
- Cost of the salaries and medical care for those troops.
- Cost of the vehicles those troops drive around in, including maintenance.
- Cost of the ammunition for those vehicles.

There are 5,191,000 personnel in the military. We have a $400 billion dollar budget for the Defense Department. That divides out to $77,000 for each employee. Assuming you add in the recent $65 billion appropriation (it was $87 billion, but $22 billion was targeted at Iraqi reconstruction according to even the anti-Defense web pages I checked), it still works out to $89,500 apiece.

Think about your job and how much you make. Assuming you have any sort of reasonable benefits package, double it. That's how much it costs your employer to have you as an employee. Compare that to how much the Defense Department is spending per employee.

Oh, wait, you want to throw out some of the overhead? Okay, the Defense numbers include both civilian contractors working directly with the Defense Department, and Defense Department employees working with industry (helping to design, test, and bring into production the weapons the troops need). There are 1.458 million direct military personnel. This works out to $319,000 per soldier/airman/seaman. Again, considering all the logistics required to maintain these personnel (in addition to salary, housing, meals, you need to include clothing, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, fuel, etc), that sounds pretty reasonable to me.

A one-stop source for these numbers: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../fy04gbpdf.pdf. I also compared with some other web pages (including anti-Defense ones), and the numbers all seem to gibe. Interestingly, even anti-Defense pages note that when you adjust for inflation, we're spending about the same amount as we have during past wars, with the US actually spending MORE in inflation adjusted dollars during the Civil War than we are now.

Keep in mind the dip during the Clinton years. One key item the current Defense Department has to make up for is the reduction in maintenance from the Clinton years. Lots of vehicles and the like suffered heavily from lack of maintenance in the 90s, and that costs extra to get these back in shape.

[moriarty]

I seriously believe the Rumsfeld and others believed that once we overthrew Saddam, all of Iraq would up and praise the US. I don't think (and I have no real evidence of this) that they seriously considered a protracted "policing" operation and hence the military was not trained or equipped properly for this type of operation.

Spending billions of dollars on high tech stealth bombers doesn't really help unfortunately when you have insurgents with portable RPG's and car bombs.

[BucDawg40]

Originally Posted by moriarty

I seriously believe the Rumsfeld and others believed that once we overthrew Saddam, all of Iraq would up and praise the US.

Whether they believed it or not, they said it, and should have been held accountable for that misstep. In Tricky Dick Cheney's own words:

"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

[flere-imsaho]

Again, my main point is not to criticize the amount of money we spend on defense (although I suppose it's easy to lump anyone who's anti-Iraq War into that group), but to question the commitment of this Administration to fully and properly fund the military for actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Again, it was made pretty clear to this Administration (by independent strategists, its own advisers and even Colin Powell) that significant money would have had to be spent to get the military in a position to invade Iraq, especially after invading Afghanistan. And, a lot of money would need to be spent to ensure the safety of these soldiers. Powell, amongst others, even went to the length of suggesting that a massive force should be deployed to Iraq, in order to, amongst other things, effectively ensure security for Iraqis and for U.S. and coalition troops.

This was largely ignored on a strategic level, and the effects of this were felt on a logistical and tactical level. From the moment he entered office, Donald Rumsfeld has preached a "leaner, quicker, meaner" Armed Forces. While this concept may have worked with (2000) Candidate Bush's plan to "not get involved in nation-building", it's clearly not an effective strategy for ensuring security in a country the size of Iraq.

Despite this, Rumsfeld's DoD has continued to pursue his original strategy for reshaping the Armed Forces, when what they actually need, in light of Iraq, is more akin to the retooling folks like Powell championed. This is how we end up with these kind of deficiencies that the soldiers have to work around at present.


What's really alarming, of course, is that the article posted by Flash186 shows that even today Rumsfeld continues to cling to his original plan for the armed forces, heedless of the lessons learned on the ground in Iraq. That's my point: the ideological inflexibility of Rumsfeld (and the rest of the Bush Admin, by association), is a direct cause of the death of soldiers on the ground.

Keep in mind the dip during the Clinton years. One key item the current Defense Department has to make up for is the reduction in maintenance from the Clinton years. Lots of vehicles and the like suffered heavily from lack of maintenance in the 90s, and that costs extra to get these back in shape.

Given the deterioration of the effectiveness of the Armed Forces during the Clinton Presidency, one has to question the wisdom of embarking upon a military operation of such a scope as Iraq without a full and proper re-tooling of said Armed Forces.

[GrantDawg]

I think it is laughable to say that the military does not have enough money to provide the equipment that these soldiers need. What it really comes down to is a) the Senators who has the bullett-proofing and body armor factories in their state are not as powerfull as the Senators who have the B-1 and other expensive equipment, b) The companies that make the body armor/bullett-proofing don't funnel enough money to politicians, c) and/or the companies that make those items don't make as much on them as they do other things so they are not a priority to them.

War is about making money and winning elections. Anyone that tells you different is selling you something.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

From the moment he entered office, Donald Rumsfeld has preached a "leaner, quicker, meaner" Armed Forces.

And can I translate that in laymans terms? More money in the pocket to defense contractors, less to actual personnell.

[Franklinnoble]

Notice that most of these complaints are coming from National Guard units?

Maybe they're just pissed off because their "weekend warrior" extra income got turned into a real military commitment.

My brother is full-time Army. He's in the middle east. He has no such complaints. For what that's worth.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Notice that most of these complaints are coming from National Guard units?

Maybe they're just pissed off because their "weekend warrior" extra income got turned into a real military commitment.

Maybe they're pissed off about signing on for more than they bargained for. But with that being said, the national guard's service in Iraq is no less dangerous or important as any other branch, and the DoD ought to equip them appropriately.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Maybe they're pissed off about signing on for more than they bargained for. But with that being said, the national guard's service in Iraq is no less dangerous or important as any other branch, and the DoD ought to equip them appropriately.

That's not really my point.

Most signed on expecting to only get one weekend a month and two weeks a year. In exchange for an easy paycheck and some military benefits. But the agreement is pretty clear - you can and will get called up for active duty, if necessary. So, they got exactly what they bargained for - they just didn't get off as easy as they'd hoped, and now they're crying sour grapes. My guess is that they are adequately equipped, they're just looking for something to whine about that garners public sympathy and doesn't make them look like whining babies trying to shirk their commitment.

[flere-imsaho]

My brother is in the Army National Guard an no, they are not adequately equipped.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

That's not really my point.

Most signed on expecting to only get one weekend a month and two weeks a year. In exchange for an easy paycheck and some military benefits. But the agreement is pretty clear - you can and will get called up for active duty, if necessary. So, they got exactly what they bargained for - they just didn't get off as easy as they'd hoped, and now they're crying sour grapes. My guess is that they are adequately equipped, they're just looking for something to whine about that garners public sympathy and doesn't make them look like whining babies trying to shirk their commitment.

Now, you are just ignoring documented facts. 60 Minutes did a report on this months ago and showed video of the underarmored vehicles with wood and scrap metal affixed to them to try and offer some protection. There are numerous other accounts that include statements from commanding officers in the National Guard. The National Guard soldiers got the shaft because the government didn't foresee using them this way (and for this long). Don't blame the soldiers and call them liars.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Or maybe the problem is that when there's not enough to go around, the full-timers get it first and the national guard types get whatever's left over.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

That's not really my point.

Most signed on expecting to only get one weekend a month and two weeks a year. In exchange for an easy paycheck and some military benefits. But the agreement is pretty clear - you can and will get called up for active duty, if necessary. So, they got exactly what they bargained for - they just didn't get off as easy as they'd hoped, and now they're crying sour grapes. My guess is that they are adequately equipped, they're just looking for something to whine about that garners public sympathy and doesn't make them look like whining babies trying to shirk their commitment.

Connecting dots can be a very dangerous thing. If George Bush says the war is going well, you believe him. If W says that they are certain that there is WMD there, you believe him. If Rumsfeld says that they are doing everything they can, you believe him. Yet when a sampling of the military that is just as fragile as anybody else there, complains, you dont. Thats convenient.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The National Guard soldiers got the shaft because the government didn't foresee using them this way (and for this long).

Which is really the key point. The NG was really never designed for this type of duty (hence the recruiting advertising campaign). The Administration is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Now, you are just ignoring documented facts. 60 Minutes did a report on this months ago and showed video of the underarmored vehicles with wood and scrap metal affixed to them to try and offer some protection. There are numerous other accounts that include statements from commanding officers in the National Guard. The National Guard soldiers got the shaft because the government didn't foresee using them this way (and for this long). Don't blame the soldiers and call them liars.

The skeptic in me thinks there's a good chance that said vehicles could have been made available just for the 60 Minutes cameras. But I haven't seen it, so, whatever.

My brother was National Guard for 4 years before going full time active duty last year. So he's seen both sides of it. I'm going to take his word for it.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And can I translate that in laymans terms? More money in the pocket to defense contractors, less to actual personnell.

Well I don't think that is quite fair. "Leaner, Faster, Meaner" is some of the lingo used to describe the new millitary. The millitary as reshaped by Rumsfeld, and his predecessor(I can't remember his name) to be better equipped to deploy quickly, and provide local support to peace keeping missions and the like. The goal is to equip a significant portion of the millitary to perform in Guerilla or actually anti-Guerilla warfare. That requires new equipment, new training, and yes lots of funding to defense contractors.

I don't think the Pentagon should get a free pass for not having the Humvees and other vehicles retrofitted with armor. I would like to see some official report about the progress being made. There are a lot of vehicles, and I don't believe what they are doing is a trivial task. Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration shouldn't be held completely to blame for the unarmored status of those vehicles. The incident in Somalia should have gotten the ball rolling on that back in the early ninties. That said, I don't know that the retrofit would be complete even if it had started back then. I'm not blaming Clinton, I'm just saying that I don't think this is solely a Bush/Rumsfeld issue. It is however their problem to fix. I hope that events like the one described above push this issue to the forefront.

As for holding Bush culpable for the "Clusterfuck" in Iraq. I would have loved to. If only us Democrats could nominate someone with a spine.

[QuikSand]

No fair!

The title suggested this was an "I dont understand math" thread... but it's really just another "I don't like the war" thread. Damn.

[QuikSand]

Needs more cowbell anyway.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

Or maybe the problem is that when there's not enough to go around, the full-timers get it first and the national guard types get whatever's left over.

Yeah, that's probably what's going on. My point was that, ideally, the national guard units in Iraq should be equipped in a manner comparable to the army regulars, since they are being asked to perform many of the same duties in Iraq as that of the army.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well I don't think that is quite fair. "Leaner, Faster, Meaner" is some of the lingo used to describe the new millitary. The millitary as reshaped by Rumsfeld, and his predecessor(I can't remember his name) to be better equipped to deploy quickly, and provide local support to peace keeping missions and the like. The goal is to equip a significant portion of the millitary to perform in Guerilla or actually anti-Guerilla warfare. That requires new equipment, new training, and yes lots of funding to defense contractors.

I think it is completely fair, and spot on. Look at what "Leaner, FASTER, Meaner" has actually done. Not enough troops in the field, using under-equipped National Guard units, while more and more money is lining the pockets of Defense contractors (who are making record-breaking profits).

[Dutch]

I applaud our Army and Marines who are on the ground and doing a great job. I applaud them not only for serving their country, but serving in a successful campaign that has brought so much hope and progress to the middle east. Keep up the good work.

Those defense contractors are made up quite a bit by retired military folks. Defense Contractors like Boeing and Northrup-Grumman compete for every contract they get with the USA and they provide the military with great equipment, not stolen wealth for mansions. Companies like Halliburton became a trusted source to be used in Iraq because of their outstanding efforts (at the request of the Clinton Administration) in helping restore Bosnia, Hertzogovena, and Serbia back to a point where they could get their feet on the ground after their people were brutalized. Halliburton does not steal money either, that was reported....once, I think.

Now, the media? They are making a killing selling you their bullshit. Because good news doesn't sell.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I applaud our Army and Marines who are on the ground and doing a great job. I applaud them not only for serving their country, but serving in a successful campaign that has brought so much hope and progress to the middle east. Keep up the good work.

Those defense contractors are made up quite a bit by retired military folks. Defense Contractors like Boeing and Northrup-Grumman compete for every contract they get with the USA and they provide the military with great equipment, not stolen wealth for mansions. Companies like Halliburton became a trusted source to be used in Iraq because of their outstanding efforts (at the request of the Clinton Administration) in helping restore Bosnia, Hertzogovena, and Serbia back to a point where they could get their feet on the ground after their people were brutalized. Halliburton does not steal money either, that was reported....once, I think.

Now, the media? They are making a killing selling you their bullshit. Because good news doesn't sell.

your absolutely right, Halliburton did not, their subsidiaries did.

They dealt with countries that they werent supposed to be dealing with especially vis a vis bribes.

No one is arguing whether or not our troops are brave or heroic; we all agree on that. Were saying that the DOD didnt adequately plan, and now, in regards to the above story, dont seem to want to make obvious changes to help those who need it most.

I believe many republicans, perhaps even yourself, argued against the Bosnian success when I brought it up as an example of the "right" way to do things, pre - election. Maybe that wasnt you but I certainly remember having to go through it.

Defense contractors riddled the 80 billion dollar bill with outdated equipment, that Rumsfeld himself said the military needs to move away from.

[Dutch]

The military isn't pefect, Rumsfeld isn't perfect, the Defense Contractor's aren't perfect. I understand that. But they are all 100% flat out criminal either. Whether we believe it or not, they are all busting their asses with good result.

And I am not just applauding a soldier's bravery, but their success as well for the good deeds done.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The military isn't pefect, Rumsfeld isn't perfect, the Defense Contractor's aren't perfect. I understand that. But they are all 100% flat out criminal either. Whether we believe it or not, they are all busting their asses with good result.

And I am not just applauding a soldier's bravery, but their success as well for the good deeds done.

i think perhaps it wouldve been appropriate to use the word "successes" there. Youll find an equal number of people inside and outside Iraq who will say that as a whole, its not been very much successful.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The military isn't pefect, Rumsfeld isn't perfect, the Defense Contractor's aren't perfect. I understand that. But they are all 100% flat out criminal either. Whether we believe it or not, they are all busting their asses with good result.

And I am not just applauding a soldier's bravery, but their success as well for the good deeds done.

I would only say two of the three are crooks. If you think the defense contractors aren't in purely for the money, and will rip the government off every chance they get, you are fooling yourself. I've known plenty of people working on defense contracts, and the stories they have told me how bad abuses are on government projects. You just keep sticking your head in the sand there buddy! That way we'll make sure nothing changes and no one is ever accountable.

[Franklinnoble]

Apparently, the soldiers who questioned Rumsfeld were baited by an embedded reporter.

While I still think the matter needs to be investigated, and I applaud the administration for not dodging the issue, I think this is hardly an example of journalistic integrity.

[flere-imsaho]

...when you can't refute the message, attack the messenger....

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Apparently, the soldiers who questioned Rumsfeld were baited by an embedded reporter.

While I still think the matter needs to be investigated, and I applaud the administration for not dodging the issue, I think this is hardly an example of journalistic integrity.

I actually heard that on Rush Limbaugh on my way back from work this morning. There are two things wrong with that statement, and I blame our Damn nonredundant redundant powersupply for both my listening to Limbaugh and my trip home from work at 9AM. The story as Rush told it, was that this reporter apparently embedded with a unit in Iraq took a few men from his unit, that was otherwise preparing to move North later that day, to the Rumsfeld conference. He apparently coached the men to ask specific questions. Then once they arrived at the event, he directed the Seargent controlling the microphone to the two soldiers he had "prepared". He then reported on the story as if it had unfolded without his guidance.

Now a few things. Of course Limbaugh pretty well glossed over the apparent sentiment of support indicated in the article. Then again, if the reporter himself was reporting on the story he had "created", then maybe that sentiment can be discounted. I think it can at least be called into question. Also since Limbaugh is the "source" of this take on the story(I just woke up and haven't checked any of the news sites), there are some additional things to consider. I'm guessing that 70 maybe even 80 percent of the story he represented was the truth. I can't speak for the pieces of the story that he left out or completely misrepresented in his translation.

I don't think it should detract from the core of the original story, in that the question "What efforts are being made to ensure that the vehicles our troops rely on for transportation are as safe as they can be?" needs to be answered in a very specific way. Hopefully anything less will not be sufficient.

If what Limbaugh says is even remotely true, I'd say this reporter has fairly well violated the trust of his readers. He fabricated a story for himself to report on. Not exactly the actions of a journalistic giant. Oh the source Limbaugh cited for this "insider's" view to the story, was a memo the reporter sent home to his editorial staff. Apparently someone leaked it to the media.

[Klinglerware]

Whether the soldiers were prodded into the questioning of Mr. Rumsfeld shouldn't detract from the issue of the inadequate equipment of National Guard units in Iraq. Who says that this is a legitimate issue? Well, our Secretary of Defense and our President do. Neither of them thought the soldiers' questioning was out of line.

Rumsfeld (from todays NY Times):

"It's important for senior leadership to meet with the troops, talk to them, ask them questions, listen to what they have to say," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters traveling with him here. "I must say I find myself not surprised at all at the kinds of things I hear."

President Bush (from same article):
In Washington, President Bush said that his administration was taking soldiers' complaints seriously.

"The concerns expressed are being addressed, and that is, we expect our troops to have the best possible equipment," Mr. Bush told reporters in the Oval Office. "And if I were a soldier overseas, wanting to defend my country, I'd want to ask the secretary of defense the same question." He added that military families should be assured that "we're doing everything we possibly can to protect your loved ones in a mission which is vital and important."

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Whether the soldiers were prodded into the questioning of Mr. Rumsfeld shouldn't detract from the issue of the inadequate equipment of National Guard units in Iraq...

I agree, and that is why I said "I don't think it should detract from the core of the original story..."

I don't think the situation is as bad as has been portrayed by the average anti-war, anti- Bush Administration critic on the street. It is just that their credibility has worn thin from the "war for oil" and "Halliburton" claptrap.

I do think there is a problem with our troops finding themselves wiring and welding scrap iron to their vehicles as makeshift armor. Something I am honestly questioning, are the statements that the "issues are being addressed". I'd like to know with reasonable specificity "what" is being done.

Am I the only one to question whether it is actually feesible to armor a Humvee to the point it could withstand an RPG attack? Limousines used to ferry heads of state about in Europe have been taken out by RPGs. Is it actually something that can be done, and can it be accomplished in a reasonable time period? I'm not so sure. I don't believe that providing our troops the tools they require translates to making them nigh-invulnerable as they travel about doing their very dangerous work in Iraq.

I think some of this is the fact that we have become "spoiled" with how superior our millitary is relative to our enemies, or the rest of the world for that matter. We are used to taking very few casualties, so eventhough the number of casualties is very low, we are looking for someone to blame for even the relatively few deaths we are experiencing in Iraq.

I do want the questions answered, and I want them answered fully and honestly.

[Dutch]

EDIT: Letting emotion get the better of me. Best to just delete.

[CAsterling]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

There are 5,191,000 personnel in the military. .

This is the bit I don't understand, if there are this many people why are the national guard fighting this war and not the regular army (and just to keep this on topic, I assume the regular army do have the best equipment out of the two) - I always thought the National guard were meant to depend the home nation whilst the regular army/navy/air force were fighting in foreign locations.

Maybe its just me being a dumb foreigner but it seems illogical to deploy in this manner, and I'm curious if there is a logical explanation

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I think it is completely fair, and spot on. Look at what "Leaner, FASTER, Meaner" has actually done. Not enough troops in the field, using under-equipped National Guard units, while more and more money is lining the pockets of Defense contractors (who are making record-breaking profits).

I missed this before

Actually as I understand it "leaner, Faster, Meaner" has just barely left the starting block. There are proposed vehicles, more heavilly armored transports that are wheeled instead of tracked and the like. I don't even know if those have been approved for production though. There are some training programs that I believe are in place, but I also think they weren't implemented on a wide scale before Iraq and Afghanistan. We haven't even come close to seeing Leaner, Faster Meaner in action. It was a transition started fairly early in the Clinton years, and it won't be near finished when Bush Jr. and Rumsfeld leave office. In Iraq and Afghanistan, you are seeing the "old" army fight on a "new" battlefield.

As for the not enough boots on the ground, that had nothing to do with the restructuring of the army. It had a lot to do with the downsizing of the armed forces under Clinton and Bush Sr.. Also, I don't think there is all that much sentiment that there aren't enough boots on the ground now. Certainly early on, at the beginning of the war, and immediately after the war was over, there wasn't enough man power. That had everything to do with the Rumsfeld, the Administration, and their rush to war.

I don't know what has got you up in arms about Defense contractors right now. I haven't heard of more than a minor scandal in a couple of years. I do imagine that there are abuses going on, but I don't know that there is much to be done about it more than the oversight scrutiny they are exposed to now.

[Desnudo]

"As for the not enough boots on the ground, that had nothing to do with the restructuring of the army. It had a lot to do with the downsizing of the armed forces under Clinton and Bush Sr.. Also, I don't think there is all that much sentiment that there aren't enough boots on the ground now. Certainly early on, at the beginning of the war, and immediately after the war was over, there wasn't enough man power. That had everything to do with the Rumsfeld, the Administration, and their rush to war."

There's always going to be shortages in war. It happens, and it's unfortunate, but it's the reality. As an example, right before the war started, The USMC was actually severely cutting back on their officer recruiment because they had vastly overestimated their needed supply in the 1990's and therefore had a surplus of officers (according to peacetime requirements).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by CAsterling

This is the bit I don't understand, if there are this many people why are the national guard fighting this war and not the regular army (and just to keep this on topic, I assume the regular army do have the best equipment out of the two) - I always thought the National guard were meant to depend the home nation whilst the regular army/navy/air force were fighting in foreign locations.

Maybe its just me being a dumb foreigner but it seems illogical to deploy in this manner, and I'm curious if there is a logical explanation

I don't know the exact numbers. But it breaks down similar to this.

Active Army - 490,000
Active Navy - 385,000
Active Air Force - 370,000
Active Marines - 175,000

Now. The guys that are the real boots on the ground are the Army and Marines. But the Air Force and Navy are deployed in mass in the the region and in the water as well, still in danger, but not usually on patrols or in convoys.

The idea of the Reserves and the National Guard are to augment the Active Duty forces in a time of war. They have done a pretty friggin good job (Although the only thing the media has ever reported from these guys is the Abu Graib Prison abuse and this reporters trick on Rumsfeld).

I would be more than happy to put the active duty forces up to 5 million service men and women 24/7 around the calendar year from here until eternity, but in peace time, that's usually shunned and considered wasteful (I tend to agree).

[Desnudo]

I think the original thinking in the early 90s was to have killer cyborgs augmenting our active duty forces. Defense network computers. New... powerful... hooked into everything, trusted to run it all.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't know the exact numbers. But it breaks down similar to this.

Active Army - 490,000
Active Navy - 385,000
Active Air Force - 370,000
Active Marines - 175,000

The link I posted had exact numbers, and you'll note that my analysis included a second, lower number. The 5.2mil is all Defense Department employees, including civilian contractors and DoD people working in industry. The number of Active-Duty people is 1.458 million.

I did not look closely enough at the numbers to see where National Guard troops fit in to the budget.