Iraq - The Underequipped Soldier Debate

[Franklinnoble]

No, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here. I'm just sharing something from my brother, who just returned from Iraq, and is about to head right back over again.

Here's my initial message to him:

Jr,

Just thought I'd drop you a quick note to see how things are over
there. How's life in the Middle East?

Have you heard the stories about how Rumsfeld got hammered about some
of these troops having a lack of equipment and armor? Is there any
truth to that, in your experience? I'm always skeptical when I hear
the media report stories like that... it seems they'll do anything to
forward their anti-Bush, anti-Iraq agenda. I'd like to hear your take
on it.

Hope to hear from you soon.

- Frank

Here's his reply - totally verbatim. Forgive the grammar and spelling - yes, he's college educated... just not too computer friendly:

Man I will tell you I missed Rumsfield by a day and went up north to Balad or Camp Anaconda. He went to Camp Buehring in Udari which is in just south of the burm as they call it leading into Iraq. Never the less that little specialist is a damn whiner. This thus far will be one of the easiest deployments I have ever done. Yeah theres plenty of action but its cool. The armor issue is that there is plenty. I have two sets of armor vests and more crap than I know what to do with!!! That whiner needs to get with his chain of command to square that away. If I was there I would have reemed that faggot for saying that in an open forum. Due there are freaking burger kings, Hardees, and starbucks coffee shops everywhere. Now does that sound rough to you??? There is nothing to bitch about. The U.S. has done their part to make things as comfortable as possible. Its almost like the twilight zone over there. God forbid when these troops dont have all that crap. What a bunch of whiners. You should write a letter to the National Guard command out of Tennessee, thats what plan on doing to really nail that piece of crap kid.

Jr

Just something to ponder...

[SackAttack]

Frank, what I've been hearing is that it's the vehicles that were never intended to be armored in the first place that are lacking in such.

Vehicles that are normally "behind the lines" in a traditional war, but haven't been due to the nature of the terrorist actions in Iraq over the last 18 months. Should they be armored, in light of the attacks? Yes. Is it terribly surprising that they weren't to begin with? No, not really. That just means somebody up the chain of command thought the Iraq theater would be similar to 1991 and that it wouldn't be an issue. They screwed up, and it needs to be fixed, but the fact that it was that way in the first place should be less of an issue than it is, I think.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Frank, what I've been hearing is that it's the vehicles that were never intended to be armored in the first place that are lacking in such.

Vehicles that are normally "behind the lines" in a traditional war, but haven't been due to the nature of the terrorist actions in Iraq over the last 18 months. Should they be armored, in light of the attacks? Yes. Is it terribly surprising that they weren't to begin with? No, not really. That just means somebody up the chain of command thought the Iraq theater would be similar to 1991 and that it wouldn't be an issue. They screwed up, and it needs to be fixed, but the fact that it was that way in the first place should be less of an issue than it is, I think.

First of all, my brother isn't explicitly denying that someone might have an equipment problem (although he's pretty clearly stated that he has no such issues, nor has he personally seen any) - he's saying that should have been handled though the chain of command, not via whining at the behest of a reporter in a public forum.

Second, I think the administration has acknowledged that there may be problems, as you have stated. And I think they sincerely are trying to fix them - why wouldn't they?

Anyhow, the impression that people seem to have is that kids are getting sent off to war without the right tools or protection, and I think that's a very unfair assessment, and a big disservice to the US military by the mainstream media.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

First of all, my brother isn't explicitly denying that someone might have an equipment problem (although he's pretty clearly stated that he has no such issues, nor has he personally seen any) - he's saying that should have been handled though the chain of command, not via whining at the behest of a reporter in a public forum.

Understood. I'm simply suggesting that his relative largesse of armor may have more to do with the type of unit to which he was assigned than anything else. He may simply be a part of a unit that wouldn't have such a shortage in the first place. I'm not implying that he doesn't know the situation on the ground over there better than you or I might. Only that the scuttlebutt I've heard may be a legitimate explanation for why that soldier felt the question had to be asked when your brother pretty clearly feels that the soldier in question is a wimp for having asked it.

Second, I think the administration has acknowledged that there may be problems, as you have stated. And I think they sincerely are trying to fix them - why wouldn't they?

Absolutely, there are. I'm only saying that the problems may be one of logistics - the war we're fighting is not the war we thought we'd fight - and as a result, there are vehicles over there without armor that were never intended to have it in the first place. It needs to be corrected, but it's not surprising that the issue is there.

Anyhow, the impression that people seem to have is that kids are getting sent off to war without the right tools or protection, and I think that's a very unfair assessment, and a big disservice to the US military by the mainstream media.

Agreed. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. This isn't an issue of, say, an Abrahms tank lacking armor. We're talking about a jeep, say, that would be used for behind-the-lines courier action, that's lacking armor. Stuff that was never used on the front lines before, but as a result of the ambushes, is finding itself there today.

[Sharpieman]

Well, I don't know the whole situation, and if your brother is right then it was a pretty stupid thing to do in a public forum. Of course, thats just your brother's opinion, it seems to him that everything in Iraq is OK, but there are a lot of other soldiers who would say different in other areas of the country. I do think Rumsfelds comment that "you go to war with the equipment you have, not the equipment you hope to have" is such a fucked up comment to say to soldiers faces. He could have made a different comment that didn't make him look like such an asshole.

[ISiddiqui]

Frankly, hearing just about the entire audience hoot and holler and cheer at the question, calling the one soldier a 'whiner' is stupid. Unless the entire Guard from Tennessee are whiners. Apparently it is a problem since the whole place erupted in cheers after the question was posed.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Well, I don't know the whole situation, and if your brother is right then it was a pretty stupid thing to do in a public forum. Of course, thats just your brother's opinion, it seems to him that everything in Iraq is OK, but there are a lot of other soldiers who would say different in other areas of the country. I do think Rumsfelds comment that "you go to war with the equipment you have, not the equipment you hope to have" is such a fucked up comment to say to soldiers faces. He could have made a different comment that didn't make him look like such an asshole.

Having been there done it, I agree.

[sterlingice]

You sure your brother wasn't guarding Ellington Air Force Base like Bush did 30 years ago? I mean Houston has all that stuff- the Hardees, Burger King, etc. and I'm pretty sure you don't need good armor when you're in the Air National Guard, guarding the middle of Texas

SI

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Well, I don't know the whole situation, and if your brother is right then it was a pretty stupid thing to do in a public forum. Of course, thats just your brother's opinion, it seems to him that everything in Iraq is OK, but there are a lot of other soldiers who would say different in other areas of the country. I do think Rumsfelds comment that "you go to war with the equipment you have, not the equipment you hope to have" is such a fucked up comment to say to soldiers faces. He could have made a different comment that didn't make him look like such an asshole.

Hmmmmm. I'm of two minds on this one. I agree totally that soldiers go to war with the equipment they have, not the equipment they hope to have. I went to war with only plates for four of our flak vests for 81 soldiers. Sure, we would've like to have armored HMMWVs, but that wasn't an option. Even if we did get them, who's paying for all this?

What it comes down to is balancing soldier safety with money. We have the capability to save more soldiers' lives due to technology, but we don't do it because of money. That's the bottom line. We could use more UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) for reconnaisance, dropping ordnance, etc., but we need more money in the programs. The end result is that we could always be more prepared, better equipped, etc., but the need to go and scarcity of money pushes us forward. After seeing other countries' military, we have the best Armed Forces in the world (although I really liked the Brits).

That being said, this is not a post defending the war, nor Rumsfeld. I think the mentality of people in the United States is such that his words were the wrong choice to say.

[flere-imsaho]

Suffice it to say that there clearly are units that are well-equipped and units that are not.

SackAttack makes a very good point about the lack of equipment being due, in part, to this not being the war Bush & Rumsfeld were expecting to fight. In the last thread I went on at length about this, so I won't do that here, other than to say that the problems we're seeing has everything to do with Rumsfeld et. al., not understanding what would happen after we invaded Iraq.


Franklin - I'm glad your brother has the proper equipment, and a spare vest. My brother, who will be deployed early next year, does not, and will not have a kevlar vest unless some returning Guard folks remember to leave theirs behind and these get sent to my brother's unit.

[Klinglerware]

Whether a public forum with the Secretary of Defense was the most appropos "Miss Manners" place for a soldier to air a grievance or not, it doesn't manner--it seems to have worked, as the administration has gotten the message and is probably pressing the DoD who are in turn probably pressing their vendors. What the soldier did was possibly uncouth and maybe a little whiny, but he did what he felt he needed to do to get the job done faster.

I agree with ISiddiqui, there probably is a equipment problem is Iraq. If not, the other soldiers at that meet and greet would have been gasping, not cheering, the soldier's question. It's probably not across the board, as most of the regular combat units would be appropriately equipped, while the national guard units probably less so. Thus, while it is wrong to assume equipment supply issues are a fact of life for all of the troops in Iraq (as Franklinnoble's brother has reported), it is also wrong to dismiss other soldiers as whiners, since it is apparent (via the cheering soldiers, etc) that it isn't an isolated issue either.

[Franklinnoble]

My gut feeling is this: National Guard units may not be as well equipped as they should be. However, I think the bigger problem with National Guard units is morale. These are men and women that signed up expecting one weekend a month, and two weeks a year. What they got instead was the fine print - that if the country goes to war, they get deployed full-time. So, their lives get seriously derailed. And they're not happy about it. Rather than bitch about that, they bitch about equipment, because it's a more sympathetic plight.

My brother is full-time Army. He joined out of high school, spent two years or so going through basic, Airborne, and Special Forces training, then went to Virginia Tech, did ROTC, got commissioned, and went to flight school. Now he's a 1st Lieutenant flying Chinook's over there. This is a career choice for him, and he's happy to be doing it (he's especially happy that his military pay is federal tax exempt while he's deployed).

So, basically, I think a lot of it is attitude. National Guardsmen would rather be working their 9-to-5's at Initech and watching football 3 out of 4 weekends a month, and instead, they're pulling active duty in Iraq. Sucks for them - but they signed the contract, and they should have been prepared for the potential consequences.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

My gut feeling is this: National Guard units may not be as well equipped as they should be. However, I think the bigger problem with National Guard units is morale. These are men and women that signed up expecting one weekend a month, and two weeks a year. What they got instead was the fine print - that if the country goes to war, they get deployed full-time. So, their lives get seriously derailed. And they're not happy about it. Rather than bitch about that, they bitch about equipment, because it's a more sympathetic plight.

My brother is full-time Army. He joined out of high school, spent two years or so going through basic, Airborne, and Special Forces training, then went to Virginia Tech, did ROTC, got commissioned, and went to flight school. Now he's a 1st Lieutenant flying Chinook's over there. This is a career choice for him, and he's happy to be doing it (he's especially happy that his military pay is federal tax exempt while he's deployed).

So, basically, I think a lot of it is attitude. National Guardsmen would rather be working their 9-to-5's at Initech and watching football 3 out of 4 weekends a month, and instead, they're pulling active duty in Iraq. Sucks for them - but they signed the contract, and they should have been prepared for the potential consequences.

I reckon a lot of this was just generalization, but I think you owe any of our National Guardsmen stationed over in a Iraq one bug f*cking apology. I know one National Guardsmen who is over there. He is a NYC cop who signed up for the National Guard shortly after 9/11. He was there in the middle of things when the shit went down, was deeply moved, and signed up. I don't think anything you said applies to him, his feelings about being deployed, or any misconceptions as to what he signed up for. I think if you really asked a lot of these men and women they would say the same.

This sounds like a bunch of Army dick-swinging on behalf of your brother. He sounds like an impressive guy (definitely has accomplished a lot more than me in a shorter period of time) and I'm glad he's well equipped. Hope he and his all make it home safely.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Hmmmmm. I'm of two minds on this one. I agree totally that soldiers go to war with the equipment they have, not the equipment they hope to have. I went to war with only plates for four of our flak vests for 81 soldiers. Sure, we would've like to have armored HMMWVs, but that wasn't an option. Even if we did get them, who's paying for all this?

What it comes down to is balancing soldier safety with money. We have the capability to save more soldiers' lives due to technology, but we don't do it because of money. That's the bottom line. We could use more UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) for reconnaisance, dropping ordnance, etc., but we need more money in the programs. The end result is that we could always be more prepared, better equipped, etc., but the need to go and scarcity of money pushes us forward. After seeing other countries' military, we have the best Armed Forces in the world (although I really liked the Brits).

That being said, this is not a post defending the war, nor Rumsfeld. I think the mentality of people in the United States is such that his words were the wrong choice to say.

nice post

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I reckon a lot of this was just generalization, but I think you owe any of our National Guardsmen stationed over in a Iraq one bug f*cking apology. I know one National Guardsmen who is over there. He is a NYC cop who signed up for the National Guard shortly after 9/11. He was there in the middle of things when the shit went down, was deeply moved, and signed up. I don't think anything you said applies to him, his feelings about being deployed, or any misconceptions as to what he signed up for. I think if you really asked a lot of these men and women they would say the same.

This sounds like a bunch of Army dick-swinging on behalf of your brother. He sounds like an impressive guy (definitely has accomplished a lot more than me in a shorter period of time) and I'm glad he's well equipped. Hope he and his all make it home safely.

You're right... I did a lot more generalizing than I should have.

My dad was National Guard. He's way past retirement - he tried to go back in for Desert Storm and was told he was too old. So, yes, many of them are indeed happy to do their duty.

I do, however, maintain that there are a significant portion of the guardmen who are now getting a little more than they bargained for, and aren't too happy about it.

Like I said, it's only speculation on my part. I've shared what I've heard from a first-hand account, and my own opinion on top of that. That's all.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Frankly, hearing just about the entire audience hoot and holler and cheer at the question, calling the one soldier a 'whiner' is stupid. Unless the entire Guard from Tennessee are whiners. Apparently it is a problem since the whole place erupted in cheers after the question was posed.

Apparently all of the people who broke into applause shouldve set up an appointment to meet with their chain of command....

Everything Ive heard is thast some groups get the goods and some dont, including advanced body armor. Some family's in the US are sending their family members body armor but for the most part the complaints have been about up-armor.

Open FORUM is what our country is about!!! when shit gets swept under the rug than no one is held accountable for fixing it. We should expect the best from ourcommanders and our troops should get the best. For him to be brave enough to withstand people calling him a "faggot" or being abrasive towards him for speaking his mind and perhaps his interpretation of the truth, then kudos to him.

Its the same thing As Rush Limbaugh discounting what he said because the reporter made sure that he got the opportunity to speak. Had he asked the question and the whole place remained silent and perhaps even had questions to the contrary that would be one thing but they did not. The people there seconded the question and Rush cant get rid of that and neither can those in that very same chain of command.

Its screwed up, they just need to fix it, Period.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Apparently all of the people who broke into applause shouldve set up an appointment to meet with their chain of command....

Everything Ive heard is thast some groups get the goods and some dont, including advanced body armor. Some family's in the US are sending their family members body armor but for the most part the complaints have been about up-armor.

Open FORUM is what our country is about!!! when shit gets swept under the rug than no one is held accountable for fixing it. We should expect the best from ourcommanders and our troops should get the best. For him to be brave enough to withstand people calling him a "faggot" or being abrasive towards him for speaking his mind and perhaps his interpretation of the truth, then kudos to him.

Its the same thing As Rush Limbaugh discounting what he said because the reporter made sure that he got the opportunity to speak. Had he asked the question and the whole place remained silent and perhaps even had questions to the contrary that would be one thing but they did not. The people there seconded the question and Rush cant get rid of that and neither can those in that very same chain of command.

Its screwed up, they just need to fix it, Period.

Flasch, that's all well and good... but the bottom line is that military life isn't like civilian life, and it isn't supposed to be. It's regimental. It's authoritarian. And that's for a reason. Good soldiers respect and understand that. If they have a problem, they take it to their commanding officer, and he takes it to his commanding officer, and so forth. That's how it's supposed to be done, and that's why my brother has a problem with that guardsman.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Flasch, that's all well and good... but the bottom line is that military life isn't like civilian life, and it isn't supposed to be. It's regimental. It's authoritarian. And that's for a reason. Good soldiers respect and understand that. If they have a problem, they take it to their commanding officer, and he takes it to his commanding officer, and so forth. That's how it's supposed to be done, and that's why my brother has a problem with that guardsman.

I do understand this but as you see when stuff isnt brought to light many times that same Authoritarian view leads us down a "highway to Hell". I site, the memos stating that the Geneva Conventions dont apply, Abu Gharaib, representation of UScitizens during military trial, etc.

The only thing that keeps us from dissolving our moral highground is checks and balances and unfortunately in this day and age it seems the only way that occurs is with the help of the media....plusses and minuses.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Flasch, that's all well and good... but the bottom line is that military life isn't like civilian life, and it isn't supposed to be. It's regimental. It's authoritarian. And that's for a reason. Good soldiers respect and understand that. If they have a problem, they take it to their commanding officer, and he takes it to his commanding officer, and so forth. That's how it's supposed to be done, and that's why my brother has a problem with that guardsman.

If you've suffered with a potentially life-threatening problem in your unit for a couple of years now, and have used any and all official chain-of-command ways to try and fix the problem (a problem which costs lives by the way), and you're then given the opportunity to ask questions of the head of your chain of command, what are you supposed to do? Shut up?

Respect for authority and the chain of command is all well and good, but do we really want an army full of mindless automatons, suitable only to be cannon fodder?

And remember, this isn't exactly a trivial problem we're talking about, such as, say, the quality of the food. This is a serious, readiness problem that costs lives. The DoD has known about the armor problem since the invasion of Iraq began and the first Guard units were deployed, and, until now, has done fuck all about it. In the past week we've heard multiple comments from manufacturers that they could have produced more than they have, over the past two to three years, but that the DoD didn't order them.

And no offense, but your brother is contributing to the morale problem, just as much as any complaining Guard soldier. By saying that the Guard should shut up and deal with it, while he himself is properly equipped, what he's saying is that it's OK for the Guard soldiers to have a better chance of dying. That they are, in fact, cannon fodder.

Woah, real great way to inspire intra-service morale there. To say nothing of the inter-service conflicts and problems that already exist.

[chinaski]

guess Rumsfeld shouldnt have had an open Q&A session, huh?

I dont see how this soldier is at fault, or the few hundred others who grunted in approval - who are, according to your brother, "whining, piece of crap, faggots".

[Franklinnoble]

I give up.

Fellas, the US Military is better equipped than their adversary by a factor of about 10,000. It's not even close to a fair fight over there. Yes, there are going to be casualties. Yes, there is ALWAYS room for better equipment. But what do you expect? Soldiers outfitted like Iron Man, and a war with no US deaths?

If my brother has two vests, and there's a soldier somewhere without one, that's a problem within the chain of command somewhere. My brother's CO is doing his job. The whining guardsman's CO isn't. That's the bottom line.

It is simply not appropriate for a soldier (or group of soldiers) to undermine the Secretary of Defense in a public forum like that. This is the Army, not the Sierra Club. And it should come as no surprise that men like my brother would like to hold the crybabies accountable. What sort of message is that guard unit sending to the enemy?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I give up.

So do I.

Yes, there is ALWAYS room for better equipment. But what do you expect? Soldiers outfitted like Iron Man, and a war with no US deaths?

I don't know, how about soldiers being reasonably equipped for their mission? That would be a start.

Oh, kevlar vests aren't "reasonable equipment"? Then why does your brother have two?

If my brother has two vests, and there's a soldier somewhere without one, that's a problem within the chain of command somewhere. My brother's CO is doing his job. The whining guardsman's CO isn't. That's the bottom line.

So what, the guardsman is supposed to shut up and die? It's OK because he's just a guardsman, right?

And it should come as no surprise that men like my brother would like to hold the crybabies accountable.

Of course not, BECAUSE HE HAS TWO FUCKING VESTS AND DOESN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HAVING INSUFFICIENT ARMOR IN A WAR ZONE!!!


By the way, many of these "whining crybabies" have died in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. Thanks for honoring their memory, asshole.

[Klinglerware]

It seems to be a pretty simple "squeeky wheel gets the grease" to me:

Soldier speaks up = equipment is on the way
Soldier goes through proper channels = nothing happens

No, nobody expects the troops to be outfitted like robo-cop, but you can't fault the soldiers for wanting every little advantage they can muster in order to survive. Presumably we train our troops to survive in any manner they can, so this seems like a natural extension of that...

[chinaski]

Also, its fair to point out the guardsmen is talking about uparmoring his humvee, not getting a kevlar vest. Its a huge help when guys are rolling around in a canvas back humvee with no floor armor - in a free fire zone.

Its not like this guardsmen is the first to mention this, the shortages have been known about since the war began. The fact that Rumsfield made a bold face lie "Its not a matter of physics, were making it as fast as humanly possible" - is beyond disgusting. Every contracted armor making company has since came out and said they have never, ever ever been near production capacity, and multiple requests to increase production were denied by the pentagon.

We can have 1,000's of $5,000 dollar concrete Bremmer walls shipped across the globe to iraq to surrond the green zone and Hardees, but we cant provide our soldiers with the fundamentally required armaments? Close to 300 billion spent, and soldiers are still without the basics?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Also, its fair to point out the guardsmen is talking about uparmoring his humvee, not getting a kevlar vest. Its a huge help when guys are rolling around in a canvas back humvee with no floor armor - in a free fire zone.

Its not like this guardsmen is the first to mention this, the shortages have been known about since the war began. The fact that Rumsfield made a bold face lie "Its not a matter of physics, were making it as fast as humanly possible" - is beyond disgusting. Every contracted armor making company has since came out and said they have never, ever ever been near production capacity, and multiple requests to increase production were denied by the pentagon.

We can have 1,000's of $5,000 dollar concrete Bremmer walls shipped across the globe to iraq to surrond the green zone and Hardees, but we cant provide our soldiers with the fundamentally required armaments? Close to 300 billion spent, and soldiers are still without the basics?

Thank you. Exactly. To some it seems that Rummy is Jesus Christ returned to earth, and they refuse to see how bad he has messed this up. John McCain must hate soldiers since he thinks Rummy ought to be fired.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I don't know, how about soldiers being reasonably equipped for their mission? That would be a start.

This depends on your definition of "reasonably equipped". Obviously there is some line drawn at being Iron Man and being naked out in the desert. Your definition is more than likely different in a lot of areas than mine. While we can agree on bulletproof vests, what about Night Vision Goggles? Does every soldier have one? What about kneepads and elbowpads? Should the military provide them as well? These are "basic" "reasonable" items a soldier of the 21st Century should have....in some people's opinions.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Oh, kevlar vests aren't "reasonable equipment"? Then why does your brother have two?

Because you aren't there, I don't think you can judge someone else properly...you don't know the whole picture.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So what, the guardsman is supposed to shut up and die? It's OK because he's just a guardsman, right?

He doesn't have to die....he should address his concerns through his chain of command, not through the media. Every commander has an open door policy. If you aren't heard at the company level, you can go to your battalion, and so on and so forth.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Of course not, BECAUSE HE HAS TWO FUCKING VESTS AND DOESN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HAVING INSUFFICIENT ARMOR IN A WAR ZONE!!!


By the way, many of these "whining crybabies" have died in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. Thanks for honoring their memory, asshole.

This is unnecessary. While I don't think that Franklinnoble was attempting to tarnish their memory, I won't speak for him. What I will say is that it's interesting to me that from March 19, 2003 through December 9, 2004 there have been 1,278 deaths and 9.765 wounded in action. For every soldier killed in Iraq, nine soldiers have been wounded and survived--the highest rate of any U.S. war.

[Flasch186]

IMO, this is un-arguable. If the plants arent at capacity and Rummy said theyre making them as fast as they can, welp, chalk it up to another bald faced lie from Rummy.

Good for the whistle blower, perhaps the armor thats on its way to him might just save his life. Good for him.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

This depends on your definition of "reasonably equipped".

Look, obviously it's "reasonable equipment" for the regular army, but apparently not for the Guard. However, both are performing largely the same mission in the same theatre. Explain that one to me.

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Because you aren't there, I don't think you can judge someone else properly...you don't know the whole picture.

First of all, I'm asking for the whole picture from Franklinnoble. Why does his brother have two?

Secondly, I'm not purporting to have the whole picture. All I know is that some soldiers have two kevlar vests and some have none. Purportedly they're performing the same mission. Why are they so differently equipped?

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

He doesn't have to die....he should address his concerns through his chain of command, not through the media. Every commander has an open door policy. If you aren't heard at the company level, you can go to your battalion, and so on and so forth.

So we're to assume that no one in the Guard has done this? I find that hard to believe. In fact, I have (anecdotal) evidence that these exact actions have been done (going through the normal chain of command).

So, I ask again, if the common soldier tries every "official" method at his disposal to fix a life-threatening problem (as well as "unofficial" ones, such as salvaging iron and bulletproof glass from landfills), and makes no headway, and then is presented with the opportunity to ask a relevant question of someone very high in command, what's he supposed to do? Keep quiet and go into battle underprepared, risking himself and his fellow soldiers, or say something?

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

This is unnecessary. While I don't think that Franklinnoble was attempting to tarnish their memory, I won't speak for him.

Good, because you apparently missed this:

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

So, basically, I think a lot of it is attitude. National Guardsmen would rather be working their 9-to-5's at Initech and watching football 3 out of 4 weekends a month, and instead, they're pulling active duty in Iraq. Sucks for them - but they signed the contract, and they should have been prepared for the potential consequences.

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

What I will say is that it's interesting to me that from March 19, 2003 through December 9, 2004 there have been 1,278 deaths and 9.765 wounded in action. For every soldier killed in Iraq, nine soldiers have been wounded and survived--the highest rate of any U.S. war.

I should hope so, otherwise medical science and military tacticians would apparently have learned nothing.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Thank you. Exactly. To some it seems that Rummy is Jesus Christ returned to earth, and they refuse to see how bad he has messed this up. John McCain must hate soldiers since he thinks Rummy ought to be fired.

Rumsfeld is no saint, but let's leave John McCain out of this. McCain is as filthy a politician as I've ever seen (and I'm saying this as a Republican).

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Look, obviously it's "reasonable equipment" for the regular army, but apparently not for the Guard. However, both are performing largely the same mission in the same theatre. Explain that one to me.

The Guard and the army apparently have different roles and responsibilities. If I drive a truck in a war, do I need to have a communications system so I can call in air strikes? NO!

The regular army's basic duty is to go in there and fight on the front lines. My understanding is that the National Guard is to supplement that effort. The powers that be, determined that it was not necessary to equip the National Guard with body armor. It may not be fair, but life is not fair. The military brass has a priority list for what gets funded. In this case body armor for the regular army does, and for the National Guard it does not.

What is the difference? The National Guard is not called up for every conflict. The army is deployed whenever regular ground forces are required in an area. That is why they get the priority on the armor.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

First of all, I'm asking for the whole picture from Franklinnoble. Why does his brother have two?

Secondly, I'm not purporting to have the whole picture. All I know is that some soldiers have two kevlar vests and some have none. Purportedly they're performing the same mission. Why are they so differently equipped?

My guess is it is a screw up. However, equipment is allocated by unit, not per man. It might be possible that someone in Franklinnoble's bro's unit is in the hospital, etc., so his unit has an extra set of body armor, it could also be an administrative screw up.

Also, you bring something else up, they are purportedly performing the same mission. Many of the TN National Guard units I am familiar with are logistics units, meaning they are running the trucks from the rear supply dumps to the forward supply dumps, etc. The military deemed they do not need the body armor. Now is this your typical conflict? No, but I still bet that most of the Iraqi countryside is free of partisans.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So, I ask again, if the common soldier tries every "official" method at his disposal to fix a life-threatening problem (as well as "unofficial" ones, such as salvaging iron and bulletproof glass from landfills), and makes no headway, and then is presented with the opportunity to ask a relevant question of someone very high in command, what's he supposed to do? Keep quiet and go into battle underprepared, risking himself and his fellow soldiers, or say something?

If he tries every official method, and is turned down, he is SOL. The most important thing in the military is maintaining the chain of command. If this breaks down, then the efficiency of the unit breaks down.

Look at it this way, everytime you step into your car, you have a chance to kill yourself. Did you know last year more Americans died in car accidents than in battle? Is your car equipped with a HANS device to prevent head and neck injuries? Probably not, because it is a decision that you made when you bought the car. Same thing in the military, they have to have priorities in where they spend their money.

[ISiddiqui]

It is simply not appropriate for a soldier (or group of soldiers) to undermine the Secretary of Defense in a public forum like that.

Heaven forbid that a soldier not exercise his 1st Amendment rights in a public forum where he was picked to ask a question!

And for those saying the National Guard people signed up for this... they DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR STOP LOSS! It's a freaking draft through the back door! They have finished their service and are forbidden from going home.

All I get from this thread is Franklinnoble and his brother are supreme assholes.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Look at it this way, everytime you step into your car, you have a chance to kill yourself. Did you know last year more Americans died in car accidents than in battle?

Yes, about 30,000 Americans die in car-related incidents each year. Hmm, that's about 150,000 Americans this decade. How many Americans did Saddam kill during the same time period? By this logic, why should we be spending any money in Iraq at all? It seems that drunk drivers, that chick putting on her make-up while driving, and that guy in the SUV with under-inflated tires are more of a threat to me than Saddam ever was. Maybe the money spent toppling Saddam and implementing democracy in Iraq would be better spent tackling automobile safety (going hard against drunk drivers, giving auto designers incentives for designing safer vehicles, etc.).

Just kidding.

[Glengoyne]

While I laud the desire to blame Bush and Rumsfeld for everything. I'm not so certain that they can be held to blame for this particular situation.

I have no trouble with the guardsman asking Rumsfeld the question. The question and the response to it made it clear that there is a problem. I don't have a problem with Rumsfeld's answer to it though. He essentially said, we didn't have a good solution for this situation when we got here, but we are working on it. He also, I believe, honestly pointed out that really the armor in question isn't all that protective. I am thinking that we might be getting upset about these vehicles not being "uparmored" quickly enough, when adding a few steel plates to a humvee or truck doesn't really provide much more than superficial protection. Is it possible that the process hasn't been a priority, because the end result doesn't really have all that big of an impact?

As for why I don't think that Bush or Rumsfeld can necessarilly be held responsible is that there is little that they could have done that would have changed the situation as it is.

As for the difference in equipment between the Army and the Reserve. The gap exists, and the Army has policies in place to tries to prevent or minimize the things that propogate the difference. The reservists have long complained about this gap, so this is essentially nothing new. I have no problem with their dissatisfaction with the situation.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Heaven forbid that a soldier not exercise his 1st Amendment rights in a public forum where he was picked to ask a question!

And for those saying the National Guard people signed up for this... they DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR STOP LOSS! It's a freaking draft through the back door! They have finished their service and are forbidden from going home.

All I get from this thread is Franklinnoble and his brother are supreme assholes.

I agree with you on the soldier being perfectly within his rights. I'd probably argue a bit with the notion that he was "picked" to ask a question, and probably argue a lot less that we really aren't all that sure that it was actually his question. But certainly I don't think he should get flack for asking a tough question that highlighted something that is somewhat of an issue.

As for the back door draft. I'm thinking that is quite an exaggeration. This really is in all of the paperwork. It wasn't snuck in on them at all. They knew it was a possibility when they signed on. Just because I don't think the fine print will affect me, doesn't mean I should somehow be excused from it's effect. Also a lot of the people complaining about "stop loss" are simply complaining because their individual "tour" is up, but their unit's has some number of months still in Iraq. Part of "stop loss" extends some these people's tours until the unit as a whole returns home.

I have a much bigger problem with the Government invoking stop loss in the cases of "Try one" contracts offered to previously retired service people that were in essence offered up as "try one tour, and see how it goes".

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

All I get from this thread is Franklinnoble and his brother are supreme assholes.

Seriously... what is it with you people? You can't have a debate without calling people filthy names? That's at least the second time someone's called me an ass or asshole in this thread - and I haven't personally attacked anyone else debating in this discussion.

Grow up. If you wouldn't call me (or my brother) that to our faces (and, believe me, you might once, but you wouldn't a second time), then don't do it online.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Look, obviously it's "reasonable equipment" for the regular army, but apparently not for the Guard. However, both are performing largely the same mission in the same theatre. Explain that one to me.

I agree both are performing the same mission in the same theater; I also agree that both should have the same equipment. Additionally, I agree that a flak vest with plates is "reasonable" equipment. What I wanted to point out is what do people consider "reasonable" equipment? Did you answer what that exactly is? Does it include NVGs? Does it include remote controlled robots so soldiers can stay out of harm's way (which is in development right now)? All I wanted to do was point out that the line between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" is blurred since much of it depends on taxpayer money.

[

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

First of all, I'm asking for the whole picture from Franklinnoble. Why does his brother have two?

Secondly, I'm not purporting to have the whole picture. All I know is that some soldiers have two kevlar vests and some have none. Purportedly they're performing the same mission. Why are they so differently equipped?

Point taken.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So we're to assume that no one in the Guard has done this? I find that hard to believe. In fact, I have (anecdotal) evidence that these exact actions have been done (going through the normal chain of command).

So, I ask again, if the common soldier tries every "official" method at his disposal to fix a life-threatening problem (as well as "unofficial" ones, such as salvaging iron and bulletproof glass from landfills), and makes no headway, and then is presented with the opportunity to ask a relevant question of someone very high in command, what's he supposed to do? Keep quiet and go into battle underprepared, risking himself and his fellow soldiers, or say something?

While I didn't mention it before, there are other avenues a soldier can go through besides addressing a problem in a public forum that are more conducive to "good order and discipline".

#1: Call the Inspector General....as a matter of fact, the Army Inspector General did an inspection on the status of body armor in Iraq last year.

#2: Call your congressman. A congressional will prompt an investigation by either the chain of command or an external agency. While this may take more time, it will produce desired results.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Good, because you apparently missed this:

Yes, I did miss that. My bad.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Seriously... what is it with you people? You can't have a debate without calling people filthy names? That's at least the second time someone's called me an ass or asshole in this thread - and I haven't personally attacked anyone else debating in this discussion.

Grow up. If you wouldn't call me (or my brother) that to our faces (and, believe me, you might once, but you wouldn't a second time), then don't do it online.

Agree with this completely. Grow up and at least respect an intelligent conversation without spiraling down into name-calling or personal attacks. Jeez.

[ISiddiqui]

I haven't personally attacked anyone else debating in this discussion.

Your brother has, calling National Guard members to be whiners and faggots. So turnabout is fair play, prick .

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Yes, I did miss that. My bad.

For what it's worth... I already admitted to making too many gross generalizations with that statement when I was called on it earlier.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Your brother has, calling National Guard members to be whiners and faggots. So turnabout is fair play, prick .

I shared his e-mail verbatim... and he wasn't making a direct, personal attack. What he said is no different than someone saying "George Bush is an ass."

You're talking with me, buddy. I expect a bit of courtesy.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Your brother has, calling National Guard members to be whiners and faggots. So turnabout is fair play, prick .

While not exactly in the same boat, I think that his brother has more of a right to call them whiners and faggots than you do calling him an asshole. I don't know what you do for a living, but his brother is serving our country. What have you done that gives you the right to call him an asshole?

[yabanci]

this thread is now even more ridiculous than when it started.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Seriously... what is it with you people? You can't have a debate without calling people filthy names? That's at least the second time someone's called me an ass or asshole in this thread - and I haven't personally attacked anyone else debating in this discussion.

Grow up. If you wouldn't call me (or my brother) that to our faces (and, believe me, you might once, but you wouldn't a second time), then don't do it online.

finally, i agree with something you said

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Heaven forbid that a soldier not exercise his 1st Amendment rights in a public forum where he was picked to ask a question!

And for those saying the National Guard people signed up for this... they DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR STOP LOSS! It's a freaking draft through the back door! They have finished their service and are forbidden from going home.

All I get from this thread is Franklinnoble and his brother are supreme assholes.

The soldier was not in a public forum and he was told to ask the question by some young unknown embedded journalist. Rumsfeld was in a situation where he asked reporters not to be around so he could visit with troops for morale purposes. He's never denied journalists access to him back in DC. Never. You want to ask a question to Rumsfeld, there is a time and a place.

Now, because some jackass embedded journalist trying to make a name for himself embarrasses Rumsfeld in the soldier's town hall meeting, Rumsfeld will probably be wary of going back. Rumsfeld has made himself completely available and accessable to every dickweed left-wing liberal journalist planted comfortably in Washington D.C. for his weekly press-conference. And they show up and ask all kinds of wildly distorted questions. And Rummy answers them as truthfully and honestly as he can. 99 times out of 100, they leave with nothing to report and are generally embarrassed themselves by his blunt direct honest answers. But every once in a while, they get a crummy soundbite to make Rummy look like Hitler and plaster it all over the newspapers.

But to soldiers, and sailors, and airman, Rumsfeld has done a tremendous job of getting a dirty job done and protecting us as best he can. He's a brilliant man with an amazing amount of experience and has strong trust in our military's generals and leaders.


As for STOP-LOSS. It's not a back-door draft. It's a requirement that forces our veteran troops from leaving during times of war and conflict. And not all of them, the critical need veterans.

Look, we need our veteran soldiers to get the job done right. The veterans with experience are what saves lives. And you want to pull them all out of the military and replace them with green troops? I'm sorry, but that's crazy. It would get more soldiers killed. STOP-LOSS is a media buzz-word for anti-Bush Administration bullshit, but it's a beautiful word to young troops in the field who rely on the experienced guys to make them smarter. We have a TON of highly technological equipment used all over the battlefield. In the water, in the air, on the ground behind the lines, in support. We have a very complicated military infrastructure that requires our whole team to make it work. Not just the young raw recruits.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The soldier was not in a public forum and he was told to ask the question by some young unknown embedded journalist. Rumsfeld was in a situation where he asked reporters not to be around so he could visit with troops for morale purposes. He's never denied journalists access to him back in DC. Never. You want to ask a question to Rumsfeld, there is a time and a place.

Now, because some jackass embedded journalist trying to make a name for himself embarrasses Rumsfeld in the soldier's town hall meeting, Rumsfeld will probably be wary of going back. Rumsfeld has made himself completely available and accessable to every dickweed left-wing liberal journalist planted comfortably in Washington D.C. for his weekly press-conference. And they show up and ask all kinds of wildly distorted questions. And Rummy answers them as truthfully and honestly as he can. 99 times out of 100, they leave with nothing to report and are generally embarrassed themselves by his blunt direct honest answers. But every once in a while, they get a crummy soundbite to make Rummy look like Hitler and plaster it all over the newspapers.

But to soldiers, and sailors, and airman, Rumsfeld has done a tremendous job of getting a dirty job done and protecting us as best he can. He's a brilliant man with an amazing amount of experience and has strong trust in our military's generals and leaders.


As for STOP-LOSS. It's not a back-door draft. It's a requirement that forces our veteran troops from leaving during times of war and conflict. And not all of them, the critical need veterans.

Look, we need our veteran soldiers to get the job done right. The veterans with experience are what saves lives. And you want to pull them all out of the military and replace them with green troops? I'm sorry, but that's crazy. It would get more soldiers killed. STOP-LOSS is a media buzz-word for anti-Bush Administration bullshit, but it's a beautiful word to young troops in the field who rely on the experienced guys to make them smarter. We have a TON of highly technological equipment used all over the battlefield. In the water, in the air, on the ground behind the lines, in support. We have a very complicated military infrastructure that requires our whole team to make it work. Not just the young raw recruits.

this is not personal but your comment is full of so much kool-aid i dont have enough energy to blast it piece by piece so ill just leave it with the following:

Public or not, he should have nothing to hide

the results of the event speak for themselves now, kudos to the questionnairre(sp?)

It is stop-loss. i even think that that is the wording in the paperwork. it is a back door draft...or at least I assume you understand how half the country can come to such a conclusion right.

Chain of Command? On 60 minutes the guy higher up the chain of command looked like he had been smacked down so many times by the people above him that he had given up. If you'd seen it, youd know what i mean.

Rumsfeld has been caught in blatant lying. the Abu Gharaib commission said that he is "indirectly" responsible for that yet he has not once done anything but blame it on a few rogue kids. that is BS, take responsibility....anyways, Rummy, is full of shit.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Yes, about 30,000 Americans die in car-related incidents each year. Hmm, that's about 150,000 Americans this decade. How many Americans did Saddam kill during the same time period? By this logic, why should we be spending any money in Iraq at all? It seems that drunk drivers, that chick putting on her make-up while driving, and that guy in the SUV with under-inflated tires are more of a threat to me than Saddam ever was. Maybe the money spent toppling Saddam and implementing democracy in Iraq would be better spent tackling automobile safety (going hard against drunk drivers, giving auto designers incentives for designing safer vehicles, etc.).

Just kidding.

Aw

I thought you were serious

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

While not exactly in the same boat, I think that his brother has more of a right to call them whiners and faggots than you do calling him an asshole. I don't know what you do for a living, but his brother is serving our country. What have you done that gives you the right to call him an asshole?

I got free speech. I apologize if you don't like my opinions, but I don't feel like I have to justify them to you.

And I don't care if he's "serving our country". If instead of 'faggot', he called the soldier a 'nigger' would you be backing his calling the soldier that? It's no worse.

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I shared his e-mail verbatim... and he wasn't making a direct, personal attack. What he said is no different than someone saying "George Bush is an ass."

You're talking with me, buddy. I expect a bit of courtesy.

Then be disappointed. By posting the email, you expressed concurrence with the message. I'm tired of warhawks calling anyone that disagrees with any aspect of the war as being akin to traitors or, in this case, as whiners and faggots.

Any courtesy you had to expect was dead with your initial post.

[clintl]

It wasn't just McCain that was pissed at what Rumsfeld said. So was Norman Schwarzkopf. Neither one has indicated that the soldier's question or the circumstances were inappropriate, but both think Rumsfeld's answer was.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

It is stop-loss. i even think that that is the wording in the paperwork. it is a back door draft...or at least I assume you understand how half the country can come to such a conclusion right.

Have you ever served? By this statement, I can say that the answer is probably no.

It would be fatal to allow experienced soliders to leave during a time of war. If you put a bunch of green soldiers into combat situations, I would guarantee that the casualties would be much higher than they are now. Also, people who work on complicated equipment are needed to make sure that it is up and running in a timely manner. Troops who just graduated from their technical training would not be able to do so.

Also, it is clearly stated in their enlistment agreement that they can be held indefinitely during a time of war. You are taking that risk of being kept longer than your enlistment agreement states by signing the contract. Another thing is that they can recall you from civilian life four years after you have been discharged.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Heaven forbid that a soldier not exercise his 1st Amendment rights in a public forum where he was picked to ask a question!

The Supreme Court has made it very clear that a soldier has very limited 1st Amendment rights. By the UCMJ, he could have been court-martial for asking such a question in a public setting. Disrespecting a superior (i.e. Rumsfield) can be very bad for the soldier.