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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

:rolleyes:

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]

:rolleyes:

I give up.

So do I. :rolleyes:

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.



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.

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?


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?

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:

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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! :rolleyes:

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]

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. :D

[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]

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

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]

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]

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.

[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.
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.

Good, because you apparently missed this:
Yes, I did miss that. My bad.

[Raiders Army]

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 :p.

[Franklinnoble]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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. :D
Aw :(

I thought you were serious :(

SI

[ISiddiqui]

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.

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]

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]

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

[Raiders Army]

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.
I'll let this dead horse lie (no pun intended). :)

But I will respond to your question above. Whether right or wrong, I believe that it is worse to call someone a racist name instead of a slander of sexual choice (not to get into the debate of whether it actually is their choice). The way I was brought up was that calling my buddy a faggot was okay, but calling him a racist name (true or not) was not. Calling someone I didn't like a faggot was okay...calling him/her a racist name was not. That was just how I was brought up, so there is a difference for me. Whether others equate the two derrogatory terms the same or not is up to them, but to me it's different. I guess this is what it all comes down to:

http://www.clint.ca/argue/argue.jpg

(no offense intended to handicapped people either)

[BishopMVP]

If this thread hasn't already gone too far off-topic, a couple of points, some of which have been touched on by others.

FN's brother is probably better equipped because he is in the regular Army, and not a recently deployed NG unit. Whether it's fair once once they are both in Iraq is up for debate, and without knowing the job of each unit it's kind of hard to argue, but the Army units get better/more equipment because it will usually be deployed earlier and into more combat-intensive areas.

Due to the PR over this, $4 billion more is now being spent to address the armoring of Humvees and other light vehicles. While I think it's great that these soldiers are getting bettor armor, I also think that there are many other places this $4 billion could be spent (more UAV's/Arabic translators/Kevlar vests) that might result in a greater reduction of casualties, but because of the public pressure the military is probably spending more than it would like on this issue. Keep in mind also that a lot of the columnists/people seizing on this issue are the same ones complaining about how much money the war is costing. Under this context of a limited budget, Rumsfeld's comment that "you go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish to have" makes sense despite being "infused with a whiff of dickishness" as Jon Stewart would say.

[Flasch186]

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.


But some in the admin. have said that the "war on terror" could last forever including the president himself when he said it but retracted it the next day. Under the circumstances you've described that means that they could serve forever.....unless of course, they install another type of draft.

[Honolulu_Blue]

If this thread hasn't already gone too far off-topic, a couple of points, some of which have been touched on by others.

FN's brother is probably better equipped because he is in the regular Army, and not a recently deployed NG unit. Whether it's fair once once they are both in Iraq is up for debate, and without knowing the job of each unit it's kind of hard to argue, but the Army units get better/more equipment because it will usually be deployed earlier and into more combat-intensive areas.

Due to the PR over this, $4 billion more is now being spent to address the armoring of Humvees and other light vehicles. While I think it's great that these soldiers are getting bettor armor, I also think that there are many other places this $4 billion could be spent (more UAV's/Arabic translators/Kevlar vests) that might result in a greater reduction of casualties, but because of the public pressure the military is probably spending more than it would like on this issue. Keep in mind also that a lot of the columnists/people seizing on this issue are the same ones complaining about how much money the war is costing. Under this context of a limited budget, Rumsfeld's comment that "you go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish to have" makes sense despite being "infused with a whiff of dickishness" as Jon Stewart would say.

The one thing about Rumsfeld's comment is that we chose to enter this war. This wasn't a reaction to an attack, we were not all of a sudden thrust into war. This was a pre-emptive strike. If we had been bombed, attacked, or otherwise and then entered into a war shortly thereafter and we were not all that well-equipped or prepared that would be understandable. But we chose when to attack. Where to attack. Etc, etc. The whole post-invasion "plan" has been pretty poorly executed by all accounts. We had a plan to get in there and take over, but since then there has been little evidence of sound strategic planning. Humvees coming under attack with little or no armor just seems to be one aspect of it.

[flere-imsaho]

A few additional comments, but first....

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.

I know this is mostly in response to ISiddiqui, but I'd like to assure you that everything I've said in this thread I'd say to anyone's face. Although angry, I think I've been fair in this thread, especially seeing how you began by making gross and insulting generalizations about NG soldiers. Generalizations, I'm happy to see, that you've now backed away from.


Now, having said that, instead of responding to each and every post individually, let me make the following points:

1. Although mostly tasked with different missions, Regular Army and Reserve/National Guard Units are under equal threat.

A lot of people here are making the point that the Regular Army (RA) needs the best equipment because it's on the front lines, whilst the National Guard (NG) can have a bit less because they're running supply missions.

The problem with this argument is that you can't tell me where the front line is. Just yesterday, in a press conference, the Pentagon admitted that the insurgents are targeting supply lines, which is admittedly a pretty common guerilla tactic, but also because they know these troops are less-equipped than the front-line troops.

Unfortunately for Rumsfeld-apologists, you can't argue that this development was a surprise for the DoD. The DoD's own pre-Iraq wargames indicated that these tactics were likely. Furthermore, a good century of monitoring, engaging in, and defending against guerilla warfare suggested likely tactics to be taken by insurgents.

Knowing this, then, why did the Bush Administration not provide the full tools for defense for all the troops they sent to Iraq? Did they expect the insurgents to "respect the rules of war" and only go after front-line troops? Were they unaware that many NG units did not have full funding and thus did not have all the equipment they needed for a war zone? You know what my answers are to those questions - I want to hear yours.


2. Highly-Experienced soldiers & Stop-Loss

Yes, you need experienced and highly trained (in technical and medical fields) soldiers in Iraq, which is why you need a lot of NG & Reserve folks over there. Yes, you can't simply replace them with "greens" and hope to do as well.

OK, that's a given, here's another one: Stop-Loss is an emergency measure. It's meant for when the Armed Forces are in over their head and can't afford to let valuable folks leave the theatre.

As some have pointed out, we shouldn't be in an "emergency situation". This was a planned invasion. There were wargames simulating this invasion before we went into Iraq. The Bush Administration assured the country that they had things planned out.

Furthermore, the Pentagon's pre-Iraq wargames predicted many of these challenges. Also furthermore, Colin Powell recommended a much larger force than was initially deployed (but more along the lines of what we've ended up with in Iraq), mostly in part due to these concerns.

Given all of this, how did we end up in this situation? Of course, I have my own answers to this question, but I'd like to hear yours.

[flere-imsaho]

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.

This is blatantly untrue. Speak to anyone vaguely familiar with the Washington Press Corps and you'll get an earful about this administration's restrictive press practices.

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.

See above.

And they show up and ask all kinds of wildly distorted questions.

This is actually true, and a tried-and-true method used by reporters being stonewalled by officials. The idea is to goad the official into answering some questions. Take a quick look back at the Clinton Admin and you'll see the same thing, except the reporters in question aren't "dickweed left-wing liberal journalists" but neanderthal knuckle-dragging right-wing journalists.

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.

Except when he's lying, of course.

But every once in a while, they get a crummy soundbite to make Rummy look like Hitler and plaster it all over the newspapers.

Grow up and stop crying about a practice that began a century ago with William Randolph Hearst.

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.

Except that he isn't, and he doesn't. I'll bet you good money that when the final, objective, conclusions are made about this time period in 50 to 100 years time, we'll see him for the amateur he is.

[duckman]

But some in the admin. have said that the "war on terror" could last forever including the president himself when he said it but retracted it the next day. Under the circumstances you've described that means that they could serve forever.....unless of course, they install another type of draft.
You make a very good point about terrorism. As much as people would like to believe the opposite, I am fairly convinced that terrorism will never be completely wiped out. However, I think that terrorism could be severly hampered.

Now on the question of the soldiers being held indefinitely, I believe that some of these troops that are being held on stop loss will be released from duty once Iraq has their elections. They should enough adequately trained troops to fill in the gaps left behind by those leaving. The draft would not affect stop loss because it still comes down to having fully trained troops. They've had stop loss as far back as the Civil War. You can't plug just any troop into those spots and be an effective fighting force.

Another thing to ponder is that 100% of the soldiers who had secured civilian employment prior to stop loss have been approved to be released early by DoD after making a simple request. So not everyone is being forced to stay like the media has been quick to point out.

[duckman]

Knowing this, then, why did the Bush Administration not provide the full tools for defense for all the troops they sent to Iraq?
The Bush Administration didn't know anything of the sort. If that was the case, I would have been trained to handle attacks by insurgents on air bases (which the Iraqi insurgents have attacked on a daily basis). I was in the Air Force up until January and I was never given any training for such attacks. I would have been issued flak jackets just like every other active duty member. That never happened, so you are talking out of your ass.

Did they expect the insurgents to "respect the rules of war" and only go after front-line troops?
What they expected was a conventional war with Iraqi and not a long unconventional fight with Baathis sympathizers and Al Queda. They were ill-equipped to handle the insurgent problems that arise following the fall of Saddam. That was a huge miscalcualtion on the part of the administration and I will be the first one to call them on it.

Were they unaware that many NG units did not have full funding and thus did not have all the equipment they needed for a war zone?
That is complete BS. National Guard units have received their full funding, but the unit commaders failed to make sure that they were adequately equipped. What this soldier did is completely inexcuseable and should dealt with according under the UCMJ. All grieveances (sp?) should be handled behind closed doors and use the proper chain of command.


OK, that's a given, here's another one: Stop-Loss is an emergency measure. It's meant for when the Armed Forces are in over their head and can't afford to let valuable folks leave the theatre.
Stop loss is necessary in this case because we are at war. That falls under the an emergency measure. This is no big secret and stop loss has been around since the Civil War. If you had your way, we would be dealing with even higher casualty numbers because we can't let those poor soldiers, who knowingly signed a contract to serve their country and knowingly agreed to stay on in a time of war, get out on their discharge date.

Given all of this, how did we end up in this situation?
Because George Bush, Sr. and Bill Clinton cut our troops down to the post-Cold War levels we have now. The military leaders around that time warned both of them that dropping the levels down too low would caused serious harm in our war-making abilities. I put the blame squarely on them.

[flere-imsaho]

The Bush Administration didn't know anything of the sort. If that was the case, I would have been trained to handle attacks by insurgents on air bases (which the Iraqi insurgents have attacked on a daily basis). I was in the Air Force up until January and I was never given any training for such attacks. I would have been issued flak jackets just like every other active duty member. That never happened, so you are talking out of your ass.

Fine, but my point is this:

What they expected was a conventional war with Iraqi and not a long unconventional fight with Baathis sympathizers and Al Queda. They were ill-equipped to handle the insurgent problems that arise following the fall of Saddam. That was a huge miscalcualtion on the part of the administration and I will be the first one to call them on it.

Plenty of strategists, including former generals, warned the administration of this, yet it was ignored and not planned for. That's all I'm saying.


That is complete BS. National Guard units have received their full funding, but the unit commaders failed to make sure that they were adequately equipped. What this soldier did is completely inexcuseable and should dealt with according under the UCMJ. All grieveances (sp?) should be handled behind closed doors and use the proper chain of command.

Many NG units spent large portions of their budgets on in-country Homeland Security operations they were ordered by the Fed to mount after 9/11. This is part of the reason for their lack of readiness for overseas deployment. Luckily for the RA, it had no such problems. Clearly the DoD ignored these funding problems for the NG, and it's led to the situations we see today.

Why are you all assuming that the soldier in question didn't try all regular "chain of command" options? And, again, assuming he did (and I know others who did, to no avail), are you saying that once they exhaust the normal chain of command they should just put up and shut up, even if it means they're more likely to die as a result? I'd just like an honest answer from someone on this question.

Stop loss is necessary in this case because we are at war.

Please be so kind as to point out the declaration of war that Congress passed.

That falls under the an emergency measure. This is no big secret and stop loss has been around since the Civil War. If you had your way, we would be dealing with even higher casualty numbers because we can't let those poor soldiers, who knowingly signed a contract to serve their country and knowingly agreed to stay on in a time of war, get out on their discharge date.

Don't put words into my mouth. You have no idea what the Armed Forces would look like "if I had my way". You don't even know if I would want to "have my own way".

Besides, it was Colin Powell himself who advocated sending in a much larger force, in part to mitigate these problems. I assume you're disagreeing with him as well?

[flere-imsaho]

Article on CNN today: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/16/rumsfeld.senators/index.html


Here's the particular damning part:

Rumsfeld responded to a question about soldiers using scrap metal to improve protection on trucks, saying "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have."

U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, said troops in Iraq "deserved a far better answer than that flippant response."

"That might work in a newsroom where you can be cute with a television audience," he told CNN this week, "but not in a room where you're putting men and women in harm's way. I wonder what the parents thought."

Rumsfeld told the troops that shortages of armor did not stem from a lack of money but were "a matter of physics." The manufacturers of add-on armor are producing it as fast as humanly possible, he said.

Two companies producing armor plating disputed that assertion and said they could produce as many as double the number of armor kits in a month.


For those of you who keep saying that Rumsfeld is a fine, upstanding man, the last two paragraphs above pretty much show that he's a bald-faced liar.

[Franklinnoble]

Article on CNN today: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/16/rumsfeld.senators/index.html


Here's the particular damning part:




For those of you who keep saying that Rumsfeld is a fine, upstanding man, the last two paragraphs above pretty much show that he's a bald-faced liar.

I smell bullshit.

A company that has a fat defense contract is NOT going to undermine the secretary of Defense. That's just f'ing stupid business.

I'd like to know the source of that last little tidbit from CNN.

[Raiders Army]

The two companies could double production, but at what cost in quality? I could see a company undermining the SecDef in order to double their profits...especially if this is a short-term contract. I'm not saying this is how it is, but it certainly may be a possibility:

Company A is at 100% production. The CEO asserts that they can double production by hiring an additional shift and working around the clock. There are a couple of problems here. Where do you find trained personnel? Who is going to do the additional QA/QC?

Even if this is not the case, the quality will probably decrease if the production is doubled. I wouldn't believe everything you see on CNN nor read on the internet.

[Raiders Army]

The armor kits are a stopgap. They are not as good as armored HMMWVs. Additionally, HMMWVs are not the biggest problem over there; it's the 5 and 10 ton trucks for convoys.

[JPhillips]

From Yahoo

Former Republican congressman Matt Salmon of Arizona, a spokesman for ArmorWorks in Tempe, Ariz., said his company will finish a $30 million contract with the Pentagon this month to make 1,500 armor kits for Humvees. "We are at 50% capacity, and we could do a lot more," he said. "They are aware of it."

and

Armor Holdings of Jacksonville told the Army last month it could add armor to as many as 550 trucks a month, up from 450, said Robert Mecredy of its aerospace and defense group. "We're prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month," he said.

[Franklinnoble]

From Yahoo

Former Republican congressman Matt Salmon of Arizona, a spokesman for ArmorWorks in Tempe, Ariz., said his company will finish a $30 million contract with the Pentagon this month to make 1,500 armor kits for Humvees. "We are at 50% capacity, and we could do a lot more," he said. "They are aware of it."

and

Armor Holdings of Jacksonville told the Army last month it could add armor to as many as 550 trucks a month, up from 450, said Robert Mecredy of its aerospace and defense group. "We're prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month," he said.

I stand corrected.

I still think it's pretty dense for these companies to grandstand at the expense of Rumsfeld. Seems like biting the hand that feeds you. But, whatever.

[flere-imsaho]

I smell bullshit.

A company that has a fat defense contract is NOT going to undermine the secretary of Defense. That's just f'ing stupid business.

I'd like to know the source of that last little tidbit from CNN.

I also heard as much on NPR from two different company spokesmen a couple of nights ago. I just linked CNN because it was linkable. Haven't tried Google News yet.

[Raiders Army]

Anyway, are they grandstanding? They're being asked about their current production capacity. What are they supposed to do? Lie?

Obviously you have never worked with defense contractors. ;)

[flere-imsaho]

I still think it's pretty dense for these companies to grandstand at the expense of Rumsfeld. Seems like biting the hand that feeds you. But, whatever.

Not really.

Cynical View: They figure Rumsfeld is on the way out, PR-wise, so want to look good at his expense.

Realistic View: It's House & Senate Committees which control the actual budgets (i.e. the House Appropriations Committee), and Rumsfeld won't be Sec of Def forever.


Anyway, are they grandstanding? They're being asked about their current production capacity. What are they supposed to do? Lie?

[Franklinnoble]

Not really.

Cynical View: They figure Rumsfeld is on the way out, PR-wise, so want to look good at his expense.

Realistic View: It's House & Senate Committees which control the actual budgets (i.e. the House Appropriations Committee), and Rumsfeld won't be Sec of Def forever.


Anyway, are they grandstanding? They're being asked about their current production capacity. What are they supposed to do? Lie?

Hey, some bean counter in San Francisco controls the actual budget for my department, but that doesn't mean it's smart for me to make the CIO look bad in public.

Even if he is on the way out, his replacement is going to remember that. Any way you spin it, it's bad business.

[ISiddiqui]

Not really.
Anyway, are they grandstanding? They're being asked about their current production capacity. What are they supposed to do? Lie?

No, lying is Rumsfeld's job ;).

[flere-imsaho]

Hey, some bean counter in San Francisco controls the actual budget for my department, but that doesn't mean it's smart for me to make the CIO look bad in public.

Even if he is on the way out, his replacement is going to remember that. Any way you spin it, it's bad business.

Yes, but my point is that their congressmen and senators are far more important to them than Rumsfeld is, as these are the folks that secure the appropriations money for them.

ArmorWorks' local Representative is J.D. Hayworth (http://hayworth.house.gov/jdcontent/news/index.shtml) who, while a conservative Republican, isn't necessarily a big fan of Rumsfeld. (http://hayworth.house.gov/cgi-data/news/files/295.shtml)

ArmorWorks' Senators (Arizona) are John McCain and Jon Kyl. I'm unable to find out what Jon Kyl thinks of Rumsfeld, but McCain's been pretty clear on the subject. Given the amount of pork McCain controls for Arizona, I assume they'd not want to piss him off.


Armor Holdings' local Representative is Ander Crenshaw (http://crenshaw.house.gov/crenshaw-web/jsp/default.jsp), who is also a Republican an on the House Appropriations Committee. Looking at his press releases and columns, he appears to be a firm Bush/Rumsfeld supporter. Then again, Armor Holdings' statement was definitely less "biting" than ArmorWorks', so I don't know if this will hurt their relationship.

Armor Holdings' first Senator (Florida) are incoming Mel Martinez, who is a Republican but it's unclear how he stands on Rumsfeld. He won't be up for re-election until Bush is out of office, though. The other Senator is Bill Nelson, a Democrat.

[Franklinnoble]

ArmorWorks' Senators (Arizona) are John McCain and Jon Kyl. I'm unable to find out what Jon Kyl thinks of Rumsfeld, but McCain's been pretty clear on the subject. Given the amount of pork McCain controls for Arizona, I assume they'd not want to piss him off.



Ah. I hadn't considered the McCain angle. That actually makes a lot of sense.

McCain is a loose cannon, and if he wants to torpedo Rumsfeld, a phone call to ArmorWorks could (and probably did) arrange a nice salvo.

[flere-imsaho]

I doubt a phone call was necessary, to be honest. Any PR flack worth his (or her) PDA knows which side their bread is buttered.

[GrantDawg]

Obviously you have never worked with defense contractors. ;)
But I was told earlier defense contractors were "doing their best." So now that they point out how big a liar and fraud Rummy is, then it is ok to throw them under the bus. Interesting.

So let me take out the score card.

Defense contractors: Liars
Senators McCain, Hagle and now Trent Lott (who is calling for Rummy's job): Liars and sabotuers
Soldiers: If they NG they are liars and faggots and should shut up and die quitely. If the are regular army, then they are always right no matter what they say.
Former Generals: All liars (because they predicted this type of gorrilla warfare before the war, but the DOD says they they had no idea)

Rumsfield: Never has done anything wrong, never makes a mistake, and is God's gift to the USA.


Am I missing anything?

[Glengoyne]

I don't think the problem is that Bush, Rumsfeld, and company felt we would be greeted with flowers in the streets. Essentially I say that because...we were. Does anyone not remember the celebration in the streets when Saddam's government was actually toppled? The problem was that Bush, Rumsfeld, and company believed the Iraqi government would survive without it's head. Now I can understand having that belief. I can even forgive them for being wrong about that. It is, however, plainly unacceptable that they didn't have any sort of contingency plan in place, just in case they were wrong.

Since the Iraqi government essentially ceased to exist when the troops rolled into Baghdad, there was nothing to quell the sense of lawlessness that swept the city streets. I guess I'm saying that I'm sure the Admin figured there would be an armed resistance movement, but they also believed the Iraqi government's infrastructure was going to be in place to mitigate it. The lack of security in the days immediately after the Government was toppled has had an impact that is still being felt today.

I also think this armor situation has been blown a bit out of proportion. I don't think Rumsfeld was flippant or dishonest when he responded to the questions that day. Armoring the vehicles in question has been a priority, just not the TOP priority. That should be obvious when you look at the percentage of vehicles that have already been "uparmored". As for why it hasn't been the TOP priority, I'm gonna say because someone/the Pentagon didn't believe it deserved to be the TOP priority. Honestly if you believe that any feasible amount of armor on a Humvee or truck is going to provide more than minimal, nearly incidental protection to that vehicle's occupants in the face of an RPG attack, then you are sadly mistaken. This is essentially PR item, and it was prioritized as such.

I don't know what Rumsfeld's exact comments about the production capacity being at it's maximum, but I'm not uncertain that his statement could not be applied to the actual conversion of the vehicles. I say this, because while I'm not a big fan of Rumsfeld, I don't typically find him to be a "liar". I think he generally provides fairly honest answers, sometimes brutally so.

In short, I think there have been a lot of reasons to call for Rumsfeld's resignation. I just don't think the armor situation, nor his response to it is anywhere near rising to that level.

[duckman]

Don't put words into my mouth. You have no idea what the Armed Forces would look like "if I had my way". You don't even know if I would want to "have my own way".
First of all, I want to apologize for putting those words in your mouth. You're riight that I don't know what you are really thinking about this subject. My bad. :)

Please be so kind as to point out the declaration of war that Congress passed.
The US Constitution states:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States....

The Supreme Court has stated on numerous occasions that the President has the power to make war, but not to declare war. This gives the President the authority to wage a war without asking Congress. However, Congress has to okay the necessary funding to finance the war. Congress not only gave the President the authority to wage (which he actually didn't need), but they also gave the proper appropriations to finance it. By doing so, the President had the authority to activate stop loss because that falls under emergency you've stated was necessary to activate it.

[Raiders Army]

But I was told earlier defense contractors were "doing their best." So now that they point out how big a liar and fraud Rummy is, then it is ok to throw them under the bus. Interesting.

So let me take out the score card.

Defense contractors: Liars
Senators McCain, Hagle and now Trent Lott (who is calling for Rummy's job): Liars and sabotuers
Soldiers: If they NG they are liars and faggots and should shut up and die quitely. If the are regular army, then they are always right no matter what they say.
Former Generals: All liars (because they predicted this type of gorrilla warfare before the war, but the DOD says they they had no idea)

Rumsfield: Never has done anything wrong, never makes a mistake, and is God's gift to the USA.


Am I missing anything?

For the record, I have not supported any of your claims on your scorecard. Maybe the defense contractors statement should have been clarified a little further, but at least I didn't use the :rolleyes: smiley.

Defense contractors are notorious for underbidding and then once they get the contract they will say they need more money to complete the contract...or in this case, they may be trying to get more money for more work.

I never talked about the Senators.

I never said that the NG were faggots...I just defended Franklinnoble's brother's right to call them that. I do believe that if you're Regular Army you're right no matter what. (just kidding)

Never talked about Generals.

Never said that Rumsfeld was God's gift to FOFC.

That is my position and I'm sticking to it, unless I change my mind. ;)

[Flasch186]

seems to me no matter how heavy the evidence or how deep the crap is that Rumsfeld spews, the defenders of the admin will dig through it with the, "yeah right's." "sounds like someone has a grudge" "I smell BS" "quit grandstanding" comments. Eventually you could say that everything that says the admin didnt plan thoroughly enough, or the admin hasnt made the right decisions thus far is crappola and then praise everything that glosses over these shortfalls and lies. Hey, we can all do that the best.

The army contractors are lying for Mccain's gain, the Reserve should use his chain of command and quit whining, they went to war with what they had not what they wished for...well last i checked the army contractors MIGHT be telling the truth SHOCK!! The reserve guy and the people who cheered, mightve fit Rumsfeld's visit in between trips to the scrapyard to get armor SHOCK!! and maybe we went to war when we wanted, wewerent drawn into war, planning shouldve been a top priority SHOCK!!

Cmon, Kool aid drinkers, its ok to admit that we made some mistakes and now we should fix them, it is shameful that it took a 60 minutes episode, a brave soldier to speak up, and 4Billion quickly found dollars to perhaps save some lives by armoring vehicles.

someone earlier said, that they werent armored because perhaps they new that that wouldnt REALLY save many/any lives....well thats crap, then why give them any armor at all cuz the bullet might miss that, or why give them anything defensive at all, my friend you touch a very slippery slopewith that argument and it ends up wallowing in the same basket of crap as Rumsfeld's lies.

I attach the following article to provide more info., i love the part that the fact that they now can provide more armor DOESNt signify a lack of planning:

General: Insurgents Growing More Effective

Thu Dec 16,11:25 AM ET

White House - AP Cabinet & State

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Iraqi insurgents are growing more effective and it will take time to get U.S. troops the $4 billion in armor they need for protection, defense officials said Wednesday. "This is not Wal-Mart," one general said.


Officials rejected growing criticism that armor shortages in Iraq (news - web sites) reflect poor war planning, and they said they've been working as fast as possible to give troops what they need.

At a Pentagon (news - web sites) news conference, Army officials declined to say how much has already been spent armoring vehicles for the campaign. But they said that by the end of the next six to eight months, they will have spent $4.1 billion to try to make sure vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites) have full armor — either manufactured that way or with armor added.

They said they expect 98 percent of Army Humvees in the theater to have proper armor by March and the rest of the fleet, such as fuel trucks, by summer.

"This is not Wal-Mart ... this is a very detailed process in terms of trying to get this capability," said Brig. Gen. Jeffery Sorenson, adding that it takes time to study, develop, test and produce equipment needed against what commanders say is a sophisticated and ever-adapting enemy.

Asked at a separate news conference on Iraq operations whether he was concerned about still lacking protection, Lt. Gen. Lance Smith said officials are concerned that insurgents have changed their tactics -- attacking troops in the rear area after realizing they could not win in direct combat.

"Yes, we're concerned that he has changed his tactics and it's required us to armor vehicles that we might otherwise not armor," he said of attacks on logistics convoys.

"I don't know that we'll ever find a silver bullet" against the insurgents' homemade bombs, said Smith, deputy commander of Central Command, which is responsible for U.S. military operations throughout the Middle East.

He said insurgents may use doorbell mechanisms today and remote controls from toys tomorrow to detonate the bombs that have become the major source of U.S. casualties in Iraq.

"As we adapt, they adapt," he said.

Smith and Sorenson spoke to Pentagon reporters in two separate press conferences Wednesday, a week after a soldier's question to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ignited a firestorm over why troops lack proper armor 21 months into the Iraq campaign.

Critics of Bush administration policies in Iraq blame what they say was a rosy picture the administration held before the war. The campaign was meant to be fought at rapid speed by a limited-size force with international help to disarm Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) of his weapons of mass destruction. Instead, no weapons were found, the international community largely refused to participate and officials have been forced to increase the size of the force there, now going up to 150,000 troops.

There was too little advanced body armor and too few armored vehicles to deal with what the Pentagon has since acknowledged is a far stronger and longer insurgency than expected, critics say. Smith said all troops now have the body vests.

Defense officials say it wasn't a matter of poor planning but that insurgents have proven very smart. U.S. forces changed various tactics, including driving convoys fast through problem areas and getting jammers that foil insurgents' ability to detonate bombs by remote control, Smith said.

"And that's been effective, but it's effective for a short time," Smith said. "The enemy is very smart and thinking ... so he changes his tactics and he becomes more effective."

Officials also said this week that the Air Force has started making more cargo flights over Iraq to keep Army transport trucks off the country's dangerous roads when possible.

"Its not just armor ... but a holistic approach" to the threat, Sorenson said.



there you go

[duckman]

seems to me no matter how heavy the evidence or how deep the crap is that Rumsfeld spews, the defenders of the admin will dig through it with the, "yeah right's." "sounds like someone has a grudge" "I smell BS" "quit grandstanding" comments. Eventually you could say that everything that says the admin didnt plan thoroughly enough, or the admin hasnt made the right decisions thus far is crappola and then praise everything that glosses over these shortfalls and lies. Hey, we can all do that the best. The army contractors are lying for Mccain's gain, the Reserve should use his chain of command and quit whining, they went to war with what they had not what they wished for...well last i checked the army contractors MIGHT be telling the truth SHOCK!! The reserve guy and the people who cheered, mightve fit Rumsfeld's visit in between trips to the scrapyard to get armor SHOCK!! and maybe we went to war when we wanted, wewerent drawn into war, planning shouldve been a top priority SHOCK!! Cmon, Kool aid drinkers, its ok to admit that we made some mistakes and now we should fix them, it is shameful that it took a 60 minutes episode, a brave soldier to speak up, and 4Billion quickly found dollars to perhaps save some lives by armoring vehicles. someone earlier said, that they werent armored because perhaps they new that that wouldnt REALLY save many/any lives....well thats crap, then why give them any armor at all cuz the bullet might miss that, or why give them anything defensive at all, my friend you touch a very slippery slopewith that argument and it ends up wallowing in the same basket of crap as Rumsfeld's lies. I attach the following article to provide more info., i love the part that the fact that they now can provide more armor DOESNt signify a lack of planning:
Could you break that up into something readable. I about had a seizure trying to read it. k thx.

[Dutch]

The whole post-invasion "plan" has been pretty poorly executed by all accounts. We had a plan to get in there and take over, but since then there has been little evidence of sound strategic planning. Humvees coming under attack with little or no armor just seems to be one aspect of it.

How many unarmored Humvees have been attacked? How many people would still be alive today had they all been armored up? How much does all this cost?

Honestly.

[Glengoyne]

I guess I have drunk the KoolAid, well at least part of it. I really believe this armor issue has been exaggerated.

I think it is largely a placebo. Rumsfeld's comment that a vehicle can be blown up no matter how much armor you slap onto it, is about the most honest answer I have seen regarding this topic. At the end of the day, people are going to look back at this and say that the armor was a very poor stopgap measure, and a waste of money and effort.

I'm not saying everything has been hunky dory in Iraq. I believe that the admin/pentagon fundamentally failed in the immediate post war Iraq. Since then, however, I think they have done much better.

[Glengoyne]

How many unarmored Humvees have been attacked? How many people would still be alive today had they all been armored up? How much does all this cost?

Honestly.
A relatively large number.
A small number, possibly very small.
4 Billion give or take.

[Honolulu_Blue]

How many unarmored Humvees have been attacked? How many people would still be alive today had they all been armored up? How much does all this cost?

Honestly.

Glenygone answered this well enough.

But there is a valid point to be made which is the whole "$1 million car" arguement popular with defense attorneys. The way this works is as follows. Someone gets into a car accident or some such and they sue the automaker because they feel some injury they suffered was a result of faulty manufacturing, poor design, etc. So they make the argument that the manufacturer could have prevented this innjury (or made it much less severe) if they had only done X, Y, or Z.

The defense to this argument is that, yes, it's possible that the manufacturer might have been able to improve that in some way. But that can be said about almost any part of the car. So you walk the jury (or judge) through all the things an auto manufacturer could do to improve the safety of a car. The end of the argument is that if manufacturers really did all they could cars would cost $1 million and no one could afford to drive them. Reasonable decisions have to be made.

I guess a similar argument could be made here. Yes, it would be safer if all of our troops drove around in super-duper, heavily aromored vehicles, had air cover for each mission or transport, etc, etc. But then each time you wanted to move supplies from Point A to Point B it would cost you gazillion dollars and take a ton of time to organize. The Army, like the car manufacturer, has to make a reasonable assessment of the situation, take the precuations it can, and move forward.

The flip-side of course is that there are times when manufacturers screw up and make a call about a certain part or material (see: the Pinto) that puts people in serious danger and should have been avoided. It's possible that some situations in Iraq are like this. Then again, I don't really know. I am not there and haven't followed things all that closely.

[Dutch]

Glengoyne and Honolulu Blue,

Thank you for what seem to be very honest and fair responses.

[Flasch186]

Glenygone answered this well enough.

But there is a valid point to be made which is the whole "$1 million car" arguement popular with defense attorneys. The way this works is as follows. Someone gets into a car accident or some such and they sue the automaker because they feel some injury they suffered was a result of faulty manufacturing, poor design, etc. So they make the argument that the manufacturer could have prevented this innjury (or made it much less severe) if they had only done X, Y, or Z.

The defense to this argument is that, yes, it's possible that the manufacturer might have been able to improve that in some way. But that can be said about almost any part of the car. So you walk the jury (or judge) through all the things an auto manufacturer could do to improve the safety of a car. The end of the argument is that if manufacturers really did all they could cars would cost $1 million and no one could afford to drive them. Reasonable decisions have to be made.

I guess a similar argument could be made here. Yes, it would be safer if all of our troops drove around in super-duper, heavily aromored vehicles, had air cover for each mission or transport, etc, etc. But then each time you wanted to move supplies from Point A to Point B it would cost you gazillion dollars and take a ton of time to organize. The Army, like the car manufacturer, has to make a reasonable assessment of the situation, take the precuations it can, and move forward.

The flip-side of course is that there are times when manufacturers screw up and make a call about a certain part or material (see: the Pinto) that puts people in serious danger and should have been avoided. It's possible that some situations in Iraq are like this. Then again, I don't really know. I am not there and haven't followed things all that closely.


the difference is that this was supposedly planned in advance. Yes they obviously guessedwrong about the state of Iraq immediately following its collapse but hello!? their war games predicted a rebellion. Im sorry I think it is unfathomable to send any of our troops into battle without armor on their bodies and i think it equally unreasonable to send any of them around iraq in un-armored vehicles, ESPECIALLY when for months the main attack of choice has been roadside bombs.

In my view its just another time when the current people in charge of the goings on there, not adjusting to the terrain. Poor choices.

Prime example, we have most of the terrorists trapped in Fallujah and know it, so we pull back and let Iraqi's go in to fight their brothers. well apparently that didnt go so well as we have to go in some months later. INSTEAD of moving quickly and locking them down in Fallujah, we give them tons of warning and allow them to scatter throughout Iraq and the middle east. Well done, harkens back to why Bin LAden is still alive in the Mountains of Afghanistan. Cuz we outsourced that too.

[flere-imsaho]

While Rumsfeld is correct that any vehicle can be blown up, that's not really the point. After all, you can blow up a tank if you really want to, and have the appropriate munitions (which the insurgents largely don't have, I believe).

The issue with Humvees and supply trucks is that the soldiers in Iraq are under attack a lot (and in a growing amount) from two sources:

1. Small arms fire, which penetrates the walls of unarmored Humvees and trucks pretty easily.

2. Improvised Explosive Devices, which came into use by the insurgents specifically to target unarmored vehicles. Note that this isn't an Iraqi development, per se, but is a hallmark of terrorists everywhere.

So, it's not as if I'm arguing that every soldier needs to be driving around in an M-1 Abrams. I'm arguing two things (on this specific topic):

1. Given the growing nature of the threat and the insurgents' obvious tactics to target unarmored supply vehicles and unarmored or underarmored Humvees, I have to ask why the DoD didn't step on the gas much earlier to uparmor these vehicles.

2. Given that many people anticipated this type of threat before the Iraq invasion (in large part because it's not the first time these tactics have been used by insurgents in the Middle East and elsewhere), why weren't the Armed Forces better prepared for this specific threat?

[duckman]

the difference is that this was supposedly planned in advance. Yes they obviously guessedwrong about the state of Iraq immediately following its collapse but hello!? their war games predicted a rebellion. Im sorry I think it is unfathomable to send any of our troops into battle without armor on their bodies and i think it equally unreasonable to send any of them around iraq in un-armored vehicles, ESPECIALLY when for months the main attack of choice has been roadside bombs.
War games?! So obviously you've attended these war games that you speak of? Like I said earlier, I was not trained to handle attacks by insurgents launching rockets onto airfields. I never attended a class explaining how to deal with terrorists or a possible insurgent uprisinig. Urban warfare training facilities have only been around for a little over a year on a handful of Army installations. I would guess that only 25% to 50% of the Army has even been trained to combats such forces in an urban setting. Many of these troops are learning on the job.

In my view its just another time when the current people in charge of the goings on there, not adjusting to the terrain. Poor choices.
I agree with you there that the administration has done a disservice to the troops by not properly equipping them. They grossly underestimated the insurgent and terrorist problems. Hell, I could see the insurgent problem coming from a mile away, and I would bet that Rumsfield squashed any opposition to the current planning of the war. This has been a poorly ran war after the fall of Saddam and I blame Rumsfield for making into this problem.

Prime example, we have most of the terrorists trapped in Fallujah and know it, so we pull back and let Iraqi's go in to fight their brothers. well apparently that didnt go so well as we have to go in some months later. INSTEAD of moving quickly and locking them down in Fallujah, we give them tons of warning and allow them to scatter throughout Iraq and the middle east. Well done, harkens back to why Bin LAden is still alive in the Mountains of Afghanistan. Cuz we outsourced that too.
So we are going to storm in there and possibly kill thousands of civilians because we wanted to get our hands on some terrorists? We would be demonized in the press for doing such an action. I think they fully expected that many of the terrorists would flee the city, but if memory served me correctly, they did managed to captured and killed a good number of those because some were dumb enough to take main roads out of town. We also killed a bunch in the city itself.

Bin Laden's alive because we allowed the Afghan army to take the mountain. That was a huge miscalcualtion on their part because now Osama is probably in Iran somewhere.

[Dutch]

Notice that our two resident Rumsfeld experts Flash Gordon and Tierra Del Fuego have absolutley no fucking clue about how many unarmored Humvees have been attacked, how many lives were lost that should have been saved, and how much money it would cost to upgrade everything.

[Glengoyne]

Bin Laden's alive because we allowed the Afghan army to take the mountain. That was a huge miscalcualtion on their part because now Osama is probably in Iran somewhere.
I figured that he was in Iran while we were chasing "him" around Tora Bora. It seems to me that would be THE place for him to hole up.

[duckman]

I figured that he was in Iran while we were chasing "him" around Tora Bora. It seems to me that would be THE place for him to hole up.I think, to a level of certainty, he was in Tora Bora, but he managed to slipped away while letting the Afghans do the dirty work.

[Glengoyne]

... ESPECIALLY when for months the main attack of choice has been roadside bombs.

In my view its just another time when the current people in charge of the goings on there, not adjusting to the terrain. Poor choices.
...
You talk about the Millitary not adjusting to the terrain and tactics, but there are plenty of news reports lately about how we have been actively defeating the use of roadside bombs by employing frequency jamming equipment. The insurgents are having to expose themselves more now because their remote controls don't always work any more.

As for the example of Fallujah. That debacle had less to do with the "choices" our millitary made, and more to do with our Government bowing to the appeals of the International community and the somewhat less millitant Iraqi religious factions within Iraq. Hopefully it reminded enough people of Government types dictating the war in Vietnam to prevent that from happening again.

[BishopMVP]

Prime example, we have most of the terrorists trapped in Fallujah and know it, so we pull back and let Iraqi's go in to fight their brothers. well apparently that didnt go so well as we have to go in some months later. INSTEAD of moving quickly and locking them down in Fallujah, we give them tons of warning and allow them to scatter throughout Iraq and the middle east. Well done, harkens back to why Bin LAden is still alive in the Mountains of Afghanistan. Cuz we outsourced that too.I don't agree with the complaints that we "outsourced" that part of the job. We outsourced the entire Afghan campaign. There were very few Special Forces/Delta type guys on the ground directing and co-opting the local warlords and we were giving them air support. They weren't even under DoD control early on, it was mainly a CIA operation under their DO. Considering we managed to completely take over that country with as few troops and casualties as we did it is hard to consider Afghanistan anything less than an unqualified success from a military point of view.

When it comes to Fallujah, as others have pointed out, we did move in quickly in April, killing many insurgents and undoubtedly a few civilians, then withdrew under heavy vilification in the international community, the press, and to a lesser extent the Iraqis. When we went back in the second time, we spent weeks telling everyone we were coming, allowing the big-time leaders and many others to escape (and set up spoiling operations in places like Mosul in the hopes of making us stop our destruction of their main base) but drastically reducing civilian casualties. That choice of sparing civilians will probably mean it'll take longer to defeat the insurgency, but that's part of what makes the US military better than any other, whether its detractors want to give it any credit for the extraordinary lengths it goes to to avoid civilian casualties or not.

[Glengoyne]

I think, to a level of certainty, he was in Tora Bora, but he managed to slipped away while letting the Afghans do the dirty work.
It is entirely possible. Also don't forget the Pakistanis. If Bin Laden was there, he almost certainly slipped our on the Pakistan side of the border.

[BishopMVP]

It is entirely possible. Also don't forget the Pakistanis. If Bin Laden was there, he almost certainly slipped our on the Pakistan side of the border.Pakistan's been putting fairly heavy pressure on the Waziristan region, and the US troops along the border have reportedly occasionally conducted missions in Pakistan. There have been some recent claims by Pakistani officials that bin Laden is in Iran. I wouldn't be surprised if he moved to somewhere in Africa at some point soon.

[Mr. Wednesday]

National Geographic recently had an interesting story about the situation along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border that gives you a reasonably good idea of why Bin Laden was able to escape (in my otherwise somewhat uninformed opinion).

[BishopMVP]

It appears that there might be less of a story here than the media has been reporting.

The first point is that you'll recollect that one of the questions was the status of the 278 ACR; in other words, the date that we had the visit by the secretary of Defense, we had a question about their up-armoring status. When the question was asked, 20 vehicles remained to be up-armored at that point. We completed those 20 vehicles in the next day. And so over 800 vehicles from the 278 ACR were up-armored, and they are a part now of their total force that is operating up in Iraq. Q On the 278th, can you repeat this? At the time the question was asked, the planted question, the unit had 784 of its 804 vehicles armored?

GEN. SPEAKES: Here is the overall solution that you see. And what we've had to do is -- the theater had to take care of 830 total vehicles. So this shows you the calculus that was used. Up north in Iraq, they drew 119 up-armored humvees from what we call stay-behind equipment. That is equipment from a force that was already up there. We went ahead and applied 38 add-on armor kits to piece of equipment they deployed over on a ship. They also had down in Kuwait 214 stay- behind equipment pieces that were add-on armor kits. And then over here they had 459 pieces of equipment that were given level-three protection. And so when you put all this together, that comes up with 830.

Q At the time of the question -- summarize this, now -- that unit that the kid was complaining about was mostly armored?

GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. In other words, we completed all the armoring within 24 hours of the time the question was asked.

Q If he hadn't asked that question, would the up-armoring have been accomplished within 24 hours?

GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. This was already an existing program.

[Dutch]

This explanation from the Army has so far been a non-story. No media follow-up, I guess.

[Flasch186]

Notice that our two resident Rumsfeld experts Flash Gordon and Tierra Del Fuego have absolutley no fucking clue about how many unarmored Humvees have been attacked, how many lives were lost that should have been saved, and how much money it would cost to upgrade everything.


Newsweek 12/20 by M. Hirsh, J. Barry & B. Dehghanpisheh

"His question is still resonating. Many critics on both sides of the political aisle are asking whether the Pentagon is adjusting well to the insurgents' tactics...Pres. Bush reassured Americans last week that 'we're doing everything we possibly can to protect your loved ones in a mission which is vital and important.' But as the death toll climbs to nearly 1300, some soldiers and defense-industry officials insist that much more could be done."

"Humvee factories, meanwhile, have not been operating at full capacity. And U.S. commercial steel-plate companies have been largely ignored by the Pentagon, which remains intent on supplying itself from a select number of Army depots. Perhaps inadvertently, the Pentagon late last week provided proof that it had not been doing its utmost. 2 days after Rumsfeld's embarassing exchange with Wilson, the DOD announced it was ordering 100 more up-armored Humvees a month from their main supplier, O'GaraHess & Eisenhardt...,neatly filling in O'Gara's capacity gap."

"Of the 19,782 Humvees currently in the Iraq theater, according to the Army's latest numbers, only a little more than a quarter, or 5,910, are the new M-114 model, which is armored top to bottom... An additional 4,737 Humvees have no armor, and most of the rest have been modified with add-on kits. The problem is that these add-on Humvees sometimes break down under the weight or move too slowly in dangerous situations... And do it yourself hillbilly armor sometimes makes vehicles less safe, especially when exposed to bombs. Why? Because poor-quality steel can turn into shrapnel."

"In October, members of one unarmored unit, the 343rd Quartermaster Company, refused to carry out a convoy mission because their vehicles were not adequately protected... In a recent letter to the Army Times, Sgt. Scott Montgomery, who was part of a different unit that eventually did carry out the mission, said his convoy was hit by an IED and that he was wounded by shrapnel. 'Had we not had armor on our vehicle, my entire crew would have been killed.'"

"That's one reason so many supply trucks - 7 out of 8 in fact - are still unarmored" --due to an antiquated purchase system only fixed within the last few weeks.

"Among these second guessers is Rep. Robin Hayes, a N.C. Republican. Hayes said he has been frustrated by delays in getting several heavier armored gun carriers to the light-gunned 82ns airborne, which first requested thema year ago. 4 such tank=treaded vehicles are still sitting in mothballs in PA. Army Gen. Richard Cody approved the transfer last March. But then the Army decided to wait for anewer system mounted ona wheeled Stryker, though the system has been held up by reliability issues... On Dec. 9, a day after Rumsfeld'd Kuwait appearance, Hayes wrote him a letter saying, 'I simply cannot understand why we are not equipping our soldiers and MArines on the front lines with every weapon in our arsenal."




Welp, I guess were all wrong.....were the ONLY ones who feel this way. Just us, everyone else doesnt know what were talking about. And everyone cited above and us should just stop whining cuz because, after all, thats what were there for anyways...to make sure that the whiners in Iraq shut up.

At what point will you realize that perhaps those that dont agree with you might have a point, or possibly even be right?

[Flasch186]

I don't agree with the complaints that we "outsourced" that part of the job. We outsourced the entire Afghan campaign. There were very few Special Forces/Delta type guys on the ground directing and co-opting the local warlords and we were giving them air support. They weren't even under DoD control early on, it was mainly a CIA operation under their DO. Considering we managed to completely take over that country with as few troops and casualties as we did it is hard to consider Afghanistan anything less than an unqualified success from a military point of view.



For the most part i agree...but we shouldve spent more time and focus there before moving on. The TOra Bora thing is inexcusable and we again shouldve exhausted all resources there.

[BishopMVP]

For the most part i agree...but we shouldve spent more time and focus there before moving on. The TOra Bora thing is inexcusable and we again shouldve exhausted all resources there.I really don't know much about the details surrounding Tora Bora, but even as an uninformed observer I question how much more resources would have helped there. Bin Laden and his fighters were hiding in a network of caves and in an area they knew like the back of their hand, and it wasn't a very small area. The number of troops necessary to provide an airtight seal would probably have had to be numbered in the tens of thousands. Relying on the locals worked superbly in most cases, it just didn't in this case, and it's not like we could have just brought in thousands of American troops for this one part and not the rest.At what point will you realize that perhaps those that dont agree with you might have a point, or possibly even be right?Maybe when they stop focusing on problems that turn out to be exaggerated, or planted by the media then blown out of proportion. The media planted the question, it turns out that there wasn't even an armor shortfall in the specific unit that was asked about, and they're using it to try and call for Rumsfeld's resignation? Then you see John McCain complaining about the armor shortage when he's had direct oversight of DoD funding since before Bush was president, and yet Congress still hasn't fully funded the armoring of Humvees and other trucks and it lowers the credibility of other more substantial complaints.

[Flasch186]

I really don't know much about the details surrounding Tora Bora, but even as an uninformed observer I question how much more resources would have helped there. Bin Laden and his fighters were hiding in a network of caves and in an area they knew like the back of their hand, and it wasn't a very small area. The number of troops necessary to provide an airtight seal would probably have had to be numbered in the tens of thousands. Relying on the locals worked superbly in most cases, it just didn't in this case, and it's not like we could have just brought in thousands of American troops for this one part and not the rest.Maybe when they stop focusing on problems that turn out to be exaggerated, or planted by the media then blown out of proportion. The media planted the question, it turns out that there wasn't even an armor shortfall in the specific unit that was asked about, and they're using it to try and call for Rumsfeld's resignation? Then you see John McCain complaining about the armor shortage when he's had direct oversight of DoD funding since before Bush was president, and yet Congress still hasn't fully funded the armoring of Humvees and other trucks and it lowers the credibility of other more substantial complaints.



I refer you to the article in Newsweek and say, "even if person X doesnt have the problem, or doesnt deserve to ask the question doesnt mean a problem doesnt exist." I applaud those that stand up, ask tough questions at inapporopriate times, and in essenc elook out for themselves and their comrades. Kudos to you.

[Dutch]

And fuck the soldiers who may want to see their leaders in country to answer their honest questions.

[Flasch186]

And fuck the soldiers who may want to see their leaders in country to answer their honest questions.


So while not necessarily being an expert I am not just making shit up OR trying to shush people or sweep shit under the rug. People are not wrong for demanding that their leaders be held accountable and they are not wrong for questioning their leaders.

[duckman]

So while not necessarily being an expert I am not just making shit up OR trying to shush people or sweep shit under the rug. People are not wrong for demanding that their leaders be held accountable and they are not wrong for questioning their leaders.
They are wrong for blindsiding their superior in front of a huge crowd and asking a question that didn't even affect their unit.

[Flasch186]

They are wrong for blindsiding their superior in front of a huge crowd and asking a question that didn't even affect their unit.

welp, we are going to disagree...I think the DOD and Pentagon's reaction in the week(s) following the question as opposed to their ineffectiveness to change in the months prior eventhough these same questions existed, as proof positive that the soldier and the thousand or so troops who applauded him were well within their rights and I think it was him and them who showed bravery for doing so knowing full well the backlash that they may incurr. Good for them.