Soldiers speak out

[Moe Szyslak]

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

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

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

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

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

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Looks like Rummy at a rough day with the boys. I am glad they are speaking out for their own safety.

[fallout]

Yeah, too bad those republicans always try to cut defence spending.

[Titania]

No, too bad they sent them into war unprepared.

Military spending doesn't necessarily make it to infantry.

[Moe Szyslak]

For years we have been advancing military technology which is expensive (and much of it valuable). This only goes so far - mostly in bombing exercises where we don't plan to hit the ground. I think both brands of administrations have been favoring technology over the traditional armor, something that should have been addressed before a ground invasion. Plus, W should have addressed this the two years prior, not the 2 years after it was needed.

[O. Hannah]

Here is an interesting historical angle on supplying troops with equipment.

http://www.skylighters.org/photos/pow08202001.html

[Professor Donald Trump]

Disgruntled Troops Complain to Rumsfeld


CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait - Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday about the lack of armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort from the Pentagon (news - web sites) chief.

"You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.

[...]


Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly two years after the start of the war that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


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


Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.


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


Rumsfeld replied that troops should make the best of the conditions they face and said the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.


And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents' weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive device that has killed and maimed hundreds, if not thousands, of American troops since the summer of 2003.


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

Link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=3&u=/ap/20041208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld)

$420billion a year, and no body armor?
Oh well. At least the defense contractors are doing well. VERY WELL.
Wave your flags.
Suckers.


http://actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=45329

[Aaron Brachowitz]

No, too bad they sent them into war unprepared.

Military spending doesn't necessarily make it to infantry.
Would you argue against the idea that today's American troops are the best-armed and best-protected that the world has ever seen? I doubt it. The "unprepared" argument rests on the idea that you can always do one more thing, you can always delay until the most recent protective technology is fielded. It's a formula for paralysis. Some new technology is always "just around the corner" -- the armored vests 10 years from now will be better than the ones they have now, which are better than the ones 10 years ago. Armored Humvees are being presented as a cure-all, but even the best add-on armor won't protect against large bombs, so then the argument becomes "Why doesn't everyone get to ride in a tank or armored vehicle?"

The press is uncritically taking the word of a junior soldier that his unit is being sent into combat unprepared. I think a little research will prove this untrue, if anyone bothers. But that will detract from the conventional wisdom -- no post-war plan, etc.

[Moe Szyslak]

AB, this is not the first time we have hears this criticism, why does everyone related to the military pretend it is new (rumsfeld, the general who had no clue they were looking in landfills for spare armor, posters on this board). An armored humvee may cost 200K (normal ones are only 100K so this should be reasonable). 5 cost a million, 5000 cost a billion. Seems pretty inexpensive in comparison to the rest of the war, and it would be something the military would add to its arsenal. This is all they are asking for, if even that much.

I think it is just more evidence how unprepared we were when we went to war. Apparantly we are making 450 armored humvees a month, and need 2000 more. That is 4 months. This should have been started and finished 2 years ago.

[Tim><]

AB, this is not the first time we have hears this criticism, why does everyone related to the military pretend it is new (rumsfeld, the general who had no clue they were looking in landfills for spare armor, posters on this board). An armored humvee may cost 200K (normal ones are only 100K so this should be reasonable). 5 cost a million, 5000 cost a billion. Seems pretty inexpensive in comparison to the rest of the war, and it would be something the military would add to its arsenal. This is all they are asking for, if even that much.

I think it is just more evidence how unprepared we were when we went to war. Apparantly we are making 450 armored humvees a month, and need 2000 more. That is 4 months. This should have been started and finished 2 years ago.

Good guess.

http://www.armorholdings.com/new/news/2004/08-30_ibd-forceprotection.pdf

[Moe Szyslak]

Good guess.
Thanks!

Why do you think it was a guess?

[Tim><]

Good guess.
Thanks!

Why do you think it was a guess?

You provided a rationale as to why it should be 200K. If you knew the answer, you would have had no need to provide the rationale.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

AB, this is not the first time we have hears this criticism, why does everyone related to the military pretend it is new (rumsfeld, the general who had no clue they were looking in landfills for spare armor, posters on this board). An armored humvee may cost 200K (normal ones are only 100K so this should be reasonable). 5 cost a million, 5000 cost a billion. Seems pretty inexpensive in comparison to the rest of the war, and it would be something the military would add to its arsenal. This is all they are asking for, if even that much.

I think it is just more evidence how unprepared we were when we went to war. Apparantly we are making 450 armored humvees a month, and need 2000 more. That is 4 months. This should have been started and finished 2 years ago.
The entire history of warfare consists of quickly adapting to the tactics and technology of your opponent. Roosevelt went into WWII without enough aircraft carriers. So they built a bunch in a hurry. But there was a long stretch when they sure could've used more. You are holding the DoD to an impossible standard -- foresee every contingency and adequately equip for it. If things had gone differently, you would probably be the first to jump on them for profligate spending on unneeded armored Humvees, benefiting politically connected defense contractors.

I'll say it again: American troops are the best-armed and best-protected in the world. Do you disagree?

[Titania]

Well, I think these soldiers should just count their lucky stars and clam up.

There are millions of Americans who would KILL to drive a Hummer, armored or not.

[Moe Szyslak]

The entire history of warfare consists of quickly adapting to the tactics and technology of your opponent. Roosevelt went into WWII without enough aircraft carriers. So they built a bunch in a hurry. But there was a long stretch when they sure could've used more. You are holding the DoD to an impossible standard -- foresee every contingency and adequately equip for it. If things had gone differently, you would probably be the first to jump on them for profligate spending on unneeded armored Humvees, benefiting politically connected defense contractors.

I'll say it again: American troops are the best-armed and best-protected in the world. Do you disagree?Did it take Roosevelt almost 2 years to realize there was a problem before he began building the carriers? The DoD is finally coming to realize we will be in Iraq for a long time. Maybe they knew it for a year now and wanted to hold off for political reasons. Building a few thousand humvees for combat would be a pretty clear sign we plan to stick around for a while.

What difference does it make if you are the best armed and best protected if your leaders cant recognize the real needs of the troops.

[Professor Donald Trump]

Isn't it Kerry's fault, anyway?
He voted against body armor for the troops.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Oh, good lord.

In a related development, it was revealed Thursday (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6676765/)that a reporter claims to have helped the soldier prepare the question directed at Rumsfeld. The Poynter Institute, a news media think tank, published on its Web site an e-mail from reporter Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga Times Free Press in which he explains how he worked with the soldier since he wasn't allowed to question Rumsfeld himself.

So it wasn't really the soldier questioning Rumsfeld, it was the soldier agreeing to play middleman.

[Malik Shabazz]

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.
Last night, Jay Leno related this comment and added: "After making his remarks, Rumsfeld got into an armored car."

[snafu]

AB, this is not the first time we have hears this criticism, why does everyone related to the military pretend it is new (rumsfeld, the general who had no clue they were looking in landfills for spare armor, posters on this board). An armored humvee may cost 200K (normal ones are only 100K so this should be reasonable). 5 cost a million, 5000 cost a billion. Seems pretty inexpensive in comparison to the rest of the war, and it would be something the military would add to its arsenal. This is all they are asking for, if even that much.

I think it is just more evidence how unprepared we were when we went to war. Apparantly we are making 450 armored humvees a month, and need 2000 more. That is 4 months. This should have been started and finished 2 years ago.
The entire history of warfare consists of quickly adapting to the tactics and technology of your opponent. Roosevelt went into WWII without enough aircraft carriers. So they built a bunch in a hurry. But there was a long stretch when they sure could've used more. You are holding the DoD to an impossible standard -- foresee every contingency and adequately equip for it. If things had gone differently, you would probably be the first to jump on them for profligate spending on unneeded armored Humvees, benefiting politically connected defense contractors.

I'll say it again: American troops are the best-armed and best-protected in the world. Do you disagree?

AB - I agree in principal with what you are saying. My brother-in-law just returned from spending a year in Iraq. When he got called up several members of his unit took it upon themselves to personally purchase such items as additional first-aid kits, flak jackets, and other items that were not considered necessary in the army's eyes. There is a market and supply for underarmor for the humvees. The army is not armoring them and our guys are getting legs blown off because of it. In many cases, this is not just a do the job with what you have until we can get you what you need situation. This is a the army doesn't think it is cost efficient. If you want to send the young men of our country somewhere to put themselves in harms way then properly equip them. If there is a shortage of the equipment then they will make due with what they have. But don't shortchange them for a few bucks which is what appears to be happening.

[Titania]

Would you argue against the idea that today's American troops are the best-armed and best-protected that the world has ever seen? I doubt it.

Go ahead and grab the stats on the US being the best protected......if you are bored we can dissect Vietnam, Grenada, Gulf War I, Gulf War II and we can just see how our superior technology has held up against mortar tubes made out of empty T.O.W. missile cartridges.


The press is uncritically taking the word of a junior soldier that his unit is being sent into combat unprepared. I think a little research will prove this untrue, if anyone bothers.

Take a peak at WWII (since you like to compare). How well prepared were the soldiers of the 506th in Bastogne in January 1945, the dead of winter pinned down by artillery for 3 weeks with little to no food, ammo and no cold weather clothing. They lost 165 men in their unit alone...yes, we held the line, but at a huge price and the survivors made it thru strictly by the grace of God, not by their training and protection. These are not one-time events...these are not outlier occurrences from a junior soldier. Spoken like a true officer...

You would love to use Aircraft Carriers & WWII to draw a comparison. What a joke. A dictator who invaded Europe with full intentions of taking over the entire planet forced that war upon us (as well as the attack on Pearl Harbor to the west). Much more likely we will get caught with our pants down in those situations. However, the one hole in your point, and it is the size the Grand Canyon, is the fact that when we invaded France, WE PREPARED FOR SEVERAL YEARS. NOT PREEMPTIVE.

This is a preemptive attack. There is no arguing that fact, because it is ...fact.

Lack of armor is one piece of the puzzle, it signifies what really is going on, that we sent a load of poorly trained soldiers (i.e. National Guard, Army Reserve) who have crappy equipment, crappy training, crappy morale and in low numbers with the expectation that we will fight an effective war and wind up victorious? How?

Rummy and other officials ought to expect this kind of questioning DAILY, but he seemed surprised.

Disclaimer - someone helped me write this (which I'm sure is obvious.)

[DonkeyPunch (Banned)]

Oh, good lord.

In a related development, it was revealed Thursday (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6676765/)that a reporter claims to have helped the soldier prepare the question directed at Rumsfeld. The Poynter Institute, a news media think tank, published on its Web site an e-mail from reporter Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga Times Free Press in which he explains how he worked with the soldier since he wasn't allowed to question Rumsfeld himself.

So it wasn't really the soldier questioning Rumsfeld, it was the soldier agreeing to play middleman.

:ostrich:
Wave your plagarized NYT articles!

[Professor Donald Trump]

Oh, good lord.

In a related development, it was revealed Thursday (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6676765/)that a reporter claims to have helped the soldier prepare the question directed at Rumsfeld. The Poynter Institute, a news media think tank, published on its Web site an e-mail from reporter Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga Times Free Press in which he explains how he worked with the soldier since he wasn't allowed to question Rumsfeld himself.

So it wasn't really the soldier questioning Rumsfeld, it was the soldier agreeing to play middleman.

:ostrich:
Wave your plagarized NYT articles!

We all know how these spontaneous sessions are SUPPOSED to go.
A group of handpicked soldiers cheer up a storm, like good boys.
Rummy answers a few softball questions.
It all gets played in the styx.

[DonkeyPunch (Banned)]

Oh, good lord.

In a related development, it was revealed Thursday (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6676765/)that a reporter claims to have helped the soldier prepare the question directed at Rumsfeld. The Poynter Institute, a news media think tank, published on its Web site an e-mail from reporter Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga Times Free Press in which he explains how he worked with the soldier since he wasn't allowed to question Rumsfeld himself.

So it wasn't really the soldier questioning Rumsfeld, it was the soldier agreeing to play middleman.

:ostrich:
Wave your plagarized NYT articles!

We all know how these spontaneous sessions are SUPPOSED to go.
A group of handpicked soldiers cheer up a storm, like good boys.
Rummy answers a few softball questions.
It all gets played in the styx.

We all know what plays in your sticks.
:ostrich:
Wave your fradulent National Guard documents!

[Aaron Brachowitz]

This is a the army doesn't think it is cost efficient. If you want to send the young men of our country somewhere to put themselves in harms way then properly equip them. If there is a shortage of the equipment then they will make due with what they have. But don't shortchange them for a few bucks which is what appears to be happening.
It's not about money. There may be steely-eyed penny-pinchers somewhere who coldly calculate dollars spent vs. lives lost, but they don't work in DoD procurement, where during wartime money is no object. The production facilities are maxed out. They could build another factory but that wouldn't change things anytime soon.

You say we must "properly equip" our soldiers. I'm saying that there are many people who will never say that standard has been reached. If it's not armored Humvees, it's something else. If our soldiers are wearing 2002 vests, they want the 2004 vest, and really we should wait for the vest we think is coming out in 2006. You can play that game for years or longer, and it's a game being played by people whose concern is not so much our soldiers' well-being as it is anger about the war itself.

[Professor Donald Trump]

It's not about money.

Possibly the most naive statement I've ever read.
Congrats!
:tup:

[snafu]

This is a the army doesn't think it is cost efficient. If you want to send the young men of our country somewhere to put themselves in harms way then properly equip them. If there is a shortage of the equipment then they will make due with what they have. But don't shortchange them for a few bucks which is what appears to be happening.
It's not about money. There may be steely-eyed penny-pinchers somewhere who coldly calculate dollars spent vs. lives lost, but they don't work in DoD procurement, where during wartime money is no object. The production facilities are maxed out. They could build another factory but that wouldn't change things anytime soon.

You say we must "properly equip" our soldiers. I'm saying that there are many people who will never say that standard has been reached. If it's not armored Humvees, it's something else. If our soldiers are wearing 2002 vests, they want the 2004 vest, and really we should wait for the vest we think is coming out in 2006. You can play that game for years or longer, and it's a game being played by people whose concern is not so much our soldiers' well-being as it is anger about the war itself.

I'm talking more along the lines of our soldiers having to purchase their own vests because the unit was not fully supplied. The availability for purchase on the open market implies that supply exists.

I'm talking about front-line reserve units manufacturing their own make-shift humvee underarmor while rear-guard regular army units traipse around in full supply.

I'm talking about exactly the kind of shit that you as a vet should be outraged about. And this isn't coming from 2pac but rather from someone that has been sending weekly care packages to the area.

[Fiveagain]

Titania, we knew in the 1930s that big problems were brewing in Europe. We definitely had time to prepare for World War II. Our leaders knew there was a good possibility we would be drawn into the conflict well before Pearl Harbor.

I agree that we have the best prepared military with the best equipment in the world. We can always strive to do better, but what is the max?

This argument reminds me of the health care argument. We can spend over $1,000,000 on one preemie baby, but can we really afford it? Or, if it takes millions to extend the life of an older person with heart trouble???? There is a limit. And, there is a limit to military spending.

[Titania]

I wonder if AB would be satisfied with his outfitting if he were over there right now.

[Tim><]

I wonder if AB would be satisfied with his outfitting if he were over there right now.I wonder if you would be happy if we placed twice as many soldiers and tripled the budget for the war.

[MNBridge]

I'll say it again: American troops are the best-armed and best-protected in the world. Do you disagree?

You are correct. But how many other nations are supporting a war half way around the world? If we weren't the best-armed we wouldn't have been able to even consider the Iraq invasion.

Do you agree that if two armies are of equal strength that the one who gets to stay at home has the advantage over the one that has to ship everything else in?

[Professor Donald Trump]

I wonder if AB would be satisfied with his outfitting if he were over there right now.I wonder if you would be happy if we placed twice as many soldiers and tripled the budget for the war.

We already did that.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

I wonder if AB would be satisfied with his outfitting if he were over there right now.
My satisfaction was never the standard for setting military policy when I was over there. I wouldn't expect to be if I went again. But I'm the naive one.

[Tim><]

I wonder if AB would be satisfied with his outfitting if he were over there right now.I wonder if you would be happy if we placed twice as many soldiers and tripled the budget for the war.

We already did that.

And every antiwar person screamed about how it was unnecessary. They pointed out that the US has the largest military budget in the world several times over. They complained that we were sending so many soldiers in to fight a war that we won ten years ago.

[Titania]

I wonder if AB would be satisfied with his outfitting if he were over there right now.I wonder if you would be happy if we placed twice as many soldiers and tripled the budget for the war.I'd be happiest if we never went.

Since we did, I've been on record the entire time supporting more troops and more funding.

Yes, please double the number of soldiers. I've been arguing that point for a year.

It's kinda like when I'm shopping for a suit...I could spend less on a suit that will last on season, and have to buy a new one every year. Or, I could spend twice as much this year, but the suit is a lovely classic Anne Klein and will be in style for 4 years.

I save money in the long run.

Now that we're in Iraq, let's not be half-assed about it.

[Professor Donald Trump]

I wonder if AB would be satisfied with his outfitting if he were over there right now.I wonder if you would be happy if we placed twice as many soldiers and tripled the budget for the war.

We already did that.

And every antiwar person screamed about how it was unnecessary. They pointed out that the US has the largest military budget in the world several times over. They complained that we were sending so many soldiers in to fight a war that we won ten years ago.

If this were a social program, it'd be killed.

[Professor Donald Trump]

Yes, please double the number of soldiers. I've been arguing that point for a year.

It worked in the Nam, right?
:shake:

[Tim><]

Yes, please double the number of soldiers. I've been arguing that point for a year.

It worked in the Nam, right?
:shake:

I win!

[Titania]

Yes, please double the number of soldiers. I've been arguing that point for a year.

It worked in the Nam, right?
:shake:The idea would have been to go in there with twice as many right off the bat, so that the insurgency never had a chance to organize, and then get out quickly. I believe this is the Powell Doctrine - overwhelming force.

Unfortunately, the Bush admin didn't have the foresight to see beyond toppling Saddam, and so they calculated overwhelming force relative to defeating the Iraqi military, not the larger task of stabilizing the country afterwards.

[Titania]

I wonder if AB would be satisfied with his outfitting if he were over there right now.
My satisfaction was never the standard for setting military policy when I was over there. I wouldn't expect to be if I went again. But I'm the naive one.I bet if you were there and your guys were complaining to you, you'd take their grievances up the ladder.

[Professor Donald Trump]

Yes, please double the number of soldiers. I've been arguing that point for a year.

It worked in the Nam, right?
:shake:

I win!

Congratulations.

[Professor Donald Trump]

Yes, please double the number of soldiers. I've been arguing that point for a year.

It worked in the Nam, right?
:shake:The idea would have been to go in there with twice as many right off the bat, so that the insurgency never had a chance to organize, and then get out quickly.

But, they did it half-assed, and it will cost more money and lives in the long run.

Escalation won't work now.
No matter what happens, we have no plans to leave Iraq any time soon. Our plan has always been for a long-term occupation. That is still the plan.

[Titania]

Yes, please double the number of soldiers. I've been arguing that point for a year.

It worked in the Nam, right?
:shake:The idea would have been to go in there with twice as many right off the bat, so that the insurgency never had a chance to organize, and then get out quickly.

But, they did it half-assed, and it will cost more money and lives in the long run.

Escalation won't work now. I'm not sure I agree. Some days I feel one way (let's just get out), other days I feel the other way (let's spend more and stabilize things, and then get out.)
No matter what happens, we have no plans to leave Iraq any time soon. Our plan has always been for a long-term occupation. That is still the plan.Yep.

[MNBridge]

MN's thoughts on war.

If necessary, blow the crap out of everything. If that seems to drastic then it's not time to go to war yet.

There is no need for soldiers to be getting killed. All the have to do is say, We are coming into falejgtafhla in one week. Anyone there is probably going to be killed. We won't be checking ID's.
Set up refugee camps outside the city limits. People come out.
Then when the time comes you go in, all bets are off, If you stayed you will probably die.

If that seems to drastic then --- Maybe we shouldn't have gone to war.

We have way to many machines and heavy artillery for people to still be getting killed in hand to hand combat.

[Zorro]

MN's thoughts on war.

If necessary, blow the crap out of everything. If that seems to drastic then it's not time to go to war yet.

There is no need for soldiers to be getting killed. All the have to do is say, We are coming into falejgtafhla in one week. Anyone there is probably going to be killed. We won't be checking ID's.
Set up refugee camps outside the city limits. People come out.
Then when the time comes you go in, all bets are off, If you stayed you will probably die.

If that seems to drastic then --- Maybe we shouldn't have gone to war.

We have way to many machines and heavy artillery for people to still be getting killed in hand to hand combat.
Apart from blow the crap out of everything, would this serve a purpose?

[Titania]

Sometimes I think about WWII and this conflict.

In WWII, the entire nation was asked to sacrifice for the war effort.

When we started this conflict, we were only asked to continue going to the mall to somehow support the economy. Except for the military, no one was asked to give up anything.

Sometimes I think that, if issue isn't so dire that the entire nation isn't asked to sacrifice, maybe it's not important enough to go to war.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

I'm talking more along the lines of our soldiers having to purchase their own vests because the unit was not fully supplied. The availability for purchase on the open market implies that supply exists.
In dozens or hundreds, sure. But in the quantities required (tens of thousands or more), the civilian market would've dried up immediately. By the time the civilian market would have replenished, the Pentagon contractor had already delivered.

I'm talking about front-line reserve units manufacturing their own make-shift humvee underarmor while rear-guard regular army units traipse around in full supply.
There's no way to justify this when your frame of reference is equity and concern for individual soldiers. Yep, it sucks. But the frame of reference of the chain of command is on winning the war and deploying the proper units to the key places. If they start worrying about who has what vest and what level of Humvee armor, and start forcing units to continually swap out equipment based on who is where, then forget about any kind of military effectiveness going forward. More lives are saved by executing properly-conceived plans violently and boldly than are saved by ensuring that every supply shortage is resolved and every inequity addressed. And soldiers know that.

[MNBridge]

Apart from blow the crap out of everything, would this serve a purpose?

I guess to answer that I would have to ask "What is our goal?"
And what do we have to do to acheive that goal? &lt;-- Saddam's gone what is left? Free elections, OK what do we need to do for that. Apparently going into Fasgfdhae was one of the steps. Why, I guess I'm not sure.

What goal would my plan not achieve that going into the city and fighting 'around' civilians would?

Maybe I lost you here, Blow the crap out of means while engaged in war do not hold back. If something moves kill it. It doesn't mean the literal sense of destroy every building. &lt;--- Sorry if that was confusing I can see where it would be.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

I wonder if AB would be satisfied with his outfitting if he were over there right now.
My satisfaction was never the standard for setting military policy when I was over there. I wouldn't expect to be if I went again. But I'm the naive one.I bet if you were there and your guys were complaining to you, you'd take their grievances up the ladder.
Taking soldier grievances up the chain could've been a full-time job, but I would've failed miserably at everything else, like training and preparing for combat. All my guys came home intact. That doesn't mean they were happy the whole time.

[Titania]

I wonder if AB would be satisfied with his outfitting if he were over there right now.
My satisfaction was never the standard for setting military policy when I was over there. I wouldn't expect to be if I went again. But I'm the naive one.I bet if you were there and your guys were complaining to you, you'd take their grievances up the ladder.
Taking soldier grievances up the chain could've been a full-time job, but I would've failed miserably at everything else, like training and preparing for combat. All my guys came home intact. That doesn't mean they were happy the whole time.So, what exactly does "supporting the troops" mean to you, if not making the effort to equip them as much as possible?

[Aaron Brachowitz]

So, what exactly does "supporting the troops" mean to you, if not making the effort to equip them as much as possible?
You apparently haven't been reading my posts. We're not talking about absolutes, we're talking about degrees. If "as much as possible" means ceasing operations until every soldier has the absolute maximum degree of protection available with existing technology (by which time the existing technology will be out-of-date), then I guess I'm not supporting the troops. But I don't think you can operate an army that way. We never have before.

[Titania]

So, what exactly does "supporting the troops" mean to you, if not making the effort to equip them as much as possible?
You apparently haven't been reading my posts. We're not talking about absolutes, we're talking about degrees. If "as much as possible" means ceasing operations until every soldier has the absolute maximum degree of protection available with existing technology (by which time the existing technology will be out-of-date), then I guess I'm not supporting the troops. But I don't think you can operate an army that way. We never have before.I think you read my question with an unintended snarky tone.

I think that people are reacting not only to uneven distribution of supplies/equipment, but to Rummy's reaction (somewhat suprised and then callous.)

[snafu]

So, what exactly does "supporting the troops" mean to you, if not making the effort to equip them as much as possible?
You apparently haven't been reading my posts. We're not talking about absolutes, we're talking about degrees. If "as much as possible" means ceasing operations until every soldier has the absolute maximum degree of protection available with existing technology (by which time the existing technology will be out-of-date), then I guess I'm not supporting the troops. But I don't think you can operate an army that way. We never have before.I think you read my question with an unintended snarky tone.

I think that people are reacting not only to uneven distribution of supplies/equipment, but to Rummy's reaction (somewhat suprised and then callous.)

AB - I think Titiana states this pretty well. I understand that every inequity can't be fixed and that sometimes soldiers just have to shut up and soldier. I even understand that commanders often have more important things to do than fight a bunch of grievances up the chain of command.

But don't you think that we, the civilians that stay home, should be a little outraged over these items. Don't you think that the people at the top of the chain of command should at least be concerned about these kinds of things happening. There is a lot of inefficiency and wasteful allocation going on. As I understand it (not from direct experience but from various relative and friends with combat experience in every action starting with WWII) this is nothing new and has been going on for many previous wars. You seem to be taking a view that the military can do no wrong. I'm taking a view of calling them on stupid shit in hopes that they will fix it.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Absolutely, point out the problems and try to fix them. But don't accuse commanders of not caring -- my firsthand experience tells me they care deeply. And don't expect them to reverse one of the laws of nature, namely that warfare is a chaotic, messy, inefficient business. Trying to straighten things out and manage things efficiently almost certainly means losing focus on winning, which requires quick, decisive action and forcing units to quickly do things they don't understand, don't think are possible, and don't think they are properly equipped to do. My deep concern is that the chain of command will begin focusing less on winning and more on politically sensitive issues such as these, at which point American casualties will become both higher and more pointless, since we will no longer be fighting to win.

[Titania]

I think it's safe to accuse Rumsfeld of not caring.

[Lee Mellon]

So it wasn't really the soldier questioning Rumsfeld, it was the soldier agreeing to play middleman.
Which of course makes it not a question at all and magically applies proper armor to every vehicle.

Happened in Vietnam also, with under armoring of helicopters. If you don't think there's an algebra to the cost to protect a grunt then you're kidding yourself.

[The Drunken Actuary]

I think it's safe to accuse Rumsfeld of not caring.And Bush.

[krank]

This is a the army doesn't think it is cost efficient. If you want to send the young men of our country somewhere to put themselves in harms way then properly equip them. If there is a shortage of the equipment then they will make due with what they have. But don't shortchange them for a few bucks which is what appears to be happening.
It's not about money. There may be steely-eyed penny-pinchers somewhere who coldly calculate dollars spent vs. lives lost, but they don't work in DoD procurement, where during wartime money is no object. The production facilities are maxed out. They could build another factory but that wouldn't change things anytime soon.

You say we must "properly equip" our soldiers. I'm saying that there are many people who will never say that standard has been reached. If it's not armored Humvees, it's something else. If our soldiers are wearing 2002 vests, they want the 2004 vest, and really we should wait for the vest we think is coming out in 2006. You can play that game for years or longer, and it's a game being played by people whose concern is not so much our soldiers' well-being as it is anger about the war itself.

That's not true. On Scarborough last night a rep for a company making armour claimed they were only at 50% production and have notified the Pentagon repetadly. Also their armour is 1/3 the weight of steel making it very suitable for the conditions in Iraq.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

If you don't think there's an algebra to the cost to protect a grunt then you're kidding yourself.
More lives are saved by quick, decisive action than by any piece of equipment, so yes there is an algebra to not putting six inches of armor plate on everything that rolls or flies. And I fail to see how the army that spends more on protective equipment than any other army can be accused of pinching pennies.

[Lee Mellon]

And I fail to see how the army that spends more on protective equipment than any other army can be accused of pinching pennies.
OK, so you fail from time to time. No biggie. The key here is that the desk riders failed to properly predict the continuation and nature of the present conflict (naysayers get the gate in the current make) and so the ground transport is under-armored. USA may have spent more on protective gear, but may have failed to spend it in the right places. I don't have a big problem with bad projections so long as corrective actions are taken in short order once the obvious emerges. The USA has not cranked up the call for armoring, until maybe next week now that Sir Rummie has been publicly exposed for the jerk that he is.

[DonkeyPunch (Banned)]

CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee (AP) -- A newspaper should have told its readers promptly that an embedded reporter had helped frame a question that a serviceman asked of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this week in Kuwait, the publisher says.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/10/chattanooga.paper.ap/index.html

Wave your forged National Guard documents!

[Guerilla poster]

The funny thing about this is Rumsfeld's crap answer. At least he tells the truth, nothing like properly equipping/manning the military was going to stop his rush to overthrow Saddam.

[krank]

The funny thing about this is Rumsfeld's crap answer. At least he tells the truth, nothing like properly equipping/manning the military was going to stop his rush to overthrow Saddam.

well he was about to attack... wasn't he?

[Guerilla poster]

The funny thing about this is Rumsfeld's crap answer. At least he tells the truth, nothing like properly equipping/manning the military was going to stop his rush to overthrow Saddam.

well he was about to attack... wasn't he?

a gathering threat :shake:

[Ronald Reagan]

CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee (AP) -- A newspaper should have told its readers promptly that an embedded reporter had helped frame a question that a serviceman asked of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this week in Kuwait, the publisher says.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/10/chattanooga.paper.ap/index.html

Wave your forged National Guard documents!

I suppose the other people there were told to give it a big applause, too.

They are loosing 'em.

After they are finished calling up grandmothers, I can't wait to see the draft.

[krank]

The funny thing about this is Rumsfeld's crap answer. At least he tells the truth, nothing like properly equipping/manning the military was going to stop his rush to overthrow Saddam.

well he was about to attack... wasn't he?

a gathering threat :shake:

did they steal that from LoTR

[Guerilla poster]

I wonder how AB would feel if it is was his kid over there?

[DonkeyPunch (Banned)]

CHATTANOOGA, Tennessee (AP) -- A newspaper should have told its readers promptly that an embedded reporter had helped frame a question that a serviceman asked of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld this week in Kuwait, the publisher says.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/10/chattanooga.paper.ap/index.html

Wave your forged National Guard documents!

I suppose the other people there were told to give it a big applause, too.

Maybe ...

He also said he went to the officer running the question and answer session "and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd."

Sounds like the reporter coordinated this with several different people.

[fallout]

I wonder if AB would be satisfied with his outfitting if he were over there right now.I wonder if you would be happy if we placed twice as many soldiers and tripled the budget for the war.I'd be happiest if we never went.

Since we did, I've been on record the entire time supporting more troops and more funding.

Yes, please double the number of soldiers. I've been arguing that point for a year.

It's kinda like when I'm shopping for a suit...I could spend less on a suit that will last on season, and have to buy a new one every year. Or, I could spend twice as much this year, but the suit is a lovely classic Anne Klein and will be in style for 4 years.

I save money in the long run.

Now that we're in Iraq, let's not be half-assed about it.

If we are not searching for WMD's anymore, why would you want more Americans and Iraqis to be killed?

How can you justify the next soldier/Iraqi killed?

[Titania]

I wonder if AB would be satisfied with his outfitting if he were over there right now.I wonder if you would be happy if we placed twice as many soldiers and tripled the budget for the war.I'd be happiest if we never went.

Since we did, I've been on record the entire time supporting more troops and more funding.

Yes, please double the number of soldiers. I've been arguing that point for a year.

It's kinda like when I'm shopping for a suit...I could spend less on a suit that will last on season, and have to buy a new one every year. Or, I could spend twice as much this year, but the suit is a lovely classic Anne Klein and will be in style for 4 years.

I save money in the long run.

Now that we're in Iraq, let's not be half-assed about it.

If we are not searching for WMD's anymore, why would you want more Americans and Iraqis to be killed? You're right, I don't. Let's bring our boys home, all of them, and let the IRaqis fend for themselves.

How can you justify the next soldier/Iraqi killed?I can't. Ask W.

[The Drunken Actuary]

How can you justify the next soldier/Iraqi killed?How can anyone?

[Professor Donald Trump]

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




http://www.rense.com/1.imagesG/humv.jpg

[Vlagmar]

Doesn't anybody remember the "Pentagon Papers". The problem with government is government itself. The sheer amount of bureaucracy will chew up a big portion of every tax dollar through inefficiencies, fraud, corruption and wasteful spending.

If anybody wants to be invloved with the military then make them have to fight. That would certainly make defense contractors a bit more efficient.

[Professor Donald Trump]

Doesn't anybody remember the "Pentagon Papers". The problem with government is government itself. The sheer amount of bureaucracy will chew up a big portion of every tax dollar through inefficiencies, fraud, corruption and wasteful spending.

If anybody wants to be invloved with the military then make them have to fight. That would certainly make defense contractors a bit more efficient.

One of the best books ever.

[Vlagmar]

Doesn't anybody remember the "Pentagon Papers". The problem with government is government itself. The sheer amount of bureaucracy will chew up a big portion of every tax dollar through inefficiencies, fraud, corruption and wasteful spending.

If anybody wants to be invloved with the military then make them have to fight. That would certainly make defense contractors a bit more efficient.

One of the best books ever.and if they put some of those business people against a wall and shot them for risking the lives of soldiers or wasting military budgets, the practice would probably stop overnight. Where is Stalin when you need him?

[eminusipi]

Doesn't anybody remember the "Pentagon Papers". The problem with government is government itself. The sheer amount of bureaucracy will chew up a big portion of every tax dollar through inefficiencies, fraud, corruption and wasteful spending.

If anybody wants to be invloved with the military then make them have to fight. That would certainly make defense contractors a bit more efficient.

One of the best books ever.and if they put some of those business people against a wall and shot them for risking the lives of soldiers or wasting military budgets, the practice would probably stop overnight. Where is Stalin when you need him?

Since you to ask...


Now I've got my payment
For the service that I gave
They've given me my ticket
To this place beyond the grave
I suppose it's kind of funny
I suppose it's kind of sad
Thinking back on all the times we had

CHORUS:
But it's kind of hot and smoky
In this anteroom to Hell
And I won't make up a story
'Cause you know the truth so well
It's much too late to worry
That we never had a chance
And when Joe the Georgian gets here
We will dance, dance dance
When Joe the Georgian gets here
We will dance

We all set off together
On this sorry ship of state
When the captain took the fever
We were hijacked by the mate
And he steered us through the shadows
Upon an angry tide
And cast us one by one over the side

CHORUS

There's Kamenev, Zinoviev,
Bukharin and the rest
We're sharpening our pitchforks
And we're heating up the ends
We've got a few surprises
For the mate when he appears
I hope he likes the next few million years

CHORUS

[Aaron Brachowitz]

The press is uncritically taking the word of a junior soldier that his unit is being sent into combat unprepared. I think a little research will prove this untrue, if anyone bothers.

I'm not the type to say "I told you so." Actually, I am the type. Read on.



Pentagon: All vehicles armored by June (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/yahoo/chi-0412160201dec16,1,661966.story)

December 16, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials, confronting a growing furor that has thrown the military on the defensive, have begun firing back at those questioning whether it has supplied enough armored vehicles in Iraq.

As part of the offensive, an Army general said Wednesday the military will spend more than $4 billion to ensure that all U.S. military vehicles in the war zone carry protective armor by next June.

Major Gen. Stephen Speakes, the Army's director of force development, told a Pentagon briefing Wednesday that the Army has moved aggressively to increase the production of armored Humvees and trucks for convoys in Iraq, as well as "bolt-on" kits that allow armor plates to be placed on unarmored vehicles already in the country.

(much later in the article)...

Responding to the questions raised by Spec. Wilson in Kuwait, Speakes said all of his unit's vehicles were retrofitted with armor before entering Iraq, and that the unit acquired more armored vehicles once there. The final armoring of the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment's fleet, he said, was finished within 24 hours after Wilson spoke to Rumsfeld.

[krank]

Hillbilly Armor'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6700920/site/newsweek/

[Ronald Reagan]

The press is uncritically taking the word of a junior soldier that his unit is being sent into combat unprepared. I think a little research will prove this untrue, if anyone bothers.

I'm not the type to say "I told you so." Actually, I am the type. Read on.



Pentagon: All vehicles armored by June (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/yahoo/chi-0412160201dec16,1,661966.story)

December 16, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Pentagon officials, confronting a growing furor that has thrown the military on the defensive, have begun firing back at those questioning whether it has supplied enough armored vehicles in Iraq.

As part of the offensive, an Army general said Wednesday the military will spend more than $4 billion to ensure that all U.S. military vehicles in the war zone carry protective armor by next June.

Major Gen. Stephen Speakes, the Army's director of force development, told a Pentagon briefing Wednesday that the Army has moved aggressively to increase the production of armored Humvees and trucks for convoys in Iraq, as well as "bolt-on" kits that allow armor plates to be placed on unarmored vehicles already in the country.

(much later in the article)...

Responding to the questions raised by Spec. Wilson in Kuwait, Speakes said all of his unit's vehicles were retrofitted with armor before entering Iraq, and that the unit acquired more armored vehicles once there. The final armoring of the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment's fleet, he said, was finished within 24 hours after Wilson spoke to Rumsfeld.

What is your point. We know the way to force them into action is political embarrasment. So, it worked. Pressure on the gov worked. However, I don't see your point, though I'm sure you are making excuses for these clowns, somehow.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

What is your point. We know the way to force them into action is political embarrasment. So, it worked. Pressure on the gov worked. However, I don't see your point, though I'm sure you are making excuses for these clowns, somehow.
It worked in 24 hours? No, I don't think so. That's my point. The heroic soldier was misinformed about the status of his unit's vehicles. But it was too good of a story to actually check the facts.

[Ronald Reagan]

What is your point. We know the way to force them into action is political embarrasment. So, it worked. Pressure on the gov worked. However, I don't see your point, though I'm sure you are making excuses for these clowns, somehow.
It worked in 24 hours? No, I don't think so. That's my point. The heroic soldier was misinformed about the status of his unit's vehicles. But it was too good of a story to actually check the facts.

His unit got good HV's within 24 hours, yes that's possible (It doesn't say they were built in 24 hrs, only that the received them in 24 hours. So, they re-allocated resources, not unbelievale to me.) However, all of the rest of the soldiers wouldn't have gotten them, ever.

Congrats to the brave fella. Whether you like it or not, he forced them into action.

[eminusipi]

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/12/grilling-your-superiors.html


As one of my combat instructors told us: "Marines, you're more likely to die from someone doing something stupid than because the enemy is skilled and ingenious. So make sure you've thought things through and that everyone's on the same page. Be polite. Be tactful. But don't be afraid to ask questions."

...

The American military has a huge battlefield advantage simply because it is characteristically American. Compared to almost all the rest of the world’s militaries, ours is remarkably informal. Rank is important, make no mistake, but there is a much higher level of collegiality among officers and NCOs than civilians imagine...

And that's why a National Guard E4 can stand up and ask the secretary of defense why his Humvees aren't armored yet. It's not Spc. Wilson's fault that Rummy botched the answer.



Remember not if these Fark lynx (http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1258652) work.