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.

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]

Originally Posted by Professor John Merrick

Link

$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]

Originally Posted by Titania

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><]

Originally Posted by :Moeltdown:

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/new...protection.pdf

[Moe Szyslak]

Originally Posted by Tim&gt;&lt;

Good guess.

Thanks!

Why do you think it was a guess?