Missing in Action
Our paper of record, for better or worse, is The Oregonian. They have embedded reporters with our guard units and have published some lovely stories about the troops handing out candy to Iraqi children and even managed a story about the body armor shortage a few months ago when the background noise started to get a bit overwhelming. Still, they’ve been mostly missing in action on the serious stories regarding equipment and troop safety.
Finally last week, we got a couple of questions asked regarding the safety of our friends and neighbors serving in The Big Adventure in Iraq. A Tennessee reporter working with a recently deployed guardsman from his state, managed to ask dear old Rummy a question for which he was totally unprepared. He wondered why our guys were digging up scrap metal in Kuwait and Iraq to armor up the Humvees. Rummy, had a classic dodge and weave reaction, alleging among other things that “As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” This from a guy who had fifteen months to plan for his administration’s elective military action. He and his NeoCon buddies have settled on their mantra for the entire fiasco which is roughly that “No one could have known……….whatever”, and it’s certainly true that the Fourth Estate, including The Oregonian have pretty much sat on the sidelines drinking the Kool-Aid for the last two years.
We still don’t have a clue about the number of kids from Sand, Medford, Baker City and Klamath Falls that have been wounded in action. The Pentagon has done everything that it can to suppress such figures, again aided and abetted by the press. We have known for over a year now that the humvees and the personnel patrolling in them were severely under armored.
How many unnecessary injuries have our guys sustained? I spent a little time Googling around this morning and found a lot of wildly divergent figures on these casualties. One report, from the US military hospital at Landstuhl Germany cited February 2004 statistics from the Deployed Warrior Medical Management Center showing that 11,652 from Iraq and Operation Enduring Freedom have been treated at Landstuhl. Of these, only 1,232—roughly one in 10—returned to duty; 10,420 required further medical treatment. I don't kow what percentage of these highly trained and fiercely patriotic warriors could have been protected by due diligence on the part of DOD and the press, but I sure would like to find out.
So let’s all request that The Oregonian get on the job. If their mission is to sell advertising space to the real estate and automobile industry, we can applaud them for a job well done. If, on the other hand, their mission is to act as a counterbalance to government dogma and to provide facts and perspective to their readers, they have dropped the ball on the Iraq story, and may well have contributed to the casualty figures by their lack of diligence.
|
December 11, 2004 |
Pat Ryan | Comments (103 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Chuck Sheketoff | Dec 11, 2004 8:50:19 PM
OPB is missing in action, too. The "reporting" from Christian Foden-Vencil the past week or so was a true echo chamber. I have tremendous respect for the reporters and photographers who risk their lives going to Iraq - it is a damn dangerous place. My respect, however, does not mean I must accept their stories as accurate pictures of what's really going on there. The reporting by the Oregonian and OPB has been risky, but not enterprising. That's one reason our household will only give OPB the minimum required to receive their program guide, nothing more.
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 11, 2004 10:54:56 PM
Well I PROMISE Kari, One last time.
Called a close relation in the Army, he has been in Iraq 3 times.....in on the very first advance into the country, in and out 2 times more, and going back in Jan. 05.
The thing he says is the following:
THE SHORTAGE OF BODY ARMOR."its BS! we all had armor, maybe not the most current at first, but no one went without it.
The so-called poor armored Humvee's.
The majority never had real armor to begin with, but in 12 yrs in service(lets see, do the math, which president was that????) they never were ordered with anything special anyway. How does he know? He is maintainece supervisor working on Humvees and light trucks.
Supply issues: The best friend of mine, retired combat Marine and supply officer in Nam, said the same thing, ''combat priorities are,"AMMO, WATER, FOOD!" no one was short in Iraq.PERIOD!
The guy I know in Iraq was pissed when some whinning resevist wrote his mom had said, they were short of water>"BS, they didn't have bottled water for about 2 weeks, but used river water in plenty of supply, but the Mommy's "boy" didn't like putting the tablets in the canteens as we did in NAM.
The guy I know in Iraq also is tired of the reservist who for some have done Hero work, but those like the WHINNERS to Mommy, and too Rummy, need to SHUT UP an do the damn job they were sent too do, that to kill the bastards that try to kill them and break things these badguys use.
The older Humvees ,breakdown with over plated with armor weight piled on, the new ones have more suspension and power, but will never totally save a life if hit.
Finally, Lars had some retired Col.on his show yesterday, Bitching his grandson was going to the "sandpile" in Jan. "if Bush didn't get more armor there ,"he would raise Hell in DC.
May I remind the Lib s-- That if he was there for 20 yrs, the army and Marines are not training for beach assualts anymore and gave that up alongtime ago, it's been urban warfare for over ten years plus for training and equipment purchases.
So if the lib retired Col. is worried about armor for his lib granson now, "why the hell didn't he worry about my kid when he was in Kosovo, Afganistan and Iraq. To busy I GUESS!
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 11, 2004 10:55:56 PM
Well I PROMISE Kari, One last time.
Called a close relation in the Army, he has been in Iraq 3 times.....in on the very first advance into the country, in and out 2 times more, and going back in Jan. 05.
The thing he says is the following:
THE SHORTAGE OF BODY ARMOR."its BS! we all had armor, maybe not the most current at first, but no one went without it.
The so-called poor armored Humvee's.
The majority never had real armor to begin with, but in 12 yrs in service(lets see, do the math, which president was that????) they never were ordered with anything special anyway. How does he know? He is maintainece supervisor working on Humvees and light trucks.
Supply issues: The best friend of mine, retired combat Marine and supply officer in Nam, said the same thing, ''combat priorities are,"AMMO, WATER, FOOD!" no one was short in Iraq.PERIOD!
The guy I know in Iraq was pissed when some whinning resevist wrote his mom had said, they were short of water>"BS, they didn't have bottled water for about 2 weeks, but used river water in plenty of supply, but the Mommy's "boy" didn't like putting the tablets in the canteens as we did in NAM.
The guy I know in Iraq also is tired of the reservist who for some have done Hero work, but those like the WHINNERS to Mommy, and too Rummy, need to SHUT UP an do the damn job they were sent too do, that to kill the bastards that try to kill them and break things these badguys use.
The older Humvees ,breakdown with over plated with armor weight piled on, the new ones have more suspension and power, but will never totally save a life if hit.
Finally, Lars had some retired Col.on his show yesterday, Bitching his grandson was going to the "sandpile" in Jan. "if Bush didn't get more armor there ,"he would raise Hell in DC.
May I remind the Lib s-- That if he was there for 20 yrs, the army and Marines are not training for beach assualts anymore and gave that up alongtime ago, it's been urban warfare for over ten years plus for training and equipment purchases.
So if the lib retired Col. is worried about armor for his lib granson now, "why the hell didn't he worry about my kid when he was in Kosovo, Afganistan and Iraq. To busy I GUESS!
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Dec 12, 2004 8:27:25 AM
Speaking of Rummy and the O, Sarasohn and Reinhard both had editorials on the Secretary today. Reinhard proves, yet again, that he resists joining the "reality based community." He's in a spider hole somewhere, redio station tuned in to Lars ...
Posted by: Becky | Dec 12, 2004 9:38:07 AM
War, no matter how worthy, is brutal and ugly. That's why we all sober up pretty quick when we think about the price paid for our freedom. LIke Jack said, soldiers need to be tough and deal with the situation they're in. I don't have a problem with these facts when a war is justified. But I do have a very big problem with Iraq. I have never believed that we are there for legitimate reasons, so rather than feeling that the sacrifice we are making - and that the Iraqi people are making - is worthwhile and therefore tolerable, I get more and more angry with each death and each wounding, specifically because I value and support our troops. If there is one thing I want right now, more than anything material, it is to understand why we are there. I don't mean all the BS we're given about how important it was to get rid of that bastard Saddam and his torture chambers and nonexistant WMDs. I mean why was this any of our business, above all the other far more legitimate threats to our safety and all the other legitimate humanitarian needs out there? Why can't the Oregonian find out the answer to that and tell us why this sacrifice our families are making is worthwhile?
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 12, 2004 10:13:15 AM
Jack:
My wife got a serious awakening the other day. There was a group of Navy Swift boat guys and some other Navy vets at a victory party. We did a tour of a Vietnam PTF nasty class boat and she saw where the bridge had been hit by machine gun fire----not a good thing---- it is 1/2 plywood and on the gun tubs of swifts it is 1/4 aluminum, the rear gun is in the open. the gun wing on the boat I was on was also 1/4 aluminum. Did as you said let them know the humvee was designed as a light vehicle and until Iraq had no need for armor. The humvee insn't a heavy combat vehicle and was never intended to be an armored personnel carrier. The humvee was a compromise from Clinton's budget cuts that could replace the Jeep. I guess next they will whine about the John Deere Gators they use in AFGHAN in the mountains not having a bullet proof body.
Mike Bradley
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 12, 2004 10:22:40 AM
Dear Pat.
What part of your missing the point do you not get?
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 12, 2004 11:25:07 AM
OK, The "FING" o has done it again.
And proves the point of you "people" are giving aid an comfort to the enemy.
The beating of two Badguys after killing one of us is not news....GET IT!
Are you "PEOPLE" so sick from hate of the election that this garbage is news? Of course you are.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Dec 12, 2004 11:31:11 AM
There is no way that an embedded journalist will not become part of the team he/she takes fire with. That's human. Reporting truth requires independence from all players. Want some truth? Read Robert Fisk.
If we are not hearing about the plight of our troops, imagine what we are not hearing of the misery of Iraqis.
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 12, 2004 12:03:04 PM
The Iraq people.....the ones that killed the soldier?
Those people I WANT DEAD!
You want the plight of the other people known, gee, then get the "o" to write about the good deeds, the good work, the fine job, we have done.
Otherwise it's aid an comfort to the people that killed that soldier. I have kids there,I know what is going on. Do you?
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Dec 12, 2004 1:24:31 PM
Just rolling all of the Peek pique into one response here.
What is the duty of a patriotic American citizen? It is to be informed, support our nation, support our leaders when they deserve it and criticize them when they deserve it.
I support the troops when I call for steps to be taken to make them safer. When the administration takes action against Al Quaida and their Taliban supporters in Afghanistan (You'll remember them. They're the ones who actually attacked us) I support the administration. When, after 18 months and billions of dollars, kids from my hometown are required to ride out on patrol in deathtraps, I will criticize the administration.
Jack, if you've been reading my posts on this site, you've seen me attack the Democratic Party, the Liberal Mutnomah County commissioners, and most recently, The Oregonian.
I always listen to both sides and try to make up my mind based on the facts. Sometimes one side or the other gets things right, and often both sides could use some improvement.
The press is there to provide a check and balance on whichever government is in power. In this case, I believe that The Oregonian has failed in that mission. If you disagee with my opinion that is healthy. If you call people abunch of names and make personal attacks on them, they will tune you out.
If you want to make useful changes, try moderation in your language and tone. The people that you attack are citizens, and you would be well advised to assume that they actually care this nation. Come to this board with fact based and well researched comments and you will encourage a mutually repectful dialogue.
If you just want to scream at people and insult them, well, that's your right as a citizen, too. Just don't be surprised if everyone ignores what you have to say.
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 12, 2004 2:07:19 PM
WHAT NAMES? yes, it was all caps, SO WHAT!
So ignore me...my words don't count, but my vote does, and you lost. Check those facts out.
The Humvee deal is BS, they never were armored.
What part of that don't you get Pat?
Lastly, you people have learned nothing from all this.as one poster to this site wrote me, "who in the hell cares what they write, "let them continue with it, and lose again!" Damn, excuse me, I need to let you idiots, oops,(I did call a name that time) continue on the road again.
My god,and you think Dean is going to save you?
Posted by: Iron Otter | Dec 12, 2004 2:48:38 PM
The difference in this war from the one we were in in Vietnam, is that in vietnam most of the transportation was by air in armored 'copters. They were shot down as there was no way to armor plate the rotors or the open doorways. I am always amazed at the level of authority of people that were never there but they are so sure they know that they are right. Walk the mile with Jack or another real soldier, or you risk the danger of only being a weapons expert at shooting your mouth off.
Posted by: Rose Pedersen | Dec 12, 2004 3:44:00 PM
Oh Please LIBS GET OVER IT INSTEAD OF SPREADING HATE
STAND BEHIND YOUR PRESIDENT. KERRY WAS A LIAR AND WAS
PROVEN A LIAR OVER AND OVER GEEE.
THIS MILITARY HAS MORE PROTECTION THEN ANY WAR THAT
HAS EVER BEEN FOUGHT !!!! KNOW QUIT A FEW OVER THERE
FIGHTNING NOW ," SAYING THEY ARE WELL EQUIPED TO FIGHT
ANY TERRIORISTS GEE GET A LIFE AND GET REAL.
SAD HOW NEWS MEDIA HAS TO CON A POOR MILITARY SOLDIER
TO GET A STROY TO MAKE HIMSELF LOOK BRAVE.
OUR NEWS MEDIA HAS TURNED INTO SOMETHING ELSE. KEEP
KEEP THEM OUT OF THE WAR ALTOGHER. LET THE MILITARY
FIGHT THIS WAR IF YOU DONT LIKE IT PLEASE GO JOIN.
OH AND THE PATROIT ACT ONLY A FEW PPL DECIDING WHAT
OREGON IS TO DO SHAME SHAME HOW CAN U SLEEP AT NITE.
" YOU WERE TAUGHT DO WITH WHAT A PERSON HAS " NOT
WHAT YOU WANT !!!! OUR MEN AND WOMEN HAVE SUFFICIENT
PROTECTION OVER THERE PLEASE LIBS STOP THE DAM WHINNING.
ONE MORE THING FOR SO-CALLED COMMISSIONER RANDY
LEONARD !!!! YOU ARE A SCUM BAG. THIS IS NOT JACK !!!
SO PLEASE GO AHEAD AND BLOCK YOUR E-MAIL TO ME. WHAT
A JOKE YOU ARE. SOUNDS TO ME LIKE SOMEONE GUILTY
SCUM BAG.
Posted by: Steve Schopp | Dec 12, 2004 3:49:22 PM
Let my try and understand. The Oregonian has not done enough Bush bashing? And it would be better if they were more like Michael Moore?
""""""Finally last week, we got a couple of questions asked regarding the safety of our friends and neighbors serving in The Big Adventure in Iraq."""""
Big Adventure? That must be the context in which YOU place the entire war effort.
A perfect explanation for your lack of accurate context with the Humvees farce.
Why is it you folks beat around the Bush.
Allow me to re-phrase your position.
President Bush, Rumsfeld, the entire administration and all of military commanders are so completely incompetent and of dubious intentions that they virtually deliberately sent thousands of our troops into harms way without the level of protection which simple planning would have provided.
It never occured to them that simple armor wouold protect our troops better.
Proof again that the intelectual liberal is of a higher authoriy and brilliance.
Gee why didn't Rummy and company think of armore?
Isn't that just about your point.
Ever soldier could be in a virtual tank If Bush weren't so stupid and evil right?
"""""""A Tennessee reporter working with a recently deployed guardsman from his state, managed to ask dear old Rummy a question for which he was totally unprepared"""""""""""
Unprepared?
So here again, it never occured to the stupid Bushy Rumsfeld, that a soldier would have a beef about something?
Of course that is preposterous and military brass hear complaints all the time. In every war and during every peace.
The deep meaning you wish to glean from this non-story.
I'm quite certain many of you beleive the true remedy would be to disband the military altogether.
But for today you are content bashing them and their leaders when you are not busy trashing Christmas.
With the Oregonian echoing all things NY Times and the editorial board off the liberal deep end it is quite special to hear they are not far enough to the left.
Wow!
Posted by: Nicola spano | Dec 12, 2004 4:53:12 PM
75% of hum-vees have proper armor and rest are being brought up to par.....If it wasn't the hum-vee question, liberals would whine about something else....at least this gives them a bone to chew on for the time being..
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 12, 2004 5:11:40 PM
To add too this, Lets go back to the stupid Col.,(yes, I called him a name) that was on Lars show Friday I think.
He was "outraged", ( Love that term, you libs use it alot) that Bush didn't do enough to prepare his grandson for war.
Hello, You people read "Blackhawk Down" ?
Why did the father of one of those kids refuse to shake Bubba's hand? Well, why was that?
The idiot Col. who jumped all over Lars was lacking in morality for sure,he was there long before Bush was. Why didn't he jump on Clinton?
Why doesn't Pat ask Ron Wyden ,or Smith, or Earl,(I don't own a car) Bluemanure. They voted for defense money's.
The true, god, that would be awful wouldn't it?
lastly, My kid has been in over ten yrs. He hasn't trained too take a beach EVER! Just house too house, don't tell me Pat, we haven't sent our kids there un-trained or ill prepared.IT'S JUST A LIE!
Posted by: Debbie Button | Dec 12, 2004 8:37:57 PM
Shame on you people.
None of you have a life, all you have to do is bash the nation our troops and the President.
You people need to get out of the rain.
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 12, 2004 9:12:46 PM
Message to Pat Ryan.
Since you will ignore this, I'll just get this off my chest.
Facts, you want facts,from who?
The NY TIMES, "seems they have a little problem with the facts don't you think?
The "0" come on now, you got to be kidding, I'am really shocked it wasn't their reporters "loading" that news deal with Rumsfield.
The guy I want too write the story is someone from Texas, Idaho, Kansas, someone who was really in the "excrement" in combat, or has a duty to tell the story of how much good we have done.
Becky Miller wants to know why we are there.
1. To a degree it is about oil, why don't you all lose oil products period for a week, sorta like giving up water,we can't run the USA without it.
Sub to the above: the BS idea, The President is there too line his pockets with blood money is asine, How much money can one man spend in a lifetime.
2. Hello, if we kill a whole bunch of people there instead of here, we may save lifes ....even Progressives,lets not forget Pat, it isn't us hiding in their holy places, hiding and shooting at us from houses of innocent people,killing their own police, IT'S NOT US!
3. If we are on the borders of the countries of the badguys, and can react in hours or minutes to an attack against us anywhere in the world.. The mindset, maybe, not too attack us....WELL DUH!
4. It's time to be offensive not defensive in war, it beats having your clock cleaned, Like we had on 911.
5. This is the part I like for sure, I know, Gore, or Kerry as president would have set there like the "goobs" they are and allowed us to be nailed again.
Sorry! I have a real problem with bleeding against my will.
Posted by: Beverly Beach | Dec 12, 2004 11:42:38 PM
Looks like the word is out on a conservative email tree to flood the conversations here at Blue. Either agree with the reds or be shouted down and called names. Sad, really sad.
Posted by: sharon | Dec 13, 2004 4:47:32 AM
Hi Jack ..... heres a letter from Iraq
Hump Day All, Hot! Unbelievably hot! Unbelievably freakin' hot!!! |
Helpedsome of my Marines move ammunition crates the day before yesterday at
Ali
Al Salem Air Base. It was 137 degrees. That's right sports fans, One
Hundredand Thirty-Seven degrees. Felt like my damn hands were actually
cooking
inthe heat. Completely soaked through with sweat all the time. The camel
spiders are disgusting, damn things are all over the place at Al-Assad.
They look like something out of "Aliens", but they can't hurt you, got
mouths like a daddy-long legs, can't break the skin.
Checked in to the new AO we are taking over, got a good area recon and
lookat our ground. Walked into the COC. Wham! Wham! Wham! Three mortar
rounds,courtesy of our distinguished enemies lands about 100 meters away.
The
unit we're relieving says "No big deal, this is the third night in a row,
and they can't hit anything." My boss says "BS." The Colonel looks over at
meand says, "Nick, take care of that right away." WTF? I hadn't even had
a chance to drop my gear yet. I said, "Okey, Dokey sir" (a non-doctrinal
Marine Corps response.) I ordered up a counter-battery radar set a
couple of hours later. Also some other surprises. Next night, same, same.
Hit
about 0130, 60mm stuff, so we know they're firing from relatively close,
probably not more than 2-3 clicks out. Our counter-battery fire worked well,
we
now have two 81mm mortar fire-capable 24/7. Rounds go out. Nothing further
heard from Hadji tonight. Nothing heard for the next eight nights, as a
matter of fact. Patrols running well,quiet sector.
Motorized patrols on the MSR and the town's going well, counter mortar
patrols we are running are aggressive and appear to be effective. Ninth
night: Wham! Big stuff, 82mm and 122mm dropping all over. I think about
12-15 rounds total into our FOB, can't give you an exact count, due to
the fact that I was holding onto my butt with both hands during the
explosions. Bad guys suck! Gotta give Hadji credit, he does strike back when
he
can,it just took him over a week to get re-supplied with bigger weapons.
Surprise number one: in addition to our 81's,we now have a platoon (3 guns)
of
155mm M198 howitzers at the FOB. Two of the puppies are fire-capped 24/7
also. Our counter-battery/mortar fire is quicker than hell. Four rounds from
each weapons system, 81's and 155's.Ouch, that's gotta hurt on the receiving
end. Too bad, so sad for Hadji. Should've picked another damn neighborhood
to screw with, not mine.
Hadji is using Somali-like tactics, small trucks, shoot and scoot. Fire
2-3 rounds and try to leave the freakin area. This crap looks really
familiar. I think they lease their vehicles from the same dealers as in
Somalia.
Think all these freakin' dirt bag terrorists wannabe's read from the same
manual?
Surprise number two from Nick's bag of tricks: A C130 Spectre gunship
in DS of my Battalion, doing figure eights all night, just waiting for his
chance.They target on the impact of our mortars and 155's. A
four-second burst from the Spectre, all weapons systems. That's it, just a
four-second burst. Not a sweeter sound in the world. That makes it game,
set,and
match! Hadji don't want to play nor more tonight.Only a four-second burst
from
the AC130, remember?
Took a patrol out a few hours later, the ground from the rounds
impacting, especially from the Spectre, looked like a damn tornado went
through
there. Beautiful sight. Pieces of two small Nissan trucks, mortar parts,
mortar rounds, and body parts all over the area. Pro-activity is a wonderful
thing. These bastards are dangerous, but they are also lazy as hell. They
set
patterns worse than anybody I have ever seen operate. Keep your eye on
Fallujah. We is going to be going back in there full force.
Got another one you'll like: Air strike went in on the outskirts of
Fallujah targeting a specific building hiding some Foreign Fighters
from Syria or Chechnya trying to infiltrate. Good hit, target destroyed.
About thirty seconds later, my radio battalion guys monitor a cell phone
call
from a terrorist cell leader, saying "the Americans missed me, but they just
hit XXXXXX's house across the street." We called the air dogs back, had
them re-target and run another strike. BIG BOOM! Secondary explosions all
over the place from a weapons/ammunition cache they had in the house that
the idiot just called from. Thanks for the assist Hadji. He's doing a
one-on-one interview with Allah right about now. If this wasn't so deadly
serious, this would have been funny as all hell. (truth be told, we were
all still cracking up about it two days later). All I can really say is
this place sucks.
Small things, dude for when you get here: wear the ballistic goggles,
drink water all damn day (the camelbacks are great), I'm drinking probably 5
gallons of water per day, and it ain't enough. Helmet and Flak Jacket
worn at all times when you are outside, it sucks, but it saves lives. Wear
both the throat protector and the groin protector. Perforated eardrums are
common, get and wear the anti-blast ear plugs. I wear them whenever we're
in a vehicle,just in case of IED's. Purell hand sanitizer is a good piece
of gear also. We've got them everywhere for the Marines to help keep
clean. This whole freaking country is a dirty shit house. It's weird flying
on
the helos at night. In some places they can only fly at night, due to SA's
and RPG's. At night it is scary as hell, because you're just watching those
damn green tracers all over the placed,waiting for one to turn and reach
toward the helo you're on. Dude, when we fly,I'm also sitting on top of two
flak jackets, valor be damned, I don't want to get shot in the butt or
worse. They were giving me crap about it at first, but now everybody is
doing
it. I swear to god, Fallujah is like Detroit on steroids during Halloween.
It's time we just need to clear that whole damn city in zone. Just waiting
for
the word.
My Battalion HG, COC, and ALOC are in an old chicken factory from
Saddam's days. Good facility, strong structure, we have hardened it with
wood,
metal and sandbags all over the place. Has taken two direct mortar hits with
no effect. That's gotta be pissing Hadji off. Main job is keeping the
MSR's open for convoys; checkpoints and combat outposts at each bridge and
overpass. My brother, the US army scares my guys more than the bad guys
do. Every time an army convoy gets hit going through our zone, they fire in
every direction, 360 degrees. No fire discipline. My guys in a bunker
were taking .50 cal fire on their sandbags last week. Now we're making each
army convoy that comes through stop at each of our checkpoints to check in
and find out who is in charge. Has reduced their nervousness. Don't mean to
ping on you army guys (even though I do it all the time) but the small unit
discipline is the issue.
This is truly a Sergeant and Corporal's war. Tell you what Bro, these
younger Marines of mine are nothing short of amazing. They are
thriving, living on the edge of the adrenaline rush the whole damn time. The
code
word for every day is "Trouble." Ever time I get into a vehicle, I ask the
driver "What are we looking for today?" Every one of them answers "Trouble,
Sir!" Trouble for hadji is what they mean, if the bad guys want to attempt
to
screw with us.These so-called "insurgents" are the worst kind of
freakin' cowards I have ever seen. I thought the Somalis were bad, but at
least
they had some drug-induced courage.
The battalion adjacent to us had a hit on a damn school bus in the AO
the other day, targeting elementary school kids of junior new Iraqi govt
officials. Their Ops Officer told me the Marines were having to pick up kids
arms and legs from off the tops of buildings. Bet you're not seeing
this crap on CNN? The ops Officer also told me that his Marines are truly
pissed, because they are deadly quiet as all hell right now, not loud
as usual, but quiet and focused, looking for some real payback. The day is
coming. Gotta run, this was a long one, lot going on. Got some more to
send in the next couple of days."
S/F - Mud
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Dec 13, 2004 8:26:33 AM
Ooops, troll infestation.
Posted by: JS | Dec 13, 2004 9:26:50 AM
The fact of the matter is that humvees and other vehicles in Iraq can be upgraded with armor to better protect the US troops inside. Unfortunately, this hasn’t been a priority for the Bush Administration because, according to the generals, after more than two years in Iraq less than 75% of vehicles needing armor upgrades have them.
I support the troops. I want them to have the best possible protection against roadside bombs and sniper fire. Every US casualty that could've been prevented with a simple armor-upgrade is a tragedy. To Jack Peek, Iron Otter, Rose Pedersen, Steve Schopp, Nicola Spano, and Debbie Button, Sharon, and the other keyboard warriors: Why don’t you want US soldiers to have the armor they need? Why do you criticize the citizens who are pressuring our elected leaders to provide the equipment that the generals say the soldiers need? In short, why do you hate America?
This blog is for people who love America, including our soldiers, so if you hate America and it's soldiers this might not be the place for you. We report, you decide.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=317399
Military officials said Thursday they were working hard to upgrade the armor on Army vehicles in Iraq, a day after a soldier had pressed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on the subject. President Bush said, "The concerns expressed are being addressed."
Close to three-quarters of the Humvees in the Iraq war theater now have upgraded armor protection, but many larger trucks and tractor-trailer rigs do not, according to congressional figures…
Democrats have more questions for Rumsfeld. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he would put his in a letter demanding increased production of armor kits and an explanation for why soldiers are searching for scrap metal in landfills.
"This administration has received every dollar they have asked for from Congress, and oftentimes more," Durbin said Thursday in his Chicago office. "So, the money has been there." […]
Of more than 9,100 heavy military haulers in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries, just over 1,100 have received upgraded protection, according to figures provided by the House Armed Services Committee in Washington. Armor add-on kits are in production for many of the rest of these vehicles.
By comparison, the military has decided it needs almost 22,000 armored Humvees in the war area. It has 15,334; an additional 4,400 await armor add-ons and the rest have not been delivered to the region.
Those Humvees are being built at the rate of 450 a month. The company armoring them, Armor Holdings Inc., said Thursday it could increase production by 50 to 100 vehicles a month.
Humvees are armored in two ways: at the factory or in the field. The factory-armored vehicles are considered the best-protected, and the military says it needs 8,105 in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries. It has 5,910. About 120 have been destroyed, Whitcomb said. The rest are protected with add-on kits of armor that can be bolted to a regular unarmored Humvee.
Manufacturers are making these kits at a rate of 800 a month. Some 4,300 Humvees remain unarmored.
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 13, 2004 10:19:57 AM
It’s good that an issue such as the humvee armor complement can get press attention. That may make it easier for such issues to get addressed, perhaps end-running some of the bureaucratic red tape.
That said, people are willfully misconstruing the nature of the problem in an effort to find something to blame Rumsfeld for. The humvees were not delivered improperly equipped, rather it turned out this mission has resulted in different requirements than were envisioned for these vehicles.
It’s not clear to me that command has been negligent in getting this fixed, since apparently measures are already ongoing to address the problem. There’s certainly nothing wrong with examining how such emerging needs should be dealt with and working to improve the procedures whereby command adapts to such needs. Cases involving genuine negligence on the part of command have fared more poorly in the past, though I doubt that many posters here are curious about that. If they were, they'd know that such supply problems are typical in war -- even when they don't involve an unanticpated need for innovation.
JS predictably sees the glass half empty, saying that “less than 75% of vehicles needing armor upgrades have them. The article he cites is more impartial, noting that nearly 75% do (I guess that’s the 15,334 with upgraded armor, 4,400 without). However you put it, it doesn’t sound like such a terrible record for retrofitting in the field.
The situation is described as being worse with the other vehicles, but it needs to be emphasized that, as in the case with the humvees, these vehicles were not envisioned to be armored. The British are using the same kinds of vehicles in their zone. Why? Because those are the kinds of soft-shelled vehicles that have always been used. I suspect that many of those vehicles can only be up-armored via jerry-rigging, short of actual redesign. I also suspect that the benefit of up-armoring is likely to be exaggerated for soft-shelled vehicles; beyond protection from small caliber arms, its chief benefit may be psychological.
I have no doubt that this never would have been a story had we had a Democratic president. The real story ought to be that Rumsfeld was willing to subject himself to the kind of exercise that resulted in this canard developing. To see the likes of Nancy Pelosi — for whom, let’s be serious, thoroughly funding the military has never been a priority until it could be seen as a way of scoring political points — now calling for Rumsfeld’s head is a bit rich. As is targeting Rumsfeld for a failure to adapt, since he has worked so hard to drag the military away from outmoded approaches — and earning himself highly quotable enemies in the process. If he cared more about his own image than about the mission of Defense, he could have avoided that, just as he could have avoided exposing himself to tough questions.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Dec 13, 2004 10:47:32 AM
Wow, I wish I hadn't stopped reading this thread. I would have made some popcorn.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Dec 13, 2004 11:01:49 AM
All around the mulberry bush we go. This is not about our reletive knowledge of armament. The situation is really quite simple.
This war was completely optional. The timing was political, not related to defensive needs. [Although JP will dispute this, I don't see much worth in his thinking about terrorism or much else. He can go educate himself and examine the concepts of nationalism and jingoism, or rant on, but I don't see the value in engaging him.]
As an optional war, the administration had complete responsibility for the well-being of out troops, not to mention the well-being of Iraqis whose land WE decided to fight on. It is obvious that there was little or no planning beyond neo-con fantasy for Iraq post Saddam. Either the Shrubbery really expected the flowers in the streets scenario, or they just don't give a damn about our military people, just as they don't give a damn about Iraqis.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Dec 13, 2004 11:08:36 AM
people are willfully misconstruing the nature of the problem........ The humvees were not delivered improperly equipped, rather it turned out this mission has resulted in different requirements than were envisioned for these vehicles.........The real story ought to be that Rumsfeld was willing to subject himself to the kind of exercise that resulted in this canard developing.
Anthony, I'm not willfully misconstruing anything, although I certainly can't speak for Nancy Pelosi. As for Rummy subjecting himself, I submit that he imagined himself to be in a roomful of adoring fans which is the only venue outside of tightly controlled press conferences where these guys feel safe.
I'll concede that the Hummers were appropriately armed to receive the blows of rose petals from grateful Iraqis, which again was the ONLY contingency that these guys appear to have planned for.
The PNAC eggheads in the Office of Special Plans refuse to consider a broad range of possible outcomes, and wilfully disregarded the warnings from the military, intelligence, and diplomatic professionals, before and after the invasion. Anyone within government who disagreed with these disciples of Leo Strauss was painted as disgruntled, unpatriotic, or worse, and most were fired.
It's not the case that, as Rumsfeld says, that "No one imagined" or "No one could have known". It is rather that in their arrogance they were not open to constructive input that in any way deviated from their accepted dogma. The insurgency has been going on for 20 months now, and people have been dying and losing limbs for the entire time.
We've learned in the last week that they were not pushing the retrofitting of these vehicles to the limits of existing productuion capacity, which to my mind, makes the current questions all the more relevant.
The press, including The Oregonian were happy enablers in this effort, as the Fourth Estate appparently didn't want to appear unpatriotic, although they exhibited no such qualms during the eight years of the Clinton administration.
Posted by: JS | Dec 13, 2004 11:16:02 AM
Anthony,
Recheck the article. "Predictably," the figure you cite speaks only to humvees. However, "Of more than 9,100 heavy military haulers in Iraq, Afghanistan and nearby countries, just over 1,100 have received upgraded protection..." In other words, only 12% of the tankers, semis, and other heavy haulers have they armor they need. Kits exist to upgrade this armor, but only 12% have received them. Convoys of these largely un-armored vehicles are favorite targets of the insurgents and their roadside bombs.
Nearly two years into a war of choice (a war Bush and Rumsfeld could've waited to start until the planning was done and equipment in order), it is inexcusable that only 12% of heavy haulers and less than 75% of humvees have the armor they need to keep safe the soldiers inside.
It's a shame that instead of adding to the chorus of voices encouraging our elected leaders to protect our troops, certain individuals seek to attack those who want our troops protected. Shame on you.
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 13, 2004 11:22:30 AM
Tom,
You might as well say, “Don’t confuse me with the facts.” Your post drips condescension toward Jack Peek but you hardly distinguish yourself as a reasonable commentator.
In the absence of any substantive argument about the issue in question (the real meaning of the “under-armament” of vehicles) you avoid the issue and rant in general opposition to the war.
You’re going to have to do better than that to show yourself as anything other than a fanatic of a different stripe.
Posted by: JS | Dec 13, 2004 11:34:31 AM
For a little context, see "Caring for the Wounded in Iraq — A Photo Essay" in the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/24/2476
According to these picture, body armor does a pretty good job of protecting soldiers from some serious explosions. Their vehicles should be adequately protected so soldiers aren't needlessly losing limbs, or worse, dying.
Also, it sounds like more sophisticated battlefield medical technology has saved many, many lives.
Kos has more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/13/123223/00
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 13, 2004 12:03:18 PM
Pat,
I’m not disputing general arguments about how open the administration or Rumsfeld was to entertaining different scenarios. I’m simply commenting on how the vehicles were designed to be used.
Soldiers in the field have discovered that standard-issue equipment is deficient for the purposes at hand. That’s often the way such things happen, and it’s not the same thing as soldiers being sent into the field with the wrong equipment as a consequence of negligence.
Before 9/11 made combat operations more likely, Rumsfeld had taken on for himself the mission of reforming the military into a more agile force capable of dealing with conflicts more like Somalia and, indeed, Iraq. I don’t think attacking him now in this manner is any less ironic just because he didn’t single-handedly insist on the redesign of humvees before events sped up his timetable.
You say that “we learned in the last week that they were not pushing the retrofitting of these vehicles to the limits of existing production capacity.” First of all, it seems captious in the “half-empty” spirit of JS to fail to appreciate the increase in productivity that had already been pushed. Furthermore, in order to know the meaning of the increase, such as it is, it would be helpful to find out why the previous limit was set, and by whom. I’m not an expert in manufacturing, but I’m sure that some kind of accommodation had to be made in order to induce the manufacturer to produce more, requiring a resetting of what might have been reasonable priorities. Again, I think there’s an effort to rush into fault-finding as opposed to a patient interest in judging impartially and focusing on solutions.
I’ve known you to make a strong case about the stubbornness of the administration and Rumsfeld as it relates to the general preparedness for the war as it unfolded, and I have accordingly taken care not to engage what you wrote on those grounds. However, on the issue of the “under-armament” of vehicles I believe you and others are trying to force this issue into the procrustean bed of more general criticisms. (Tim takes this tendency to the extreme by forgetting the issue all together and just ranting about the fact of the war without reference to the vehicles.)
Finally, while it’s not implausible to suggest that Rumsfeld might have expected to find a reasonably favorable audience among soldiers, it still takes some cojones to face men you are sending out to possibly kill and die. The fact is that he exposed himself to the possibility that tough questions could be asked.
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 13, 2004 12:15:23 PM
JS,
Recheck what I wrote before you lapse into a sanctimonious harangue. I acknowledged that the situation was worse with the other vehicles. If you don’t like what I subsequently said on that subject, then take me up on that.
Forgive me for doubting whether you’re in possession of the necessary facts to determine whether it is “inexcusable” that only 12% have other than standard armoring.
It’s really pathetic that you seek to shame me simply because I’ve taken issue with your clearly partisan arguments. Nothing I’ve said suggests in the slightest that I’m opposed to doing everything possible to ensure that the troops be as well supplied as they can be. That ought to be obvious, but your last post does suggest a certain deficiency in reading comprehension.
Posted by: sharon | Dec 13, 2004 12:45:37 PM
Hello everyone. I just wanted to show you guys this and remind us why we are in Iraq
http://husseinandterror.com/
Posted by: Ruth | Dec 13, 2004 1:29:16 PM
Or, you can look at these photos of Iraqi children to remind us of the price they are paying for our being in Iraq:
http://www.zonaeuropa.com/01467.htm
Sharon, first of all the US provided Saddam with poison gas and other weapons back in the 80s when he was our good buddy. Second, the money given to Palestinian bombers also flows in from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other US allies.
There was no strategic reason for the US to invade Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Posted by: JS | Dec 13, 2004 1:37:31 PM
Sharon,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10-04-alqaeda-saddam_x.htm
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that he hasn't seen 'any strong, hard evidence' to link Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorists who staged the Sept. 11 attacks, a more direct statement than he has made on the subject before.
"Rumsfeld's comments came as a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 42% of those surveyed thought the former Iraqi leader was involved in the attacks on New York City and Washington. In response to another question, 32% said they thought Saddam had personally planned them."
Sharon: Don't worry, you're not alone in your confusion. The Bush Administration and the right-wing media have done a great job of pushing the fallacy that Saddam was involved with 9/11.
And Sharon, I just want to show you and your friends this and remind you why we are in Iraq:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Posted by: Beverly Beach | Dec 13, 2004 3:27:22 PM
Don't feed the trolls!
Posted by: Randy S | Dec 13, 2004 6:47:51 PM
Anthony:
"Forgive me for doubting whether you’re in possession of the necessary facts to determine whether it is “inexcusable” that only 12% have other than standard armoring."
What additional "facts" does one need to conclude that 20 months into this mess it is inexcusable that only 12% are armored?
Is it so difficult to admit your dawg and his SecDef screwed up big time on this war?
Just what would it take for you to admit serious and substantial mistakes were made?
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Dec 13, 2004 8:43:48 PM
Anthony wrote:
However, on the issue of the “under-armament” of vehicles I believe you and others are trying to force this issue into the procrustean bed of more general criticisms.
Well, Anthony, excuse me if I choose not to discuss an issue on the terms you see fit. The crux of the vehicle armoring problem lies, indeed, in the more general nature of this war: why and how is has been waged.
You can ignore my mention that Iraqis are also humans capable of suffering. Take as given that wars of imperial aggression are the cat's meow of effective foreign policy. That still leaves the matter of the timing of the invasion of Iraq, the planning for its post "major operations" period and the effect these two issues have on the safety of US personnel.
It is plain to see the arms and legs flying all over the place. You attempt to excuse this in discussing the details of vehicle armament. It's a bit like complaining of weak seatbelt anchors after you kill someone driving drunk at 100mph. The technical details are besides the point. The fault is in the crime.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Dec 13, 2004 8:46:46 PM
More inconvenient facts for the non-reality community:
At a time when some U.S. troops in Iraq are complaining they have to scrounge for equipment, six Ohio-based reservists were court-martialed for taking Army vehicles abandoned in Kuwait by other units so they could carry out their own unit's mission to Iraq.
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 13, 2004 10:57:55 PM
To Jack Peek, Iron Otter, Rose Pedersen, Steve Schopp, Nicola Spano, and Debbie Button, Sharon, and the other keyboard warriors: Why don’t you want US soldiers to have the armor they need? Why do you criticize the citizens who are pressuring our elected leaders to provide the equipment that the generals say the soldiers need? In short, why do you hate America?
Pat and a host of others:
OK...because Anthony is back, I will try to tone it down,(good luck Jack, you will need it)I hate AMERICA? You are as mentally challenged ( didnt say nuts) as the fine gentlemen in the group home behind me.
The statement is as foul, and sick as it can be, so lets just let that one go.
I want us to have what ever it takes to win what we are doing now.The problem Pat(and a host of others) is the lies..the direct lies, that are posted here on the service needs of the kids in Iraq.
When you know something about me, you know the worse thing you can do to me, is too accuse me of something I didn't do, or tell me something to my face that isn't true and in my heart I KNOW IT IS.
So Pat, you really crossed the line.
My son works on this equipment that we speak about, he has had as many as 40 people working for him, the Humvee's were never made for the weight of extra armor, but repairs and retro-fits are on going, new units have tougher suspensions to assume the weight but nothing will stop 200 to 500 to 1000 lbs of HE going off under or near by the unit.
The new Strayker (sp?) is heavey, faster,(nearly 68 mph) and has armor to better with stand the combat. this unit is coming on line now.
Lastly, the supply priorities in NAM, were ammo, water, food, after that it was improvise, GET IT PAT?
Posted by: sharon | Dec 14, 2004 6:12:51 AM
well since my husband is a Marine and has been to Iraq twice ..I think I have a good source of information..I dont give a flying crap what your newspapers say..Al Zarqawi is Al Qada wgi is in Iraq...
Posted by: sharon | Dec 14, 2004 6:17:54 AM
The "we armed Iraq in the 1980's" is a constant excuse used by the Left to argue against war against Saddam. While Saddam did get limited military support, most of what he got during the Iraq/Iran war was intelligence information. In fact, the evidence of this was the Gulf War in 1991...which wasn't too far from when our outrageous military support supposedly occurred. But, just how much US-made military equipment did you see used against our troops in the Gulf War? How many US made tanks did you see? Their troops were using AK-47s, not M-16s; their tanks were Soviet TU-type tanks and their aircrafts were Soviet and French made MIGs and Mirages. Seriously...think about that. If we had given this regime so much of our military equipment...the best in the world, why were they using someone elses?
And even if we did, it's irrelevant. We also armed Stalin during WWII with the Lend-Lease Act but that didn't preclude us from engaging in a Cold War, immediately after WWII ended. Even shortly before WWII, when we knew of the atrocities being committed in China, the Japanese were still getting steel to build their ships and fuel to power them from the USA. Throughout history, friends have become enemies and enemies have become friends...but that shouldn't preclude us from reacting to a dangerous situation. Using this argument, the British should've remained our enemies...those dirty Redcoats.
And this crap about giving Saddam Bio/Chemical "weapons" is an exaggeration as well. Saddam never got "weaponized" nerve agents or "weaponzed" biological agents from the USA. Everything he got from us was a cooperative (UN and Western nations) effort to help Iraq deal with the rampant spread of contagious diseases and viruses that were killing his people. While this did include biological samples of viruses, this was a standard practice with the ATCC (American Type Culture Collection) and other medical institutions as they sent samples to medical researchers around the world...so they could develop immunizing agents to battle these diseases.
This was especially of interest for Baghdad University and the Ministry of Higher Education (not Saddam) as they appealed to the UN, CDC and WHO for help in controlling the spread of Brucellosis, Diphtheria, Hepatitis, Cholera, TB and any number of contagious diseases. Much of these so-called "chemicals" were also based on the same principal of fighting disease...which included chlorines and pesticides that could be used in water treatment facilities and in agriculture to contain the spread of disease. Before the concern over bio/chem warfare, these were common practices that medical researchers engaged in world wide. Saddam never got instructions from the US on how to weaponize these agents. That, he got from the USSR which was revealed shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The documents released uncovered that the Soviets engaged in the deadliest bio/chem weapons research the world has ever seen...including "cocktails" which was the mixing of deadly pathogens that made them resistant to vaccines and standard protections.
In hindsight, what the "USA" did was obviously a stupid thing, but it was not illegal...and if it was, the Senate Banking Committee, who actually investigated these charges, would've brought charges and prosecuted those who participated. While they did acknowledge bio-material transfers to Iraq, nothing was done outside the law that existed at that time. But there has been a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue of biological samples, which we did supply legally and deadly chemical materials, which we didn't. While one report says the US government was aware of Saddam's ambitions for "chemical" weapons exploitation as early as the early 1980's, a UN report states that Saddam's "biological" weapons program wasn't initiated until mid-1986 at Salman Pak. And this wasn't acknowledged until after the Gulf War, when the inspectors hit the ground and did their investigations. Now this is important because there has been a deliberate diception by some to say that if we knew about Saddam's chemical weapons, why did we continue to give him more. Number one, we didn't give him chemical weapons; number two, there was no evidence at that time that he was working on "biological" weapons. As the UN report states, he started that in mid-1986...and even then, it wasn't learned until "after" the Gulf War. The attacks on the Kurds and Shi'ites were by chemical weapons...not biological weapons. But that didn't matter because this was enough for some to infer that we continued to supply Saddam with weapons to kill his people.
Unfortunately, this was all the ammunition the left needed to accuse the US of arming Saddam with bio/chem weapons. There is a great article the debunks this myth and explains the details in these transfers. And even though anthrax was a part of these transfers, these transfers had been occurring since the late 1960's and was common practice within the medical community, before the fear of bio/chem warfare. Heck, from what I understand, anthrax is a spore that can be found in Nature.
Unfortunately, nowadays, anyone can turn chlorine and pesticide into a deadly aerosol weapon...and fertilizer into a explosive device. This is a far cry, however, from the Sarin and Mustard Gas that was used by Saddam on the Kurds and Shi'ites. And the USA never gave Saddam these deadly nerve agents. You wouldn't know that, though, from reading the accusations and articles of others. According to them, we gave Saddam these "weaponized" materials. This is nothing but the same liberal clap-trap that looks to blame Smith & Wesson (or any other gun manuafacturer) for the death of an individual because another individual used that product irresponsibly, malisciously...or in Saddam's case, other than how the product was intended to be used. I could be wrong, but from what I've read, I see alot of people connecting dots that don't exist. I think this chart goes further to mitigate these charges, as well.
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 14, 2004 6:50:51 AM
Tom Civiletti,
You wrote: “Well, Anthony, excuse me if I choose not to discuss an issue on the terms you see fit.”
The problem, Tom, is you want to discuss another issue all together.
You continue: “The crux of the vehicle armoring problem lies, indeed, in the more general nature of this war: why and how is has been waged.”
The crux of your illogical thinking is that you reason backward from your conclusions. I invite you to dispute my impression that you’re not even curious about the armoring question. Whatever the problem may be, the facts are irrelevant; you already know who to blame, and you have your stock rationale.
I’m not in the least averse to talking about more general questions associated with the war. However, I entered this thread to address the specific issue of armoring because I thought what was being said about it was unsound. I suspect you don’t like the topic because you have no effective answer to what I’ve said. As I’ve seen all too often at BlueOregon, when some people run out of arguments (assuming they had any in the first place), they change the subject.
Posted by: sharon | Dec 14, 2004 7:05:20 AM
can't help but wonder had Clinton not gutted the Military and stopped making armored vechicles for 8 years if we would be discussing this at all
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 14, 2004 7:18:15 AM
Randy S,
You’d make a hell of a juror.
You wrote:
“What additional "facts" does one need to conclude that 20 months into this mess it is inexcusable that only 12% are armored?”
Who needs facts! What does it matter exactly why 12% have armored and why the others don’t. Who cares what different kinds of vehicles there may be and precisely what their purposes are. What difference does it make what original armor component some vehicles may have or that additional armor may not in fact either permit reliable function of a given vehicle or even make a difference with regard to the kinds of threats it faces? Of what possible interest would it be to know what tradeoffs were made with regard to resource allocation and shipment, and why? Indeed, why be distracted by any such speculation when one already knows the answer to any question that might arise.
Randy, you suffer the same debility as Tom Civiletti: you arrive at your position deductively from your conclusions. His methodology is characterized by changing the subject, yours by contempt for the facts. Then again, I see the Civiletti method in this comment:
“Is it so difficult to admit your dawg and his SecDef screwed up big time on this war?”
And since you ask: “Just what would it take for you to admit serious and substantial mistakes were made?”
A sound argument would be a good start. But with regard to claims: given your eagerness to tumble head-over-heels into illegitimate conclusions, I can’t be blamed for receiving anything you say with a good deal of skepticism.
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 14, 2004 7:45:48 AM
Sharon,
This has nothing to do with Clinton; it has to do with what the humvee was designed for. Furthermore, while their reasons and attitudes might differ, Rumsfeld himself opposed spending on more heavily armed vehicles. The question here is about how light vehicles and non-combat vehicles have been and ought to be armored.
Posted by: sharon | Dec 14, 2004 8:25:45 AM
Bill Clinton took the “Peace Dividend” and cut the number of Military divisions substantially - he also cut the corresponding development, supply and resupply of materials
Armys are not built and armored overnight or even in a few years. Current democrats have incentive to keep our military as weak as possible b/c military failures can be blamed on the current administration and be used to propel themselves into power. Example see John Kerry.We could do better, but then can we always say that? Do you want the Gov’t. to tell Ford/GM/AMC to stop making civilian cars and turn production to Humvees and APCs? I would not complain, but many if not most would. At a minimum, I’d tell AMC that the sales of civilian Hummers would be stopped and make them devote their entire production line to equiping our troops, but except in the case of DIRE emergencies, the US does not operate on a Command Economy (like the old Soviet Union did).
Posted by: JS | Dec 14, 2004 9:18:02 AM
Sharon,
I know you really really want to blame Clinton for the mistakes made by the Bush Administration, but hinting that Clinton is responsible for the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq makes you seem loony. (Jack Peek-As does your assertion that there’s no problem regarding the lack of up-armored humvees and heavy haulers…the US military disagrees.)
The Bush Administration just recently realized that soldiers asking Rumsfeld for better armored vehicles is bad PR (evidently, soldiers dying in under-armored vehicles isn’t?). So they’ve done something they could’ve done months or years ago—ask the company that makes the up-armored humvees to increase production.
In summary, the Bush Administration has acknowledged that the lack of armored vehicles is a problem, yet they’ve waited almost two years to ask the company that makes the armor to increase production.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aDrg28Q3a8Is&refer=us
Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Armor Holdings Inc.'s order from the U.S. Army last week to accelerate monthly production of heavily armored Humvee military vehicles won't increase the total number of the vehicles destined for Iraq, the Army said.
The Army's plan is to complete 8,105 “up-armored” Humvees by March 2005, unchanged from before the Dec. 10 order, Army spokeswoman Lieutenant Colonel Pamela Hart said in an e-mailed response to questions from Bloomberg News. Jacksonville, Florida- based Armor Holdings said Dec. 10 the Army had asked it to raise monthly output to 550 vehicles by March, from 450 now.
``We're increasing the rate of production, not the total number of vehicles,'' Hart said. She declined to provide additional information.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Dec 11, 2004 6:12:28 PM
Well, Pat, I always thought of the Big O more as an echo chamber than a counterbalence.