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: Iron Otter | Dec 14, 2004 11:40:32 AM
So how about we take the old Family sedan down to the local garage or maybe the monster garage and have Jessie attach a 40 foot box trailer to it so we can do all our Christmas shopping at once? Not a good idea! Why? because our car was never intended to, or built to be able to haul that extra weight or, cope with the vastly mutilated handling properties. The brakes will never stop it, we will not be able to turn when we need too, we will not be able to get going because the engine was not built with enough power to move that much weight. Just as we would not wear a raincoat to go swimming or wear ice skates at the track meet. The bottom line is that if a vehicle is built to be a truck it will never be a tank. The answer is not for us to waste a huge amount of money on bastardized useless equipment but we need to send the correctly built equipment to replace the armoreless vehicles.
Why did we send in the light weight Humvees? It is what we had for equipment at the start. Why is it the wrong vehicles? This war is unlike any other major war we have fought? It is in the desert but unlike W.W.II African Campaign that was barren waste of just sand. We are fighting in the center of cities that are still occupied with the civilian population. We must be able to move and react quickly and with great discretion. We have to be highly mobile and agile. In no other USA involved war to date has there been such a high rate of suicide attacks (including the Kamakazies of WWII) on individual soldier. The result is no large stockpile of armored jeeplike vehicles. We used what we had.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Dec 14, 2004 12:07:08 PM
Iron Otter,
You make some excellent points regarding appropriate equipment, weight of vehicles, and the history of middle east warfare.
One thing that was missed though is the Israeli experience. They have been fighting a very similar war for the past 53 years with no end in sight (but that's for another time).
One armor solution that they've been using for over 15 years now is ceramic armor. On CNN the other night, they interviewed the CEO of a ceramic armor company that is currently armoring trucks and humvees on a limited basis for the US DOD.
ceramic armor weighs only about 20% of the equivalant steel armor protection. Looking ahead, we ought to ramp up this tech ASAP.
Posted by: Rose Pedersen | Dec 14, 2004 12:17:17 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.
WHAT A LOVELY WAY TO TWIST THE WORDS OF PPL PAT.
SOUNDS JUST LIKE SOMEONE WHO HAS NEVER BEEN TO WAR OR WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT WAR OR EQUIPMENT PERIOD. PLEASE DO NOT TRY TO TWIST THE WORDS THAT I HAVE WRITTEN NEWS MEDIA ALWAYS DOES THAT TO SELL STORIES GEEE FIND ANOTHER JOB PLEASE, OR AT LEAST BE GOOD AND NOT TWIST OTHERS WORDS TO SUIT U R SATISFACTION.
I LOVE AMERICA WHAT ABOUT YOU ??? DO U OR DID U SERVE ?? DO U REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WAR IS OR ALL ABOUT THE MILITARY EQUIPEMENT. IF NOT SUGGEST U DO SOME STUDYING ON THE SUBJECT OR BETER YET GO AND FIGHT IN THE WAR THEN U WILL UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THE EQUIPMENT OUR MILITARY USE THERE GEEE . SOME PPL WILL DO ANYTHING TO SELL A NEWS STORY.
OH GEE ALL OF A SUDDEN WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT OUT MILITARY ARMOR ROFL U PPL ARE A JOKE A YRS LATER U YELLING U R HEADS OFF GET THE FACTS GET REAL KEEP UP WITH THE TIMES.
WORRY ABOUT OUR HOMELAND SECURITY HERE IN OREGON IS WHAT YA ALL BETTER FOCUS ON. !!! OH GEE HOW MANY SLEEPER CELLS HAS BEEN LOCATED HERE IN OREGON ??? WAKE UP AMERICA WE ARE AT WAR NOT ONLY IN IRAG OR THE BIG A BUT ALL OVER THE WORLD. GEEE GET A LIFE GET REAL PRINT THE TRUTH AND ONT TWIST PPL WORDS TO SUIT U R OWN NEEDS OR AGENDA
EQUIPMENT THAT OUR MILITARY USE AND WHAT ALL THE EQUIPMENT REQUIRES FOR A PERSONS TO DO IN TIME OF
WAR. GEEE HOW DUMB
.
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Dec 14, 2004 12:29:55 PM
Alright Rose and Jack,
Please calm down and check your posts. I didn't even write the post that you are raking me over the coals for.
You'll find plenty of legitimate reasons to disagree with me. Just don't attack me for stuff that I didn't say........
Thank you
Posted by: JS | Dec 14, 2004 2:45:16 PM
Sorry Pat. The irony of my "Why do you hate America?" question was evidently lost on all of these folks who feel it's inappropriate for people like you and me to put pressure on our elected leaders to protect our troops to the best of their ability.
I just hope Jack Peek, Iron Otter, Rose Pedersen, Steve Schopp, Nicola Spano, Debbie Button, Sharon, and the other keyboard warriors aren't sending CAP LOCKED messages to our troops overseas telling them how they don't need up-armored vehicles because humvees weren't meant to be armored. That could be a real morale-killer.
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 14, 2004 5:01:48 PM
JS,
What is it in your twisted moral core that makes you habitually resort to mischaracterizing your adversaries in order to demonize them and sanctify your petty partisan prejudices?
I can't imagine that anyone who has read Jack Peek, Iron Otter, et al., would believe that they either "feel it's inappropriate ...to put pressure on our elected leaders," etc. or that they think that troops shouldn't be well-equipped. And yet you throw out these suggestions as if they were plausible. Is there anyone here who can't see through that?
In the spirit of what Pat said, if you're going to attack people, let it be for what the actually say.
P.S. Donald Rumsfeld isn't an elected leader.
Posted by: JS | Dec 14, 2004 5:04:33 PM
Yeah, but Rumsfeld is the best we can do since our fearless leader won't subject himself to any serious questioning from soldiers or the press.
Posted by: sharon | Dec 14, 2004 5:17:14 PM
pat..I am not a warrior..But I am married to One...Who the hell are you to judge me
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 14, 2004 6:11:13 PM
Hi Jack!
Had we gone in with might and main, really to take names and kick ass, we would not have to be dealing with this now.
War is hell. We should not be playing war games over there.
I have always said that it would be better to bomb them into the stone age from the get-go. Sure, we drop leaflets to tell all non-players to get our and be resettled for the time being in our camps. We give them alot of opportunity to get to safety, and be processed, and to come clean.
After the place is reduced progressively over a couple weeks of intense bombing to moonscape, there will be NO survivor. We would not have to worry about any prison scandal, or be wondering about the WMDs, snipers and etc., let alone hundreds of casualties on our side. With NO opposition, we will be able to rebuild in double-quick time, as every country in the coalition would be sending in all kinds of people to help us. With skilled people from all over showing the Iraqis the how-tos, normalization will be fast. They and their children will fit into the New Iraq for they, the ones who know what is good for them will be the future of that country.
But alas, we chose the PC route. And so, we are paying dearly for it!
Take care, and keep up the good work!
Yours truly,
John
Dear Pat,an a host of the rest of you good people.
The "PC ROUTE", Did you notice that part?
The fact is we did, and we are paying for it, but if we had done as my good friend suggested...WOW, do I know your response to what would have been the correct war plan.
The fact is..(STAY WITH ME, HERE COME'S THE GOOD PART), you "good" people would have bitched, whined, rioted, protested...because it's what you do.
The reason is politics, you all dearly hate Bush,it's something unlike in 58 yrs this month, I have ever seen, and don't again wish too.
There isn't a pretty, good,or clean way to kill people or break things in war, you "people" can't handle it, or much less in this day an age take part in it. To win war as this one needs to happen, we need to wipe a block of these people off the map, then ask them if they had enough, get the wrong response, do it again., What did Tom Cruise say from his jet pilot movie,"There are no points for second place!"
The war is like Rummy said, "YOU GO TO WAR WITH WHAT YOU HAVE,THEN, IMPROVISE AS NEEDED!" (0r pretty close to it)
I want to finish my thoughts on this subject with the following:
Pat, trying running out of ammo in a firefight, all the armor in the world can't help, point is we have the basics, ammo, water, food, that's all we can do then go from there.
To others, I think Bush was wrong in the way we went about it, but he is PC enough to try and appease you "people" as well, and that was a mistake.
To the rest of you, How dare you tell me I HATE AMERICA, How dare you say I don't want my 3 kids to have all they need.
We, those of us who have posted here against you "people".....are the silent majority ,you "people" didn't learn from your failed approcach to help us all, not just a narrow, minority. and the end result of that, like the qoute from the WW2 movie.....The Japanese Admiral said, 'I fear, we have awaken the sleeping dragon!"
In plain terms, people, DON'T PISS US OFF!
Lastly, I know from experiance, you will diss this post, but go back and look at the part where I said you "missed in your approach to us" in the election cycle, you don't present a candidate, who is so elitist, an arrogant, we wouldn't have him for a dinner with all the family, don't verbally degrade us for our core values, you compromise, don't look at us an say stupid, redneck trailer trash......because we will throw the "trash, and the trailer back!"
We will see how this last post is handled.......remember the sleeping dragon.
Posted by: Beverly Beach | Dec 14, 2004 8:24:35 PM
Somebody didn't get their nap today!
Posted by: sharon | Dec 15, 2004 4:55:34 AM
HOW MANY OF YOU PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SERVING? OR HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER SERVING IN IRAQ?
Posted by: sharon | Dec 15, 2004 4:55:56 AM
HOW MANY OF YOU PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SERVING? OR HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER SERVING IN IRAQ?
Posted by: JS | Dec 15, 2004 8:19:41 AM
Anthony says, “I can't imagine that anyone who has read Jack Peek, Iron Otter, et al., would believe that they either ‘feel it's inappropriate ...to put pressure on our elected leaders,’ etc. or that they think that troops shouldn't be well-equipped.”
Well, Anthony, I don’t know why you’ve taken it upon yourself to defend the indefensible, but here’s a sampling…
JS: “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.”
JS again: “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.”
Jack Peek screams, “THE SHORTAGE OF BODY ARMOR…Its BS!” And referring to the soldiers who asked Rumsfeld about the armor he says, “the WHINNERS [sic] to Mommy, and too Rummy, need to SHUT UP an do the damn job they were sent too do…” Furthermore, “And proves the point of you "people" [BlueOregon posters?] are giving aid an [sic] comfort to the enemy.”
Rose: “LIBS GET OVER IT INSTEAD OF SPREADING HATE STAND BEHIND YOUR PRESIDENT.” And, “OUR MEN AND WOMEN HAVE SUFFICIENT PROTECTION OVER THERE PLEASE LIBS STOP THE DAM WHINNING [sic]”
Debbie: “None of you have a life, all you have to do is bash the nation, our troops, and the President.”
Posted by: JS | Dec 15, 2004 8:29:38 AM
Jack Peek, Iron Otter, Rose Pedersen, Steve Schopp, Nicola Spano, Debbie Button, and Sharon:
How do you reconcile your comments with the analysis Brigadier General Raymond C. Byrne, Jr., commander of the Oregon National Guard? How do you answer Oregon Guardsman Sean Davis?
Here is what these two Oregon Guardsman have to say:
"If you have [something] then that's better than nothing. The question becomes then again when - when are they going to receive the full up armored Humvees? And I don't have that answer," says Gen. Byrne.
"It distresses me greatly that they do not have the equipment. I don't have control over it. The soldiers don't have control over it. The question becomes, 'When is it going to be available? When is it going to be available? When will they have it?'"
Oregon guardsman Sean Davis told us that his unit was short ammunition and night vision goggles, and lacked radios to communicate with each other.
He says guardsman were using walkie-talkies that they or their families purchased from a sporting goods or similar store. "And anybody can pick up those signals, you know," he says. "And we don't have the radios that we need."
Gen. Byrne says stories about families in Oregon having to go out and buy for their sons and daughters radio equipment, body armor, GPS gear, computers and night vision goggles because they weren't being issued are true.
He said some Guard units are also using Vietnam era M-16 assault rifles, which he calls adequate for state duty but not acceptable for duty in Iraq. There is also a bullet shortage for training, he says.
It bothers him, but "there's nothing I can do about it," he says.
"If I was making the decisions, I would readjust," he says. "The soldier on the ground should be a focus. When that's taken care of you can take care of other stuff."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110204C.shtml
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 15, 2004 8:54:38 AM
Nice try, JS, but you might as well string a bunch of quotes together attempting to prove the earth is flat.
Neither of my points are refuted by what you quote.
You know full well that, however inexactly and sometimes carelessly these folks may have expressed themselves, that they care at least as much as you do how well-equipped the troops are.
You may not understand, depending on your capacity for self-deception and your prejudice toward your political adversaries, that what these folks object to is not holding officials to account but rather what they take to be -- rightly or wrongly -- gratuitous partisan attacks during a time of war.
If you were a less habitually supercilious person and a little more honest about your own motivations, you might be able to have a better dialogue with these folks. And me, for that matter.
Posted by: JS | Dec 15, 2004 9:22:29 AM
Thank you for inadvertantly making my point for me.
These "folks" take any criticism of the war in Iraq or of this Administration as "gratuitous partisan attacks during a time of war." With this mindset dialogue simply cannot exist.
To these folks, it doesn't matter that I am simply repeating what members of the Oregon National Guard have said. Because I am a liberal/progressive/Democrat/BlueOregon reader, I am "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" with my criticism. So, instead of talking about the concerns of Oregonians who are serving in Iraq, we end up talking about the "motivations" of the people who simply give voice to what many soldiers are saying.
Meanwhile US soldiers still lack armor, their family members still have to send them walkie-talkies and GPS devices, and only 12% of heavy-haulers have the armor kits that they need. All this after nearly two years of a war we initiated on our timeline.
I feel the troops are better served by giving voice to their concerns, in an attempt to remedy them, rather than INCOHERENTLY SHOUTING AT, or discussing the motivations of, any critic of this war or this Administration.
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 15, 2004 10:34:25 AM
JS,
It's gratifying to see you backing off the mischaracterization that I took issue with.
With regard to the point I've inadvertently made for you, I agree that it's difficult to have dialogue with people who are not open to it. It may be likely that "these 'folks'" will regard criticism of the administration as gratuitous partisan attacks. That doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong. Nor does it mean dialogue is impossible.
Whenever people of diverging political views meet, there is a tendency to dismiss what the other says as motivated by partisanship. The fact is that some element of what is said by both sides is almost certainly driven by partisanship -- and there's nothing wrong with that, in itself.
But reasonable people will look to the opportunity of engagement not just to score points but also to get to what might fairly said about a given topic without regard to partisanship. Thus, at the end of the day, Pat and Otter, say, may have different wishes for how this matter will affect Rumsfeld and Bush, but both may make concessions about what the problem really is or isn't. And we all might end up a little less polarized.
I agree that many of your adversaries here have behaved badly, and I have in fact criticized their behavior, both here at BlueOregon.com and elsewhere. That doesn't preclude my criticizing bad behavior on the other side.
You end your last post repeating contentions that I and others have addressed. It's as if those arguments have just rolled off your back. Thus, whatever can be said about Jack and his cohort, I don't find you particularly interested in serious dialogue. I suspect there's a certain amount of projection in your protest about their impermeability.
Can dialogue with you really exist? Let's wait and see.
Posted by: JS | Dec 15, 2004 1:44:03 PM
I'm not interested in serious dialogue with unserious people. Will you and your cohorts prove to be serious? Let's wait and see...
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 15, 2004 2:18:58 PM
JS,
I have no cohort here. I've already made several serious posts on this thread alone. I've conducted myself here with the same respect for the forum that has characterized my posts elsewhere at BlueOregon. The record is there for anyone to examine it.
And speaking of things worth examining, an article on the subject of this thread appeared at OpinionJournal.com today. Some of what the author says reflects arguments already made here (and mostly ignored by you), but there is new material too, and the author speaks with a certain authority:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006029
Enjoy.
Posted by: JS | Dec 15, 2004 2:29:06 PM
Is General Norman Schwarzkopf's criticism of Rumsfeld and the Defense Department a "gratuitous partisan attack"? Do Jack Peek and his fellow keyboard commandos know more than Gen. Schwarzkopf about the needs of troops and the obligations of their military and civilian leaders?
According to Schwarzkopf, "things have gone awry," in Iraq, and he doesn't blame it on Clinton or the intended uses of the humvee being different than the current uses.
I'd love to hear the keyboard commandos' thoughts on the following...
Schwarzkopf, interviewed on MSNBC-TV’s “Hardball,” chided Rumsfeld for his reply to a soldier in Kuwait over the lack of armor on many military vehicles used in Iraq.
“I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up,” Schwarzkopf said.
Schwarzkopf, a registered independent who campaigned for Bush in the last two presidential elections, has previously criticized Rumsfeld on several occasions as arrogant and out of touch with troops on the ground.
Monday, Schwarzkopf said the Defense Department had badly misjudged the situation in Iraq. Reserve forces were rushed into urban combat — “toughest kind of fighting” — without adequate training, and “things have gone awry.”
“In the final analysis, I think we are behind schedule” in Iraq, Schwarzkopf said. “... I don’t think we counted on it turning into jihad.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6708495/
If you read the whole thing, you can also learn about Republican Senators McCain and Hagel criticize the handling of the war.
Posted by: sharon | Dec 16, 2004 6:15:48 AM
how many of you were in the military or have a family member serving ? Because it seems like you are clueless
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 16, 2004 6:36:01 AM
JS,
What bearing does what Schwarzkopf said have on the humvee issue? It's fine to throw it out there, but if you are interested in dialogue please tell us how this affects the arguments made about armor and procurement made above.
I saw some excerpts of the Matthews interview and the impression I got was that the general was angry at Rumsfeld for what he perceived as the Secretary's shunting the blame to the army. Having heard what Rumsfeld said, I never felt that the army needed to be defensive. I suspect that Schwarzkopf has his own reasons for reacting the way that he did, probably relating to an ongoing feud with Rumsfeld. The comments that I heard all expressed general (no pun) disapproval of Rumsfeld and didn't say anything that would change my mind about the nature of the problem.
It's not news that Schwarzkopf and some number of other high military commanders already have it in for Rumsfeld. How much that has to do with a lack of due diplomacy on Rumsfeld's side (or arrogance and ham-fistedness, if you prefer), how much on the self-important stubbornness and high dudgeon of the military establishment, I don't know. Rumsfeld may have regrettable deficiencies in his leadership style, but I'm convinced that he rocked the boat of the military establishment for good reason and it's not terribly surprising that he made enemies doing so. A Democratic SecDef who had bearded the generals in their den would probably have been canonized at BlueOregon. Admit it.
Whatever the case, this all seems a matter of Schwarzkopf critiquing how Rumsfeld talked about the matter, and even then only as an opportunity to renew his ongoing attack against him.
Posted by: Beverly Beach | Dec 16, 2004 7:45:57 AM
Anthony = Troll
Please don't feed the trolls.
Anthony's sole purpose of posting here is to disrupt this website. He has no interest in having an honest discussion of the issues. He and others are only trying to frustrate "blues" and anger them. They succeed when, out of frustration, we call them names or overreact to their BS.
Please don't reply to the trolls. Just ignore them.
Posted by: Jesse | Dec 16, 2004 11:22:57 AM
As a frequent reader, and a true blue, I disagree with Beverly's comment. (About Anthony, not the other trolls.)
I don't know what brings Anthony here, but I think we allow ourselves to be frustrated and angry by his words. We know what we believe, and Anthony does many of us good to search for articulation. I disagree with him often (like how he casually dismisses Schwarzkoff's statements) but as blues we are prone to the larger philosophical disagreements. He likes to get to the bits.
So be it.
Posted by: JS | Dec 16, 2004 11:23:26 AM
Republican Senator Susan Collins (Maine), a member of the Armed Services Committee, recently addressed these issues...
"I am very concerned that it appears the Pentagon failed to do everything in its power to increase production" of the vehicles, Collins wrote [in a letter to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld].
"The Department of Defense still has been unable to ensure that our troops have the equipment they need to perform their mission as safely as possible."
Collins also complained that the Army requested production of an additional 100 Humvees a month only after a soldier complained about the lack of necessary armor on trucks during a December 9 town hall meeting with Rumsfeld in Kuwait.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/16/rumsfeld.senators/index.html
Posted by: John Dunagan | Dec 16, 2004 11:29:53 AM
Actually, if I may be permitted to take up for Anthony, he comes across to me as the most reasonable of the Republicans by a wide, wide margin. He's never lost it on someone that I can see (unlike me, admittedly). Maybe it's because his dad(?) is a regular contributor here, and he's learned the tone, but I definitely want him to stay around, if he's going to continue to post like he always has.
Anyway, onto the thread at hand: military minds greater than mine (or anybody's here, for that matter) disagree with the conduct of this war - Schwartzkopf, Hackworth, Zinni, and Abizaid just to name a few.
It's obvious from reports on the ground that grievous mistakes have been made, but instead of correcting the problem, it seems from here that the Administration is interested in purging those who dare to suggest a better way.
As for Rumsfeld - part of SecDef's historical role is to speak cogently and coherently about defense not only to the press, but to the troops - on that measure, Rumsfeld fails miserably. Flippant answers to tough but fair questions from your troops in-theatre does not instill morale at a time when it is badly needed - even Shelton's better at delivering the bad news. And that's just one of a laundry list of faults Rumsfeld has that make him unsuited for the job.
So no wonder Schwartzkopf doesn't like him; most ex-military decry the drop in "standards" anyway once they leave, and it's even worse among the officer and future-officer corps. But it's not like Stormin' Norman's just pissing in the wind like that; he actually accomplished his mission in that same theatre.
If you're going to run as a "war president", like Bush has,
Posted by: John Dunagan | Dec 16, 2004 11:36:29 AM
...it helps to have actual warriors in charge.
Posted by: Miles | Dec 16, 2004 12:23:24 PM
Let's see if I can summarize the argument:
"All this whining about not enough armor has got to stop. Armies go to war with the equipment they have, not the equipment that some worried mother might wish they have. Deal! If your commanding officer orders you to go on patrol butt naked and armed with a super squirt water pistol, well, hey soldier, orders are orders. Are you not a man? Are you not a soldier?"
OK, now let's get real. I think there isn't much the left can or should do about this issue. This is not America's war... it is a partisan war launched by the leader of a political party for partisan reasons, largely in the interests of an neofasist (yes, I'm talking about the the US of A) corporate regime.
We ordinary Americans hardly have a dog in this fight about armor. It is between the soldiers and those who voted to send them there and keep them there.
There is a whole mindset of obedience, deference to authority, love of empire, trust in leaders.... a huge psychodrama that is playing out, between the leaders and the led, between those who dominate and those who are willing to be dominated (soldiers).
Will the leadership crush the "dissident soldiers" with their mild complaints like "hey what about armor?"
Will they offer Rummy's resignation as an apology?
Will the friction between soldiers and leaders grow?
This is interesting... but not my struggle.
All I can do is point out the facts of the situation.
All I can do is support the human beings who have become soldiers.
People say "support our troops" but that is wrong. I don't support our soldiers and neither should you. I support instead the human beings who have transformed themselves into soldiers and abandoned their own moral judgements for the moral judgements of their leaders, and allowed themselves to become followers of orders, and allowed themselves to be shipped to Iraq.
I support them in spite of their choice to become soldiers.
I support them with all my heart, in spite of all their choices, in spite of the fact that they have become soldiers and are acting against my interests and the interest of the people of the United States. I support them as human beings. But not as soldiers. They are not soldiers in my name, and they are not fighting my war.
I wish them life and body armor and that they should all see their kids again. But as soldiers they do not have my support for the choice to become a solider, for their willingness to follow orders now that they are soldiers, or for their willingness to be instruments of an ugly foreign policy.
Oh sure, that's too fine a distinction, and most of the public can't begin to grasp it, but I think we have to keep making it from the sidelines.
It is the soldiers and their families who have to ask themselves whether they are valued by their leaders and country as human beings should be valued.
Then they have to reach their own conclusions and act accordingly.
The deluge of attacks here is fascinating... as if the body armor issue was coming from the left!
The human heart's desire to resist any idea that questions the wisdom of a strong leader is overwhelming, it seems. Those on the right cry out "It must be the leftists who are to blame." But of course we have nothing to do with this. This is between soldiers and commanders, followers and leaders.
We who are neither, we who reject the authoritarian world view, can only watch and wonder whether the structures of authority and habbits of obedience or the instincts of resistance and the sense of human self worth will prevail....
Will this particular betrayal of the little guy in American history register on human conciousness, contribute to revaluation of the value of obedience and organized violence, or somehow be supporessed and forgotten?
Time and history will tell.
Posted by: Anthony | Dec 16, 2004 1:05:48 PM
Jesse and John,
Heartfelt thanks for the kind words.
It's not so much a love for getting to "the bits" -- by all means let's have broad philosophical discussions as well -- it's just that people tend not to distinguish between one point and the other. It's a rhetorical maneuver (though often executed unconsciously) to slide away from the point in contention in order to move to more favorable ground. If I'm making an argument about a particular point, I expect that point to be acknowledged or refuted before changing the subject.
The proximate cause of my being here is that I was invited by a contributor. I leave it to that contributor to decide whether he wants to identify himself. I keep coming because I enjoy disputing with people who hold different views. Part of that may be a pure love of intellectual conflict, part of it is a desire to refine my views. I mean that in the way that Jesse describes, but also to actually purify my position of dross. I really do come here with an open mind, however wary my partisan prejudices make me of the opposition's arguments.
I tend to like the people I find on the other side, and I constantly wonder about how it is that intelligent, decent people can hold such divergent opinions. I'd like to find out more about that, whether it's likely to change my own opinions or not. The main reason is that I really would like to better understand the philosophical and temperamental underpinnings of the different positions. I most certainly would welcome the opportunity converse and debate on subjects less burdened by the partisan concerns of the day. Of course, this is a partisan political Web site.
I have already argued elsewhere at BlueOregon that I think conservative posters have a special responsibility when posting here. They should take care not to cause scandal to their own cause, and they should respect that this is a Blue sandbox. With that in mind, let me be clear to posters such as Beverly that I don't believe I have any specific right to post here, and I accordingly follow a high standard of debate, lest I wear out my welcome.
Now, if anyone ever finds what I write too snarky, I recommend they read above in the thread in question to see what precipitated my response. If I'm sarcastic or otherwise severe, it's generally because someone was asking for it. Turnabout is fair play. Should I be more magnanimous? Maybe, though it would definitely be less fun. Anyhow, you can't blame me for being no snarkier than my provocateurs.
I'm about out of time, but regarding Schwarzkopf, I hope I don't casually dismiss him. First, I do believe he has an agenda against Rumsfeld, and second, I really don't see how his comments help refute the argments I've made here. Perhaps I missed some of what he said and someone here can supply it. Still, I doubt it would change much. Does it not seem to you that there was some turf marking and other business going on in Schwarzkopf's comments? There may be something blameworthy in Rumsfeld's capacity for making enemies, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me to wonder whether that enmity is often a factor in finding fault where it otherwise might not be.
Posted by: JS | Dec 16, 2004 1:55:31 PM
Anthony,
You've repeatedly stated that people have avoided your central argument, which you've apparently only made once in the course of several posts (in the future, on an 80 comment post, it would be helpful if you repeated your central argument more than once rather than just referring back to "it" in the abstract). I've tried to glean that argument from your original post, and here's what I've come up with (I'm sure you'll let me know if I've missed).
Anthony: “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.”
I don’t think the “I didn’t adequately plan for the requirements of this mission” defense is sufficient. Besides, addressing this opens up a much broader point regarding the planning and decision to go to war in the first place, and there’s really not much point in us going there once again. As Pat so eloquently explained, “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.”
Anthony: “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.”
Senator Collins (R-Maine) complained that the Army requested production of an additional 100 Humvees a month only after a soldier complained about the lack of necessary armor on trucks during a December 9 town hall meeting with Rumsfeld, nearly two years after the war began. If the increased production had been requested before we went to war (the Bush Administration set the timeline), at the increased production rate, 90-95% of the humvees would be properly armored. I wonder how many American soldiers’ lives have been lost in the last two years with the gap between 75% armored and 95% armored.
And since you've called many comments here partisan political attacks while concurrently rationalizing every criticism of Rumsfeld or the Administration (usually you accuse the critic of having "an agenda"), please point out a Rumsfeld critic who does not have "an agenda". Or, are there simply no honest criticisms to be made about Rumsfeld, bad planning, and lack of armor and equipment?
Posted by: allehseya | Dec 16, 2004 3:09:11 PM
There is a whole mindset of obedience, deference to authority, love of empire, trust in leaders.... a huge psychodrama that is playing out, between the leaders and the led, between those who dominate and those who are willing to be dominated
Hey Miles -- did you find that the dictionary under 'patriotism' or 'submission' -- oh wait --- silly me. It's both.
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 18, 2004 7:08:20 AM
Memories appear to be short in politics and are facilitated by the equally deficient memories of the American public. Recently, a number of politicians on both sides of the aisle have fed on artificial blood poured in the water as a result of Secretary Rumsfeld’s remark at a recent conference with US military troops. So, what exactly was the egregious and insensitive remark made by Secretary Rumsfeld that incensed so many? It was simply this:
"you go to war with the Army you have ... not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
Let’s disregard the fact that Secretary Rumsfeld was “set-up” with a loaded question, but rather rejoice in Mr. Rumsfeld’s characteristic candor which is rarely heard elsewhere from inside of the beltway. Most importantly, let’s look at what cards Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was forced to play when he came to office and then, perhaps, many will begin to understand the basis for his answer. When appointed, Secretary Rumsfeld inherited the loss of:
709,000 Active duty military personnel;
293,000 Reserve troops;
8 full standing army divisions;
20 Air force and navy air wings with 2,000 combat aircraft;
232 Strategic bombers;
19 Strategic ballistic missile submarines with 3,114 nuclear missile warheads on 232 missiles;
500 ICBMs with 1,950 warheads;
Four-(4) Aircraft carriers and 121 Surface combat ships and subs, plus all of the support bases, shipyards and logistical assets needed to sustain such a naval force.
The above US military forces – equal or exceeding that of many small countries - were eliminated during the 8-year Clinton administration during the false peace and youthful naiveté that dominated the 1990’s. Perhaps we should look to his predecessor, the previous administration and every member of Congress who voted for these cuts and are now saber rattling for their answers. I suspect many will choose to remain silent on the issue.
There is plenty of blame to be shared by many inside of the beltway, so let’s not join the frenzy of those with political agendas and make Secretary Rumsfeld the scapegoat for his candor. I urge you to “stay the course,” Secretary Rumsfeld, and continue to lead the military fight on the war on terror. America needs your expertise as much as we need your frankness. This war will not be one by anyone afraid to shout, at some point, the now infamous Jack Nicholson line from the movie A Few Good Men:
“You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth…”
Posted by: Fifo and Lifo | Dec 18, 2004 7:45:24 AM
I suppose all the applause from the rest of the troops attending the Rummy's Townhall in Kuwait for the question about the lack of armor was planted as well.
Posted by: sharon | Dec 18, 2004 1:44:32 PM
OK I will start ..I am stationed at Camp Lejeune..Now it's your turn maggots
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 18, 2004 3:07:19 PM
Sharon, They think were you live is for a summer get- away...
Posted by: sharon | Dec 18, 2004 4:38:04 PM
hey you useless leftist idiots wanna tell me why you hate your country so much.don't you knw how lucky you are.
Posted by: sharon | Dec 18, 2004 4:40:41 PM
hey chew on this for a while Leftists in America never seem to learn from their past mistakes. Of course, they don’t see aiding and abetting the enemy as a “mistake.” They see their mistakes as great victories.
The fact that in the case of Viet Nam leftists gave strength and hope to an enemy ready to admit defeat, seems to have no effect on them. They are oblivious to this. We will never know how many American soldiers died in the rice patties and jungles of Viet Nam because of the liberals’ obvious support for the enemy. Perhaps, in their twisted minds, liberals saw those soldiers as “martyrs” for their cause. The death of these soldiers’ was a high price but in the end leftists won and they could blame the deaths on the “war-mongering right” even though it was those from the left who escalated our involvement in Viet Nam.
Now we are battling terrorists in Iraq. Our brave marines and soldiers are putting their lives on the line once again, and once again liberals are handing the enemy the ammunition to kill them.
If you listen to leftists, they scream that they are outraged that our brave men and women are dying, but in truth, they see it as an opportunity to make political hay in an election year.
What is the enemy hearing? He is hearing a ranting Teddy Kennedy yelling about “Bush’s Viet Nam” and he is hearing the man he hopes will be the president next year--John Kerry--lecturing to the choir about how this war is the worst “failure” in diplomacy in American history. He hears Al Gore--the man he wishes had won the last election--screaming like a wild man about how “Bush has betrayed the American people.” He hears others in Congress calling President Bush a “miserable failure.” It’s music to his ears. That “miserable failure” has brought the enemy untold grief.
The enemy is not just hearing it, he is repeating it. He is repeating it to his followers. He is broadcasting it on Arab TV. The enemy is singing the praises of these liberal leaders in his Mosque. It gives him strength. It gives him hope and it gives him the will to fight on. It gives him a reason to come over the borders from Iran and Syria to kill Americans. After all, if the liberal party wins in November—just a few short months away—the enemies’ victory will be assured. So he will fight on and our soldiers will continue to die. Innocent Iraqis caught in the cross fire will continue to die. Iraqis who want freedom and are helping us will be assassinated.
The liberal rhetoric has given the terrorists a blueprint to follow. Continue to kill Americans, send our soldiers home in body bags and the left will howl and the American people will once again cringe, cower away and retreat before the daily onslaught of “terrible news from Iraq.” We have a history. Our enemy knows this and he is not stupid. He knows that the “new” America will not tolerate causalities. He believes we are all weak, sniveling cowards who will run at the first shot. The “new” America will run to the impotent and corrupt United Nations and beg for help. The enemy knows he will safe once again from the wrath of the “Great Satan.” America has a reputation now of being a country that cuts and runs.
Our soldiers don’t cut and run but our politicians do. The media is duplicitous with the far left by only reporting bad news and rarely any good news. Pounded with doom and gloom and a daily body count, many Americans are beginning to doubt—beginning to get fearful and when completely indoctrinated that all is lost, the hue and cry will begin. Iraq is not worth it. “Those people” don’t appreciate what we have done for them so we should pull out and leave them to take care of themselves. “They” don’t want us there. This is Bush’s war! By saying this, leftists can justify abandoning millions to be killed--free from guilt. They will say as the mass slaughter begins, “It’s the Iraqi people’s fault.” They can then turn their eyes away from the carnage and feel righteous in their decision and mumble... “They deserved it.” “It’s Bush’s fault.”
When we abandoned our friends in Viet Nam, anyone who had helped us died. The killing was massive and brutal. It would be no different in Iraq and those who assisted the Americans and coalition forces would be lined up and executed. Death would be worse at the hands of the terrorists and probably would not be swift. Those on the left seem not to care. They didn’t care in Viet Nam and they don’t care now.
Leftists have perfected their anti-American program and streamlined it since Viet Nam. It took a couple of years to lose the war in South East Asia; it will only take the left a few months to lose the war in Iraq. If John Kerry wins in November they will step-up their work on losing the war on terror. Iraq is just the first step. The left will abdicate our power and safety to the United Nations ignoring the inglorious and failed history of that body. The left will embrace “Old Europe” with both arms and beg for help. That is the second thing they do well. First, they surrender--then they beg. After all, the “new” America is weak and cannot win.
How far have we fallen since World War II? We had a mission. We fought until that mission had been completed and then we stayed and rebuilt the countries we had defeated. When the world was stable once again, most of our troops came home. The same leftists that kept us from perhaps preventing that dreadful war with their isolationist attitude started complaining almost immediately after the surrender of the Axis Powers and they have never stopped.
Many on the left come from academe but they have no vision. Many come from wealthy, well-educated families but they don’t have the common sense God gave a squirrel.
In the liberal version of the dictionary, victory means capitulation and appeasement. As Americans, we have been down that liberal road and it has always led to death, destruction, and a World War. This trip will be no different.
Posted by: JS | Dec 18, 2004 8:18:42 PM
Sharon,
If you've going to spout off ignorant, anti-American vitriol, the least you could do is cite your source.
http://www.republicanandproud.com/liberaldefinition.htm
What a joke. And you try to pawn this garbage off as your own. Truthfully, your dishonesty doesn't surprise me, but please, post your plagarized garbage somewhere else.
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 18, 2004 10:57:09 PM
Dear JS.. AHHH, never mind I can't say that!
But what I say is the following,"credit where credit is due."
From the "USMC A COMPLETE HISTORY" by the Marine Corp association, page 576 MANPOWER,
"Since the summer of 1965, more then 30,000 Marines have voluntarily extended their tours of duty in Vietnam for 6 months or more. That equates to more then a battalion a month. During December of 1968. 3200 of the 8,000 men who were scheduled to come home volunteered to remain in country."
What a differnce JS, a generation makes from then until now, a perfect example of the degrading of the services by the left in this country, and it seems that the only ones in the news on trying to run out and leave their friends are from Oregon, "WHY IS THAT?"
The ones who "Bitch and whine" read your posts.
The others read Sharon's, WELL DUH!
Posted by: sharon | Dec 19, 2004 9:01:18 AM
hey asshole...I never said I owned that statement..But how true it is...
Posted by: sharon | Dec 19, 2004 9:02:57 AM
you never see the Marines on your boob toob bitching about not having body armor..or complaining about extended tours..There are only 2 kinds of Marines..Marines that are in Iraq...and Marines that want to be in Iraq...
Posted by: sharon | Dec 19, 2004 9:04:11 AM
STILL WAITING ON THAT ANSWER ....WHERE ARE YOU STATIONED...LMAO
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 19, 2004 9:21:24 AM
To these folks, it doesn't matter that I am simply repeating what members of the Oregon National Guard have said. Because I am a liberal/progressive/Democrat/BlueOregon reader, I am "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" YOUR WORDS!
"Since the summer of 1965, more then 30,000 Marines have voluntarily extended their tours of duty in Vietnam for 6 months or more. That equates to more then a battalion a month. During December of 1968. 3200 of the 8,000 men who were scheduled to come home volunteered to remain in country."
What a differnce JS, a generation makes from then until now, a perfect example of the degrading of the services by the left in this country, and it seems that the only ones in the news on trying to run out and leave their friends are from Oregon, "WHY IS THAT?" My words!
So just ignore us "trolls"...in 08, your going down again! Jack Peek, father of three in the service of their country who are not whining!
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 19, 2004 7:03:21 PM
I am sorry that the last seven times we Americans took up arms and sacrificed the blood of our youth, it was in the defense of Muslims (Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Kuwait, etc.).
I am sorry that no such call for an apology upon the extremists came after 9/11.
I am sorry that all of the murderers on 9/11 were Arabs.
I am sorry that Arabs have to live in squalor under savage dictatorships. I am sorry that their leaders squander their wealth.
I am sorry that their governments breed hate for the US in their religious schools.
I am sorry that Yassir Arafat was kicked out of every Arab country and hijacked the Palestinian "cause."
I am sorry that no other Arab country will take in or offer more than a token amount of financial help to those same Palestinians.
I am sorry that the USA has to step in and be the biggest financial supporter of poverty stricken Arabs while the insanely wealthy Arabs blame the USA.
I am sorry that our own left wing elite and our media can't understand any of this.
I am sorry the United Nations scammed the poor people of Iraq out of the "food for oil" money so they could get rich while the common folk suffered.
I am sorry that some Arab governments pay the families of homicide bombers upon their death.
I am sorry that those same bombers are seeking 72 virgins. I can't seem to find one here on Earth.
I am sorry that the homicide bombers think babies are a legitimate target.
I am sorry that our troops died to free more Arabs.
I am sorry they show so much restraint when their brothers in arms are killed. I am sorry that Muslim extremists have killed more Arabs than any other group.
I am sorry that foreign trained terrorists are trying to seize control of Iraq and return it to a terrorist state.
I am sorry we don't drop a few dozen "Daisy Cutters" on Fallujah. (Note: a "Daisy Cutter" is a 10,000 lb bomb, used to clear helicopter landing zones)
I am sorry every time terrorists hide they find a convenient "Holy Site".
I am sorry they didn't apologize for driving a jet into the World Trade Center that collapsed and severely damaged Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church - one of our Holy Sites.
I am sorry they didn't apologize for flight 93 and 175, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, etc.
I am sorry Michael Moore is American; he could feed a medium sized village in Africa.
I am sorry the French are french?
America will get past this latest absurdity. We will punish those responsible because that is what we do. We hang out our dirty laundry for all the world to see. We move on. That's one of the reasons we are hated so much. We don't hide this stuff like all those Arab countries that are now demanding an apology.
Deep down inside, when most Americans saw this reported in the news, we were like - so what? We lost hundreds and made fun of a few prisoners. Sure, it was wrong, sure, it dramatically hurts our cause, but until captured we were trying to kill these same prisoners. Now we're supposed to wring our hands because a few were humiliated? Our compassion is tempered with the vivid memories of our own people killed, mutilated and burnt amongst a joyous crowd of celebrating Fallujans.
If you want an apology from this American, you're going to have a long wait. You have a better chance of finding those 72 virgins.
Posted by: GetAClueJack | Dec 19, 2004 8:08:56 PM
Jack do you read what you write before you hit the post button?
Posted by: JACK PEEK | Dec 19, 2004 8:21:06 PM
Yes,and DO YOU NOT GET THE MESSAGE?
But,those on the left are still sorry and will continue to be sorry right up to the last day.
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: JS | Dec 14, 2004 9:35:59 AM
Sharon says: "Al Zarqawi is Al Qada wgi is in Iraq..."
What?
From your nonsense sentence, I'm inferring that you think the presence of al-Zarqawi in Iraq conclusively proves a connection between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda (let me know if I'm wrong).
However, Zarqawi operated in the Kurdish controlled area of Iraq that was routinely patrolled by US and British fighters (the no-fly zone north of the 36th parallel). Also, the CIA disagrees with you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189795/
"WASHINGTON - A CIA report has found no conclusive evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which the Bush administration asserted before the invasion of Iraq."
Furthermore, "long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger."
And why?
"Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."
Read the whole article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/