posted
It does not matter what hay is made with it, the opportunity was meant to raise morale, and I am sure having been heard and knowing that the top is aware will do so!
quote:In Washington, Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record) of Connecticut called Rumsfeld's comments about the armor "stunning," and said in a letter to the secretary, "Your response -- 'You go to war with the Army you have' -- is utterly unacceptable."
Eh, what? Now, it's not like I support the Iraq war, but what is Rumsfeld supposed to fight it with, the Army of the Potomac? Falkenberg's Legion? He's saying that sometimes there just isn't enough equipment to do everything; what's wrong with that?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Rumsfeld's honest no BS answers to the soldiers questions will in fact raise morale and endears him to my heart at-least, i mean he held a town house style meeting to bite the bullet for problems that he hasn't been able to fix yet, that takes a good man, and an amazing politician.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eh, what? Now, it's not like I support the Iraq war, but what is Rumsfeld supposed to fight it with, the Army of the Potomac? Falkenberg's Legion? He's saying that sometimes there just isn't enough equipment to do everything; what's wrong with that?
I think the point is that we could have done more to prepare for a war that we could have easily delayed or not gone to at all.
Posts: 291 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored Humvee and it can be blown up.
posted
"I think the point is that we could have done more to prepare for a war that we could have easily delayed or not gone to at all."
But it's not Rumsfeld's job to decide whether we go to war or not, or when we do. It's his job to decide how best to go to war when the Congress decides we should, with the assets we have at that time. If we have to blame Rumsfeld for anything, blame him for pushing for military cutbacks years ago over DoD objections -- but I personally won't blame him for it, since I think the cutbacks were a logical and necessary response to what we at the time thought would be a reduced role for our military. That we haven't been employing the military in that role is not something for which he can be blamed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it's not Rumsfeld's job to decide whether we go to war or not, or when we do. It's his job to decide how best to go to war when the Congress decides we should, with the assets we have at that time. If we have to blame Rumsfeld for anything, blame him for pushing for military cutbacks years ago over DoD objections -- but I personally won't blame him for it, since I think the cutbacks were a logical and necessary response to what we at the time thought would be a reduced role for our military. That we haven't been employing the military in that role is not something for which he can be blamed.
I was looking at this as more of the fault of a wide range of people then Rumsfeld in particular. I'm not sure if the soliders were specifically accusing Rumsfeld of the problems that they have dealt with, but I was assumming that their questions were lodged at the administration.
Posts: 291 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored Humvee and it can be blown up.
I thought this was a weird statement too, Annie.
Somehow I doubt that Rumsfeld and his entourage did without armor on their vehicles.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
the questions were actually pressed by an embedded reporter. Since only soldiers were allowed to ask questions, a reporter brought along some soldiers in his unit and told them what to ask. Personally, I thought it was a bit dishonest for the other media not to mention it, and act like it was spontaneous questions from soldiers. The reporter himself was very open about it (I forget what paper he was from...some small paper, I believe from Cincinnati)
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought I heard that the armor only deflects shrapnel, that it won't stop a direct hit. If that's true, I can see Rumsfeld's statement. We're doing the best we can and the armor isn't that high on our list of priorities since it's not that effective anyway.
I'd rather the trucks had it since it could save lives, but I can see the money needing to go to the most effective programs first.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a second... Am I the only one who's angry about that statement? These guys are off fighting this war on the holidays. To me that statement isn't honest, it's cold. It's like saying, "Deal with it." There just isn't any excuse for the soldiers to not get the equipment to do their job right. None at all. And it's not just this, what about how the troops didn't have adequant body armour at the start of the war? This seriously pisses me off...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rumsfeld is right about one thing - soldiers are supposed to just "deal with it." That's the nature of war. You do not have the luxury of going into it with infinite resources and you should expect to be in danger.
If your war truly is necessary, then that is an acceptable cost - an acceptable danger. The only problem here is that this is a war of luxury, not of necessity. If it were truly necessary we wouldn't be worrying about whether we should have done it without 100% body armor coverage - we'd know it needs to be done, body armor or not.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dissent against the war planning? How unpatriotic...
These troops clearly don't support the troops.
[Clarification: on reread, this comes off as quite the lighthearted response on my part, completely denigrating of some very serious problems facing those soldiers. Goodness knows, I did not mean it that way. My apologies. I was just responding to the twist of language/content so deftly made by Tres.
As for the soldiers, my heart sank when I read they were having to dig up spare metal for armor. War is a harsh, harsh thing. ]
[ December 10, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing. They sent the soldiers off to this war. It is their responsibility to make sure they have the armour, the protection, every possible thing they need to make sure they win the war or at least come out alive. They should not have to be digging up scrap metal. If they can spend money a ton of stupid ways they can make sure the soldiers are protected and safe. It makes no sense at all to me...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is based on the fact that we didn't know what type of tactics people would use against us. When you don't know that, it's hard to prepare for it. RIght now, the insurgents in Iraq have found ways to do a lot of damage to our army's vehicles with heavier explosives. We went into Iraq to fight off the Iraqi Army, who uses tanks and small arms mostly. When we went in, we had exactly what we needed. What we weren't prepared for was the insurgency. As a result, we are stuck waiting for engineering, production, and transfer for new types of vehicles. Yeah, it sucks that we weren't more prepared for this, but really, how can you see the tactics of an enemy you've never fought before? And how do you prepare for that? You can only adapt, and unfortunately, that takes time. Too much time, in my opinion. I think the government is screwing up by only going to a single company to produce the armor we need over there, but that's due to stupid beauracracy that has been around since the end of WWII. The government takes bids on production of a certain thing and the low bid wins, and every other company that can produce the same product basically gets told, "Screw you."
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to admit I'm a little cranky because the basic hummer was never intended to function as light armor and that is the role it's being deployed in.
The exercise in Somalia should have given US Military planners some idea of what to expect when using glorified jeeps sans armor protection in an urban environment, which tends to be ambush friendly at the best of times.
And while I will grant Rumsfeld the truth behind the notion of "you go to war with what you have," I submit it is equally impractical to expect your forces to complete their missions with inferior or even incorrect tools.
If the US Military was so unprepared to fight a war with the express intent of being in the best situation possible to win that war, we should never have picked the fight. Iraq was not so pressing a threat we needed to rush off half-cocked, if you'll forgive the expression.
I suspect the troops field-testing the M-16 in Viet Nam had a similar sentiment to the "what the hell?" our troops have now.
And considering how much the US is relying on the National Guard to bolster the standing infantry ranks, it's a little depressing to think amateur soldiers will be deployed with antiquated gear, never mind the question of sufficient quantities.
All of which explains why the recruiters can't make their numbers and the military is implementing loss-prevention measures.
posted
I think the reason these troops in particular are bent out of shape about not getting the armor they need is because they're in the Army National Guard. In peacetime it makes sense that you would upgrade your active units first, and as time and funding allow upgrade your reserve units. As we've discussed before, however, the US does not have a large enough standing army to fight the types of battles and wars that the country asks without the use of its reserve forces.
So for me the entire debate boils down to the question of is the US willing to fund a larger standing army. In essence, that is what anybody who proposes fully equiping reserve units is asking for.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have issues with the basic model of relying heavily on National Guard units to supplement existing forces.
That notwithstanding, upgrading the hummers should have been a priority the instant it became an issue of trying to hold ground and perform peace-keeping operations.
And let's face it, even if they outfit hummers that don't see action this time around, do we really think that equipment won't be required in the next military deployment?
Just as an aside - National Guard units aren't the only ones. The hotly contested memo from Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez suggests supply issues need more serious attention across the board.
I'm a little sensitive to the active duty and guard relationship at the moment. The "we're not being treated as well as the active units" card is being played a lot lately by Guard and Reserve. It is difficult to strike a balance, though. We're in a bind because we're using Guard and Reserve troops in roles that they really shouldn't be used.
To my mind the war in Iraq is a relatively small conflict. We're there with limited objectives and we're certainly not in a fight for the immediate survival of the US. So the need to use so many Guard and Reserve troops is a real black eye.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: the questions were actually pressed by an embedded reporter. Since only soldiers were allowed to ask questions, a reporter brought along some soldiers in his unit and told them what to ask. Personally, I thought it was a bit dishonest for the other media not to mention it, and act like it was spontaneous questions from soldiers. The reporter himself was very open about it (I forget what paper he was from...some small paper, I believe from Cincinnati
It really could be that no one knew about the reporter's role until he wrote the email.
If his account is at all accurate, saying he "told them what to ask" looks like an overstatement. From the CNN article:
quote:Pitts said he was told only soldiers could ask questions, so he and two GIs "worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have."
To make sure the soldiers were picked, Pitts said he "found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd."
It looks like the question emerged out of a commonly held concern in the unit. The servicemen were collaborators, not dupes. The reporter did use his knowledge of how these things work to make sure one of them got called on.
And no one can "blame" him for the spontaneous cheers that emerged from the assembled troops.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure the reporter was a convenient tool for articulating the frustrations the troops were feeling in the form of pointed questions to the point man of the Administration intent on deploying them.
There is no way for the GIs asking the questions could not know the intent, purpose and tone of those questions. And they still asked them.
I suppose it's like getting a speech writer to put your thoughts to paper...wait...you mean like most politicians do anyway?
posted
Actually, the field testing of the M-16 in Vietnam was a disaster. So many Marines found dead at Khe Sanh with their M-16s partially disassembled beside them where they had been forced to try and clean them during close combat. Of course, that was actually the fault of the propellant from the cartridges, instead of the rifle.
But, Rumsfeld's statement, for as bad as it sounds, is pretty much the truth. You go to war with what you've got... there's really not another way. And there are so few ways to pressure test weaponry, armor and tactics outside of combat.
And the Humvees, as stated before, we're ever meant to be armored outside of the bullet resistant glass and some kevlar. Add ons like that are expensive and sometimes not as effective as one would hope. An RPG can cut through the hull of a Bradley, and there's no way to put a Bradley's armor on a Humvee.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's part of the reason why I mentioned the M-16 deployment. In addition to other issues related to the issuing of the weapon.
However, it's one thing to react to an immediate, critical threat and another to act proactively against a potential threat.
Rumsfeld's "go to war with what you have" applies perfectly to situations that are unavoidable and have to be answered immediately.
The invasion of Iraq was not a matter of addressing a critical threat and the continued deployment of US forces to maintain peace and order was a calculated decision.
With that in mind, Rumsfeld's comment is offensive and I'm surprised he walked out alive.
Particularly if the reports regarding the Army not asking the armor supplier to increase their production ability are true.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
]
