Jackson Free Press

New York Times editorial today:

We're used to hearing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld answer questions about things that went wrong in Iraq by saying they went right. When he does that to reporters, it's annoying. When he does it to troops risking their lives in his failed test of bargain-basement warfare, it's outrageous.

Yesterday, Mr. Rumsfeld told soldiers at a staging area in Kuwait to ignore "the doubters" who say the escalating war is not going well. Then he invited the troops, some of them headed to their second combat tours, to ask him "tough questions." They evidently thought he meant it.

A National Guard scout from Tennessee asked why there was still an equipment shortage that forced units to scrounge for "hillbilly armor": "pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted." When the cheering died down, Mr. Rumsfeld said that, really, there was plenty of armor and in any case, "all the armor in the world" might not save you from a roadside bomb.

Well, then. All those soldiers are going to sleep better.

Previous Comments

ID

86316

Comment

I like the part where Rumsfeld says "we go to war with the army we have, not the army we might want." Er, yeah, unless you plan the war for a year, and have been in the actual war for a year and a half. Seems like that's plenty of time to get equipment needs figured out.

Author

kate

Date

2004-12-10T09:39:22-06:00

ID

86317

Comment

Heard on the news this morning...(in passing as I was getting ready) that although they are spouting that the soldiers have had enough of this and that and that the enough vehicles have been properly armored for the necessary situations, that actually, we have not even produced enough of the properly armored Humvees needed until this past October. I am thinking that they were saying that the production level got up to speed Oct 2004 ...to where it should've been the whole time. If that's the case, that is so very unacceptable.

Author

Jen

Date

2004-12-10T12:05:25-06:00

ID

86318

Comment

Good point, Jen. And it is simply unconscionable at this point for the administration's apologists to try to say that people who are worried about the safety of our soldiers, their lack of equipment, the stop-loss policies, the poorly planned and executed war and its destabilization of the region are not supporting the soldiers. Frankly, anybody who says that to, or about, me can kiss my butt. I can sleep at night after the positions I have taken on this ill-conceived war since the very beginning. People who question a bad war, and sending our troops into harm's way without a real plan, equipment or a good reason, are in the right this time -- they are as pro the soldiers as one can get. Hope the editorial writers over The Ledge, and the other Bush apologists around the U.S., can say the same. See, you got me going again. ;-) Troublemaker.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-10T12:31:00-06:00

ID

86319

Comment

You know I've been called that somewhere before....??? ;-) I just don't see where it is that hard to realize that folks can be anti-war and pro-soldier. I guess either people just really see things so black and white/us v. them that they can't fathom that. That or they get so caught up in the crap-spouting and brainwashing that they really think we don't care how many of our young men and women get killed or injured or maimed??? How ridiculous.

Author

Jen

Date

2004-12-10T12:53:27-06:00

ID

86320

Comment

Jen, I think it's a combination of 20th Century history and muddled thinking Muddled in that many people seem incapable of nuance; history in regards to support for the war and troops in WW2 vs Vietnam (picture and contrast the zeitgeist of both eras). Though you think we'd have gotten over this after the 1991 Gulf War, apparently some people have too vivid a memory of the Vietnam Era -- equating opposition to the war with spitting on troops coming home (and traditional values in general). Fair or not, that's the image many people, especially traditionalists, have in their heads. An excellent example of The Slippery Slope (or in more common language, "jumping to conclusions). Speaking of slippery slopes, let me bring up two that will undoubtedly hit home for many people. If you support the war, then you are seeking to create an American Colonial Empire akin to The British Colonial Empire If you support prayer in schools, then you very likely support an America run by a Christian Taliban Note to any traditionalist lurkers: See how Slippery Slopes lead to muddled thinking? If you don't want people making such hasty assumptions about you, then don't make them about those who disagree with you!

Author

Philip

Date

2004-12-10T13:10:07-06:00

ID

86321

Comment

Aaaah the Vietnam Era, yes. Some part of me respects and feels for everyone involved at that time. (My oldest sister says I was born at the wrong time and should've been there....) Anyway, I wonder if the protesters at that time attempted in any way to differentiate between those soldiers who were drafted and those who chose themselves to go into the war? Just an "I wonder." Interesting point on slippery slopes, Philip. They tend to be black/white and tend to lead to lead to extremes. Back to the not supporting the war/not supporting the soldiers issue. Need I remind anyone that the one of the (if not THE) biggest NON supporter of our armed services (soldiers) post-war at least and at present we are seeing during war... is our very own US Government??? Not just the current issues of armor, etc., but pay reductions, insurance issues, not providing for the injured and such... and back to Vietnam and the 1st Gulf War and other wars I am sure, not admitting certain things were wrong with soldiers (caused by war conditions that WE provided them) when they returned from war.... "Gulf War Syndrome" etc etc -- Not admitting and then not providing treatment, and in many cases veterans losing benefits....

Author

Jen

Date

2004-12-10T14:02:59-06:00

ID

86322

Comment

This is reported over at Bloomberg: Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday the Army was working as fast as it can and supply is dictated by ``a matter of physics, not a matter of money.'' Jacksonville, Florida-based Armor Holdings last month told the Army it could add armor to as many as 550 of the trucks a month, up from 450 vehicles now, Robert Mecredy, president of the company's aerospace and defense group, said in an interview today. ``We're prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month,'' Mecredy said in the telephone interview. ``I've told the customer that and I stand ready to do that.'' Insurgent attacks on the vehicles with homemade bombs and rocket-propelled grenades account for as much as half of the more than 1,000 U.S. deaths and 9,000 U.S. wounded in Iraq, and have fueled criticism by members of Congress such as Representative Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, that the Pentagon didn't adequately equip U.S. troops. there's more to the article. Again, I'd like to point out that we've been at this for more than 2 years (if you count the "planning") - and the Bush administration still can't manage to provide basic equipment, and is either deliberately lying about what's going on or so incompetent that they can't figure out how to order more armor plated trucks. I just don't get it.

Author

kate

Date

2004-12-10T15:47:48-06:00

ID

86323

Comment

I don't either kate, or maybe I just don't WANT to believe that our leaders would let this happen or that anyone would really be that incompetant. As much as I know it's true. Disgusting. And then Rumsfeld with his oh they would've died anyway remarks puke and the servicemen/women themselves say that the armor underneath the vehicles could save many lives. Sometimes I think, "Do they think we don't have ears...??? Brains???" And then I look around (in dumbfounded astonishment) at all the folks who believe their spiel....and just shake my head...

Author

Jen

Date

2004-12-10T16:20:26-06:00

ID

86324

Comment

Humvees were never meant to have armor. Many war time vehicles are used for support....i.e. supply, transport...When weight is added, these vehicles become SLOW...thereby jeopardizing the troops that they carry. Maybe this isn't a vast right wing conspiracy to kill our troops....Physics anyone?

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T08:14:36-06:00

ID

86325

Comment

Maybe this isn't a vast right wing conspiracy to kill our troops....Physics anyone? Who has suggested such a thing? That's quite a reach, Lee. I think the people here, myself included, are more concerned that the Bush administration is not prepared for a war they thought would be easy and over quickly after the initial "shock and awe." No one is saying they are purposefully trying to kill soldiers. Don't put ridiculous words in other people's mouths here. It just makes you look like you're not listening. Otherwise, the Army itself may not agree with your assertion about the Humvees: MSNBC today: he U.S. Army has asked the company that is producing fully armored Humvees to expand the Armyís order to 550 per month, an increase of 100 a month, NBC News learned Friday. The move comes on the heels of a highly publicized exchange between a U.S. soldier in Kuwait and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that put the spotlight on the U.S. shortage of armored vehicles in the war with Iraq. It also sparked heated debate about U.S. preparations for the conflict and about the safety and morale of U.S. troops in Iraq. As reported Thursday on NBC's ìNightly News,î the company, Armor Holdings, which adds the armor package to Army Humvees at its plant in Cincinnati, Ohio, said it could increase its production by 100 vehicles per month. Of course, it looks like politics at play: Why wasn't this done before? It's good, of course, that it's happening now, though. Whatever it takes to save lives over there.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T14:05:30-06:00

ID

86326

Comment

Yes... they were NOT meant to carry armor... as many non-combat vehicles aren't. It's an afterthought. Still, the left makes it seem the RIGHT would put troops in harms way. That's wrong.

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T14:51:41-06:00

ID

86327

Comment

Well, the right is putting troops in harm's way. That's just a fact. And, yes, I agree that it's wrong.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T14:53:11-06:00

ID

86328

Comment

But... on purpose? Come on .

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T15:13:33-06:00

ID

86329

Comment

Lee, you're arguing with your own straw man. No one here said they are *purposefully* putting soldiers in harm's way in order to get them killed. We are saying they are *irresponsibly* and *negligently* and perhaps *naively* putting them in harm's way. Big difference. (And this is the same thing many soldiers are saying, as in the case of what brought this to the forefront.) To recap, above you wrote: Maybe this isn't a vast right wing conspiracy to kill our troops No one said it is. You brought up the straw man. Now you're trying to prove the old guy wrong. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T15:34:17-06:00

ID

86330

Comment

So... the left is JUST as culpable as the RIGHT.... right?

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T15:45:40-06:00

ID

86331

Comment

Huh? It depends on who you mean, and what exactly you're talking aboutówhich you don't make clear. But if you're asking if the left is just as culpable as the right in soldiers getting killed needlessly in Iraq, the answer isn't simple. Over all in this Iraqi war, the left has not been as culpable as the right, although that doesn't make them perfect, either. The right led the charge on this one, and did more misleading and seeking out of misleading information. However, too many Democrats in Congress did go along with what Bush had convinced the public was the right thing -- it was hard for them not to, politically, they believed. The administration had convinced the world (including Tony Blair) that the WMD was there and an immediate threat was the reason for the war. It was hard to be the politician who stood up and said they weren't going to "protect" us from the monster. However, many Democrats voiced reservations and placed qualifications on their support, as Kerry did. Other Democrats did not do way enough. And it was the right (the neo-cons, to be exact) who pushed the dream idea of "shock and awe" and a quick and easy war. They were in power and rushed the war without planning for the peace. They thumbed their nose at the world and, thus, had much less support and back-up for our soldiers than we could have had. Say what you want about the French, but their soldiers aren't getting blown up over there because they don't have enough equipment or backup. History will likely say they were the smart ones. That may hurt to hear, but the truth can sting. So, yes, there is shared culpability -- but this is Bush's war. He sure would have claimed it all for his own had it gone better. (Remember him declaring victory in the flight suit before all the info was in?) It's easy to now try to blame the people who said we shouldn't rush in without more help and without better planning -- but it's intellectually dishonest to do so. Integrity means more than not boffing interns in the White House; it also mans accepting responsibility when you're wrong, instead of trying to blame your detractors.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T15:57:37-06:00

ID

86332

Comment

Thanks... you proved my point better than I could have.

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T16:07:00-06:00

ID

86333

Comment

As for me, when the soldiers start complaining that the Humvees are too slow with all that pesky armor, then I'll think about buyingy into your argument that after a year of war planning and 18 months of war, and after having the manufacturing capacity in place for god knows how long, and after spending billions on the war that it somehow MAKES SENSE that the soldiers aren't adequately equipped.

Author

kate

Date

2004-12-12T19:07:09-06:00

ID

86334

Comment

I'm a little lost. Which point is that, Lee?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T19:10:06-06:00

ID

86335

Comment

Again...point is... those vehicles(as many others) were NEVER meant to have armor.... It S-L-O-W-S them down. Your argument is ex-post-facto. Politics......Plain and SIMPLE.

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T19:11:05-06:00

ID

86336

Comment

Lee, then why do the soldiers seem to want the armor? And why wasn't that Rummy's response? And why are we armoring so many vehicles if it's such stupid idea? Go ask a soldier - because from what I've read, it's not politics. It's life or death.

Author

kate

Date

2004-12-12T19:12:40-06:00

ID

86337

Comment

Again... this argument is after the fact.... The vehicles were designed well beforehand.... Once a solider(God Bless Them) is over in the heat of battle.... he or she may see a need for improvement. Your argument is well understood that things could be better... but the Republicans aren't trying to hurt the troops.... and that's consistantly the implication from the left.

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T19:18:25-06:00

ID

86338

Comment

the Republicans aren't trying to hurt the troops.... and that's consistantly the implication from the left. No, it's not, Lee. You need to pay closer attention. That's your personal straw man, and it doesn't work in this case. Negligence isn't the same thing as intent to harm. I don't know anyone stupid enough to argue that the Bush administration *wants* our troops to be killed. That's simply a ludicrous way to try to deflect on their incompetence in this particular war. And I really don't see why anyone would do this when it's the soldiers who are hurting as a result of that incompetence. God bless them.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T19:24:36-06:00

ID

86339

Comment

Oh, and Kate, if they are armoring them SIMPLY because the political heat is now on, I'm not sure what that says about the administration, either. It would say to me that they care more about politics than taxpayer resources or the needs of the soldiers.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T19:26:15-06:00

ID

86340

Comment

Lee, hun, I'm just about done with this. 1. The LEFT is not a monolithic thing. 2. The LEFT does NOT think the REPUBLICANS ARE OUT TO HURT OUR SOLDIERS. Many people who are opposed to the war (left, right, republican, democrat, greeen, buddhist, evangelicals, catholics, hindus, jews, baptists, etc) feel that this administration went into this war with very very little planning or forethought, because, despite reports, analysis, warnings and common sense, they thought this would be over as soon as it started. Which is why Bush posed under the Mission Accomplished banner about 800 american deaths ago. That has not proven true. Despite the obvious problems, troops are not properly equipped. Now, given that we have a republican white house and a republican Congress, yes, I think the lion's share of the blame falls on the current leadership of the republican party. I think it's incompetence and hubris, rather than malice, for the most part. And, if we really don't have a better alternative than armored humvees, and if they are as SLOW as you say they are, well, then the army needs some better designers. However, if it is the BEST ALTERNATIVE, to the point where soldiers are scrounging metal from the junk yards, and we have the manufacturing capacity to actually make fully armored Humvees, then, well, I think we should. Like I said, when I hear soldiers complaining about excessive armor, then I'll start listening.

Author

kate

Date

2004-12-12T19:27:11-06:00

ID

86341

Comment

O.K. it's getting late... We'll just have to agree to disagree....But. if you're going to call me hun, then I'll call you babe... Night, night, babe.;-) Glad you care about the issues... keep fighting for what you believe in. Lee

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-12T19:33:00-06:00

ID

86342

Comment

Don't worry that, Lee. *I* call her "Babe." We chicks took back that word a long time ago.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-12T19:39:27-06:00

ID

86343

Comment

Salon offers this bit of background info. Seems that Rumsfeld was asked by a soldier about armor for Humvees back in May 2004: "I have force protection questions, sir," said a soldier whose name was not identified in a Pentagon transcript of the May 13 town hall meeting. "You have what?" asked Rumsfeld. "Force protection," the unknown soldier repeated. Rumsfeld turned to Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his companion on the Baghdad trip. "General Myers," he said, amid laughter, leaving the general to deal with whatever touchy topics the soldier might raise. The soldier stumbled and mumbled in his question but the meaning was plain enough: "Sir, my unit, the 2nd Brigade -- (inaudible) -- Cav[alry], we have five out of the six red zones in this country. And with the up-armored Humvees, the new -- (off mike) -- Humvees they're bringing over with the -- (inaudible) -- those doors are not as good as the ones on the up-armored Humvees (inaudible). We even lost quite -- we lost some soldiers due to them, and we're trying to make a change -- (inaudible). The question is, are we going to get more up-armored Humvees?" In other words, his cavalry unit was going into dangerous places, he had seen his comrades die when their unarmored vehicles were blasted, and he was hoping that more of the better-protected Humvees would be arriving soon. He also asked about vests with protective ceramic plates, which were in similar short supply. Rumsfeld remained silent, while Myers replied with the kind of uplifting rhetoric that has made enlisted men distrust general officers from the dawn of armed conflict. "Good points. Excellent points," he said. "You can imagine we spend a lot of time on force protection, and our responsibility, I think, is to ensure we have the resources and protection lines and all that cranked up to get the equipment we need." and At last week's town hall event in Kuwait, Rumsfeld indicated that the problem was not a question of money or executive will but a limit to what defense contractors could physically produce. As the Los Angeles Times reported over the weekend, the defense secretary was wrong again. Within two days of Rumsfeld claiming the armored Humvees couldn't be built any faster, the Pentagon announced that production will be increased immediately by at least 100 vehicles a month.

Author

kate

Date

2004-12-14T10:14:26-06:00

ID

86344

Comment

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/10427343.htm

Author

dvc

Date

2004-12-16T11:55:59-06:00

ID

86345

Comment

Thanks, anon. In case others haven't clicked that link, yet, now Lott is saying Rumsfeld isn't qualified to lead the Department of Defense. Duh. Had some Republicans started saying this back when it became obvious, maybe 900 children wouldn't have lost their parents in this idiotic war. Bless the soldiers and the Iraqi citizens.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-16T12:44:08-06:00

ID

86346

Comment

That's right, Donna. I read it, and I am like, did he just wake up? I am not getting too excited on this front though 1.) so much political speak that this is probably just more of and 2.) With Bush appointing people and this and that dept saying "we don't go against the administration" ...crap I don't know how much better that position might get. Oh, I forgot the optimism....about 1200 soldiers ago. Sorry.

Author

Jen

Date

2004-12-16T13:01:51-06:00

ID

86347

Comment

The unfortunate trend in recent years has been to forget that the military is designed to engage in combat, not pacify civilian populations. Soldiers are not police, period. The bottom line is that the invasion of Iraq was a debacle, and the occupation will never, and can never, be successful. Matters of equipment are peripheral.

Author

Willezurmacht

Date

2004-12-17T13:33:52-06:00

ID

86348

Comment

From the Air & Space Power Journal, Summer 2003 "US National Security - Strategy and the Imperative of 'Geopresence'" by Gen Gregory S. Martin, USAF: "More so than ever before, our military today must be able to conduct operations across the full spectrum- from nuclear deterrence and high-end conventional warfare to lower-end, yet potentially volatile, peacekeeping, humanitarian, and noncombatant-evacuation operations- and it must have the capability to execute those operations rapidly, anywhere in the world." Bosnia? Korea? The last of our peacekeeping troops just moved out of France this week (774th Expeditionary Wing Unit). "The pullout had nothing to do with trans-Atlantic squabbling that erupted over the U.S.-led war in Iraq, but with the end of a NATO peacekeeping role in Bosnia earlier this month, officials said. " and I know there have been many more.... I agree they are not police, but I don't see police keeping peace always either. Our military has much and extensive training and I am sure engages in many more types of missions than just combat (or peacekeeping) than any of us are ever aware. I also agree that the invasion was a debacle, but I am a bit put off at the thought that "matters of equipment are peripheral." Isn't that a bit like saying, "Oh my brakes are out, I'll never stop...I'm gonna crash....so it doesn't matter if I or my passsengers have an airbag...." The crash is inevitable so no sense attempting to help the passengers along for the ride?" That's absurd.

Author

Jen

Date

2004-12-17T14:13:42-06:00

ID

86349

Comment

Conducting operations as occupiers in urban areas isn't a new phenomenon. Having a vehicle the is suited for counter-insurgency warfare in urban areas that contains both suitable armor and speed shouldn't have been out of the question. Are you saying that we don't have the capability for designing such a vehicle based on decent contingency planning. You do understand the concept of contingency planning don't you Lee. Maybe not! Heck, we'll give you a medal along with Bremer, Franks and Tarant anyway.

Author

butterat

Date

2004-12-20T23:43:22-06:00

ID

86350

Comment

Once again: The Humvee wasn't ORIGINALLY designed to carry armor. I guess the tent the soldiers and contractors were killed in today should have been rocket-proof. Maybe if YOU had designed it for them, they wouldn't have DIED. Bottom line is that technology evolves in the battlefield. Oh, and since you are such a knowledgeable person on such matters, you DO know these roadside bombs can take out tanks. War is HELL. The left only makes it worse.

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-21T18:12:54-06:00

ID

86351

Comment

Can we tell Rumsfield to stop whining now? Poor guy takes a few hits in the media and has to call in his bud Bush to make him feel better. Fact is he's blowing this war, and can't admit it.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2004-12-23T09:10:34-06:00

ID

86352

Comment

Good lord, Lee, back off. You're pushing hard for no real reason. You jump in here attacking, no matter the topic. You've never responded to the question of "if armored humvees suck so badly, why do the soldiers want them so badly?" Last I heard, the army was indeed concerned, prior to the explosion in the tent, about having so many troops gathering in an unsecured location, and were working to build a real mess hall. I never claimed to be a "knowledgeable person" about roadside bombs, but yes, I do know that tanks don't solve everything. But again, if armor is so useless, why do we bother with it at all, and why do the soldeirs want it? This I really love: "The left only makes it worse." Actually, from my perspective, "the right" (at least the part of the right represented by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld) only make it worse. They're sending kids into battle poorly equipped, extending tours of duty, cutting veteran benefits, etc. I really don't understand how asking questions about armor for troops makes things "worse."

Author

kate

Date

2004-12-23T10:25:55-06:00

ID

86353

Comment

The comment wasn't aimed at you unless you're also "butterat". As far as "attacking..." No maam. I'm just presenting an "alternative" viewpoint. I do so love being the minority here. I've also been respectful as per the user agreement. And YES, the troops need all the equipment the can get. But politics are being played into the situation. I remind you that President Clinton took much of the funding away from the Armed Forces during his 8 years. But, President Bush gets the blame? As far as the Right/Left debate: I say BOTH sides could use some work. What about you?

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-23T13:09:42-06:00

ID

86354

Comment

Lee, maybe you don't know what "personal attack" or "ad hominem" attack means. Read this; this is ad hominem and a vioaltion of the user agreement. Maybe if YOU had designed it for them, they wouldn't have DIED. Bottom line is that technology evolves in the battlefield. Oh, and since you are such a knowledgeable person on such matters, you DO know these roadside bombs can take out tanks. War is HELL. The left only makes it worse. If you don't understand that this is filled with personal attacks, then you are never going to understand why I'm not going to come on a talk radio show where this is how people communicate. You are not trying to discuss anything here; you are here to attack the so-called "left" and anyone YOU think fits into that category, whether or not you know what you're talking about. We're done.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-12-23T13:21:48-06:00

ID

86355

Comment

I agree.

Author

Lee

Date

2004-12-23T13:25:10-06:00