Troops not getting needed armor, Rumsfeld needs to go

[NeoV]

Rummy has to go..

where is Tasteslikechicken to tell us all how wrong we are? Rip? Can't find a right-wing counter-article to link?

 

[Drift3r]

Man I didn't know it was that bad !

One soldier, identified by The Associated Press as Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, a Tennessee National Guard outfit, asked Rumsfeld why more military combat vehicles were not reinforced for battle conditions.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.

The question prompted cheers from some of the approximately 2,300 troops assembled in the large hangar to hear Rumsfeld deliver a pep talk at what the Pentagon called a town hall meeting.

 

[Dari]

His answer was poor, too. I thought the makers of these vehicles could do better.

 

[tnitsuj]

Thier are vehicles designed to be basically impervious to the types of IED's routinely faced in Iraq. Vickers and Armscor of SA make them.

We could have ordered them, but didn't. Rumsfeld wanted to prove his "new army" light, mobile, using technology in the place of manpower. If it were up to him we would have charged to Baghdad with a strike force of 50k (original plan that Franks said hell no to).

He refuses to accept reality. Instead we have a Striker brigade with vehicles surrounded by Chicken wire.

He's an ass, and obviously cares more about his own ideology than victory or prudence.

 

[AnImuS]

This is truly pathetic. Who knows how many lifes could of been saved by better equipment.

Shouldnt the soldiers also take a stronger stance? No soldiers, no military.

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: Rogue
Here's the deal, from a soldier who sees all of this from the inside.

Simply put, Rumsfeld has failed due to his strong arm tactics and his no bull$hit attitude to everything and everyone around him. I must admit that I supported him at first, however, as time has gone by, his errors, misjudgements and unforgivable mistakes have been far too costly. Rumsfeld would do all military memebers a favor to step down and allow someone like McCain to come in and clean up his mess. Simply put, we need a change of tactics and procedure in Iraq, or we will continue to flounder and fail as we are now. I do truly believe that Iraq can be turned around, however, not with this strong-arm show of force we use all the time. There is absolutely no reason that our soldiers should still be patrolling the streets in tanks or even US Army uniforms for that matter. I think it would go a long way with the Iraqis to simply remove the "appearance" of occupation.

Anyway, back to procurement and supplies. I can say that the units deploying from my location are being sent much better equipped than their first rotation to Iraq. My brother was part of the initial assault into Iraq and his equipment was in poor condition to say the least. Their handguards for their weapons and various other pieces of equipment were held together with duct tape and 550 cord, literally. Either way you look at it, that's a failure that should fall directly on the shoulders of the highest ranking person in the system and that's Rumsfeld and/or Bush. It's unacceptable.

Thanks for that perspective. I do recall you supporting this administration before and to hear you call them out now is very respectable as they SHOULD be held accountable for how mismanaged this war is. Sadly, there are still teh same drones that will steadfastly cling on to the belief that this administration can do no wrong.

This thread needs to stay at the top for EVERYONE to a gander at. Ironically, I don't see the usual suspects come in here to say squat in defense of the administration of the war effort in Iraq.

 

[jagec]

"Are you implying our troops aren't man enough to fight without armor?"

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: jagec
"Are you implying our troops aren't man enough to fight without armor?"

Even Worf knew when it was time to blow up the damn ship

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Rogue
Here's the deal, from a soldier who sees all of this from the inside.

Simply put, Rumsfeld has failed due to his strong arm tactics and his no bull$hit attitude to everything and everyone around him. I must admit that I supported him at first, however, as time has gone by, his errors, misjudgements and unforgivable mistakes have been far too costly. Rumsfeld would do all military memebers a favor to step down and allow someone like McCain to come in and clean up his mess. Simply put, we need a change of tactics and procedure in Iraq, or we will continue to flounder and fail as we are now. I do truly believe that Iraq can be turned around, however, not with this strong-arm show of force we use all the time. There is absolutely no reason that our soldiers should still be patrolling the streets in tanks or even US Army uniforms for that matter. I think it would go a long way with the Iraqis to simply remove the "appearance" of occupation.

Anyway, back to procurement and supplies. I can say that the units deploying from my location are being sent much better equipped than their first rotation to Iraq. My brother was part of the initial assault into Iraq and his equipment was in poor condition to say the least. Their handguards for their weapons and various other pieces of equipment were held together with duct tape and 550 cord, literally. Either way you look at it, that's a failure that should fall directly on the shoulders of the highest ranking person in the system and that's Rumsfeld and/or Bush. It's unacceptable.

:thumbsup:

 

[PrinceofWands]

I've been too busy with finals to follow this whole fiasco...was the statement about body armor, or armored vehicle assistance?

I can totally see the need for armored transport and support. If we're talking body armor then people need to get real. Vests are good, don't get me wrong, but even level IV milspec with ceramics aren't going to stop 7.62 very often. some torso protection against light shrapnel maybe...small arms and smg's sometimes...but heavy arms? Not gonna happen. Might as well wrap yourself in reynolds aluminum foil. And in no way does this stuff offer anything other than general torso protection, focused in the front. The rest of you is still a prime target.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I've been too busy with finals to follow this whole fiasco...was the statement about body armor, or armored vehicle assistance?

I can totally see the need for armored transport and support. If we're talking body armor then people need to get real. Vests are good, don't get me wrong, but even level IV milspec with ceramics aren't going to stop 7.62 very often. some torso protection against light shrapnel maybe...small arms and smg's sometimes...but heavy arms? Not gonna happen. Might as well wrap yourself in reynolds aluminum foil. And in no way does this stuff offer anything other than general torso protection, focused in the front. The rest of you is still a prime target.

I think its mainly vehicle armor...since they were referring to scrap metal and bullet proof glass in the original article.

 

[Zedtom]

The issue is bigger than Rumsfeld, but someone has to take responsibility. (You don't expect the President to admit to anything ,do you?)

Imagine Rumsfeld on the hotseat in Donald Trump's boardroom. "I'm an old man, it's early in the morning, give me a chance to think."

"You're fired!"

 

[GoPackGo]

So who here has called or is going to call?

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: conjur

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," Rumsfeld said.

What a fvcking crock of sh*t!!!!!

I never thought I'd run into a quote more devastating than lordtyrannus' "non-american deaths are meaningless" line but this one takes the cake - from an administration official no less.

I'm sending out emails today for sure

 

[phillyTIM]

God, what kind of answer is 'you go to war with the army that you have' from Rumsfeld? That sure isn't doing a darn thing for troop morale.

If the US is the Superpower of the world, surely it can drum up some essential equipment - just put us a bit more in debt, who cares by now.

Let the deserts inflame the US troops with the middle-east furor and lead them to declare mutiny on Bush's Junta.

 

[maluckey]

Having been in a combat unit in the First Gulf War, and now in Iraqi Freedom, I can speak with a little inside knowledge.

It is not possible to wait until every single contingincy is thought up. If so, you would NEVER have a military action......You go to war when you need to. You adjust for fire, so to speak, as necessary. The Body Armor in question was not the military's fault, rather the manufacturer spitting out inferior pieces that were returned. Many (most) on this forum scream about Military purchases, but now feel that the Military should be able just to jump up and buy what it needs..errrr, isn't that what you were complaining that they shouldn't do??? It's not that easy. Besides, the armor inserts that the news is screaming about is only for the chest/stomach/middle back area. Even then, it will NOT stop a sniper round, or a direct multiple hit (I.E. machine gun), or even veven ANY armor piercing bullet. It DOES give proof versus most standard pistol and single hit small arms rounds. NOTHING as far as body armor goes will save you from a direct bomb hit. Armor is nice, but not a deal breaker.

As far as HMMWV (Humvee) not having Added armor, it's true. They are not now, nor ever were designed to survive against large IEDS. They ARE designed versus small-arms fire and shrapnel. A non-combat unit may not even have armor on their vehicles at all. NO combat unit that I have ever seen (I was stationed at CMTC for several years, so have seen virtually every U.S. unit), is without armored Humvee's. I would like to know which U.S. Army combat unit doesn't have armored Humvee's, because I have never seen it pass through.

As a side note, I cannot speak for the National Guard. They are a different story altogether. If anyone knows (first hand) about combat units in the guard.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If do not know if this is now true, but up through the Cold War, the Guard/Reserve units (for Army & Navy) were usually 10-20 years behind in terms of technology/equipment. It was the trickle down theory.

Front-line nits were delivered the stuff from the production lines, The existing equipment was returned back to the states for training and depot use. The equipemnt that was then in the states was turned over to the reserves for use.

Now we are send the reserves into combat with equipment that is 2 generations old. Part of the problem, is that they are not properly trained with the new equipment and their manpower is needed immediately.

However, in WWII, the US industry geared up within 6 months to produce the equipment that was needed (using existing plans) and was able within 2 years to turn out advanced technology (for its time).

Presently, this is not the case; industry hs not been turned loose.

 

[Pliablemoose]

It appears the soldier was set up by a reporter to ask the question...

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
It appears the soldier was set up by a reporter to ask the question...

The question prompted cheers from some of the approximately 2,300 troops assembled in the large hangar

I doubt those soldiers were prompted by reporters to cheer. But either way, where'd you read this?

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
It appears the soldier was set up by a reporter to ask the question...

The question prompted cheers from some of the approximately 2,300 troops assembled in the large hangar

I doubt those soldiers were prompted by reporters to cheer. But either way, where'd you read this?

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcp.htm

 

[MoFunk]

Also according to this article http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/...feld.troops/index.html

n Washington, Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said about 450 armored Humvees are being produced each month. This is up from August 2003 when only 15 per month were made.

That's about the time commanders in Iraq started asking for them because of the increased use of roadside bombs by insurgents.

So sounds like they are filling the demand as fast as they can.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Zedtom
The issue is bigger than Rumsfeld, but someone has to take responsibility. (You don't expect the President to admit to anything ,do you?)

I don't care what the administration admits, it has been well documented that they under-planned, under-manned and under-equipped the whole misadventure in Iraq from day one.

Sadly, too many allegedly "conservative" Americans they thought it was more important to tuck their skulls deeply between their glutial cheeks, get all pissy about giving gays equal rights and celebrating the stink from the swift boat liars than it was to deal with their incompetence and say, "YOU'RE FIRED!" :|

 

[DanJ]

As the Daily show said, if you are a colossal failure (lots of media attention) in the Bush admin you stay on (Rumsfeld), but if you are just somewhat of a failure, or not 100% loyal, you have to go. Letting major failures go like Rumsfeld would be admitting a mistake, and BushCo doesn't make mistakes....

 

[MoFunk]

Hey, before you guys speak of "You're Fired" and being a failure, you need to get more facts. As more and more facts come out about this, this whole thing was a BS setup!

 

[kage69]

Hey, before you guys speak of "You're Fired" and being a failure, you need to get more facts. As more and more facts come out about this, this whole thing was a BS setup!

You might want to focus on getting a better grasp on the past before you go foretelling the future. I agree with the last part though; this whole Iraq thing has been one BS setup.