[xzins]

The problem, as I understand it, is that they are sending ARMORED units to Iraq and telling them to leave their ARMORED VEHICLES back home in favor of the LIGHTER HUMMERS.

This is NOT SPECULATION on my part.

It costs much, much more to bring tanks, bradleys, etc., instead of hummers. Fuel, parts, track, etc., is extremely costly.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

See Post 5

[JasonC]

It is less costly that losing the war, obviously. But it is also less costly than buying a whole new fleet of Strykers, plus a whole new fleet of emergency price uparmored hummers, which will break down at accelerated rates because they are not designed for the weight. The cost issue is a straw man. The reason we are using hummers is because the future plan for the army is for it to become as light as it can stand while still being able to fight. The planners want heavy armor to be obsolete so they won't have to fund it in the future and won't have to worry about how to deploy and supply it. But it isn't obsolete, and wishing won't make it so.