Replies

"Well its better than nothing and if the Humvees can be made quickly until bigger stuff can be made, then they have a good plan."

Unfortunately, the up-armored Humvees are not that great a plan. They have limited off road capability due to their increased weight. As such, they travel on roads where they become relatively easy to target with command detonated booby traps and RPG's. And despite the increased armor protection the Humvee cannot withstand either type of attack.

What is happening is Congress and others are criticizing hte Army for not having a force structure designed to occupy a defeated country. The Army with its limited funds created a force structure to win wars instead of being a police force. What would you father have an Army that is capable of winning wars or one that can't fight wars but is good at playing police force?

Straw man again. The fact of the matter is M-1s and Brads and M109s are vastly more capable of winning wars in the first place than Strykers and Hummers are. Strykers are basically designed for policing, in fact. The heavy armor we aren't using is better at policing than the light stuff we are using. It is better at winning wars too - it is what got the 3rd ID to Baghdad in record time and took it with trivial losses.

Opposition to heavy armor does not stem from a desire to avoid a peacekeeping army. It comes from a picture of the future of typical missions that stresses deployability and 72 hour response times and as short a logistical tail as possible, over both immediate firepower and long term casualty reduction in an environment like Iraq. Both of which, a heavier force is better at.

The opposition to using heavy armor comes primarily from future implications of its success or of relying on it. Planners don't want to fund another generation of it. They don't want to worry about how to deploy it and keep it supplied. They wanted heavy firepower needs to be turned over to the air force, and they imagined force protection would be accomplished simply by rapid victory and immediate exit (or just a parade). These were not realistic projections, as events have shown.

The plan was not to fight Major Theater Wars anymore. Killing people and breaking things is so culturally insensitive. Peacekeeping and Operations Other Than War were to be the future of the US Army. There is no follow-on to the Abrams. Tanks are remnants of Industrial Age Warfare. When the last Abrams goes on static display around 2030 we'll be out of the tank business.

Then 3ID took Baghdad.