That response was an insult to the men he's sending North without proper equipment. They're not asking for 'all the armor in the world', they just want enough on their vehicles to improve their chances of surviving their tour. We can crank out hundreds of thousands of SUVs each year, tens of thousands of Hummers for the civilian market, why hasn't Rumsfeld's Pentagon made it a priority to provide enough protected Humvees for the troops? Outsource the manufacture of the protective armor kits, award contracts to manufacturers who can do it better or faster, this has been a known issue for well over a year. The way that Rumsfeld dismissed the question demonstrates a lack of concern on his part.
Bump.
Why should he care how they feel? They can't leave the service.
Second, the issue isn't capacity (most private contractors are underutilized or unused), it isn't quantum physics. Its about money and priorities. Its about putting more money to the problem. Its about second sourcing. Its about moving as a nation to a war time footing on a couple of critical items (night googles, ammo, armor). This issue was and has been for several years about the money and the priorities of this country. This country made 40,000 sherman tanks in an equivalent amount of time during WWII not to mention bombers, fighters, jeeps and so on. 400 M1114s a month and money saving retro kits in limited quantity isn't how you motivate an all volunteer force.
Third, a volunteer soldier or marine is prepared to die for his country whether he is a she, a national guardsman or a career officer. But none of them want their life squandered because this country can't or won't spend the extra pennies needed for their survival.
The protective armor on HMMWV's is placed on the vehicle by hand (read: welded) after it leaves the manufacturer, A. M. General. The only company that manufactures and installs the armor plating is working around the clock to get these vehicles armored as fast as possible. They take pride in their work, making sure that the armor exceeds specs. They are doing all they can with the facilities and employees they have. And they are doing it in record times.
It is not a shortage of funding or a lack of willingness on the part of Defence that is preventing the armored vehicles from getting to the front. It is a lack of manufacturers. It is very easy to sit back and point the finger at Bush and/or Rumsfield for a lack of armor at the front... But they cannot force someone to open a facility that will produce and install the armor. Where are the people with the knowledge, capabilities, and capital to create another armoring facility? Why haven't they stepped forward? When the U.S. needed a shallow-draft landing craft to get our troops ashore during W.W.II, an old boy named Higgins down in Louisiana stepped up, created the boat from scratch, and it worked perfectly. In this situation, the blueprints are there - no one has stepped up to help in production.
It has been this way since the first armies were formed. And troops always improvised. Huey pilots in Vietnam sat on their ceramic armor "chicken plates" because the floor of the helicopter wasn't armored. Air Assault troops often sat on their own helmets for the same reason. M113 armored personel carriers were known for being (in addition to being an oven in a tropical environment) a death trap in a landmine situation, with the driver being assured that he would have both legs traumatically amputated in the blast - but it was better than being outside and catching an AK round. What did the troops do? They sandbagged the top of the APC and rode in the cooler air, putting much more metal between them and the blast of a mine.
Every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine wants to go into battle with the best possible chance for survival - been there on numerous occasions, and done that. But reality is that, as Rumsfield said, you have to fight with the army you have. You can't call a "time-out" because you are not happy with the fact that you do not have everything you are permitted under the Table of Organization and Equipment. I don't think any unit has ever gone into battle with everything listed on their TO&E. The enemy certainly isn't going to wait on us to gear up properly.
Is it sad that we have personnel going into battle without armor on their vehicles? Absolutely... Thank X42nd for that. Depletion of equipment due to excessive diversionary deployments while enacting huge cuts in replacement funds for equipment will do that to an army.
Does bitching about the words used by SECDEF help the situation? No... Have you contacted your congressional representative to express concern about the issue? I have - As have many of my retired brothers in arms. If enough voices are heard, there is always someone up there that would love to jump in the spotlight and say "We need manufacuturers of..."
There is a choice people can make... In W.W.II, 20% of the people talked about doing something to help the war effort, while 80% actually were doing it. In today's situation, the numbers are reversed. Be part of the group that is actually doing something - don't just talk/complain about it.
Regards
Raven6
Senator Mccain thinks Rumsfeld should not have been picked to stay on but plans to work with him. Do you think Rumsfeld should serve another four years?
But that standard can never be met. A little bit more will always "improve their chances". Rumsfeld had the appropriate response, although it was not what they troops might have wanted to hear (which is why the MSM is dancing and shouting about it).
You go with what you got, period.
They're already in the finest combat vehicles on earth, and on top of that there is some effort to get them more armor. Asking for anything more than that (other than to hold the brass' feet to the fire to GET that extra armor, which they are doing) is simply unrealistic.