Rumsfeld Handles Tough Questions at Town Hall Meeting

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8, 2004 – Some soldiers headed for duty in Iraq took the secretary of defense at his word in Kuwait today when he encouraged them to ask him tough questions at a town-hall meeting.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was in Kuwait to visit U.S. troops at Camp Buehring, a military compound about 40 miles south of the Iraq border. The camp is a staging area where troops headed for Iraq receive training on tactical convoy operations.

In his opening remarks, Rumsfeld told the troops that the American people "are deeply grateful" for their efforts and that they were doing "a superb job." The secretary also noted that local maintenance soldiers had fitted "some 6,000 vehicles" with supplemental armor.

After his remarks, Rumsfeld encouraged the troops to ask "tough questions" in the question-and-answer session to follow.

Rumsfeld first fielded questions on troop rotation issues, noting U.S. military forces would stay in Iraq "as long as necessary, but not one day longer."

Conditions on the ground, Rumsfeld said, will ultimately determine how long American troops remain in Iraq. The upcoming elections in January, he added, should convince Iraqis "they have a stake in the future" of their country.

Rumsfeld said the Iraqi government will begin to assume additional responsibility for security matters, eventually obviating the need for American and coalition forces.

Spc. Thomas Wilson then asked Rumsfeld why soldiers in Kuwait awaiting deployment into Iraq "have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles? And why don't we have those resources readily available to us?" Following Wilson's question, applause erupted among the 2,000 or so troops attending the event.

Rumsfeld replied that senior military leaders have told him that all efforts are being made to acquire and increase production of supplemental vehicle armor kits.

Acquiring more up-armored kits for military vehicles destined for service in Iraq isn't a matter of funding, the secretary noted, but a question of production and capability.

"You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want, or wish to have, at a later time," Rumsfeld pointed out.

Since Iraq war began "the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary," the secretary said, "at a rate that they believe -– it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously -– but, at a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment."

Senior Army leaders, Rumsfeld said, "are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that it would be desirable for it to have" and are working the vehicle armor issue "at a good clip."

Even armored vehicles, Rumsfeld pointed out, don't guarantee troop safety from enemy attacks. "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up," Rumsfeld observed, noting that up-armored Humvees, too, are vulnerable.

"The goal we have," the secretary said, "is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops."

Even some up-armored military Humvees previously used for security duties around Washington, D.C., have been deployed for duty in Iraq, he noted.

Rumsfeld then described his Dec. 7 visit to Afghanistan to witness the inauguration of newly elected President Hamid Karzai.

"It was a breathtaking, thrilling moment to be there," the secretary said, noting he'd been told that thousands of Afghans had braved Taliban threats to cast their votes. "That says something about the power of freedom," he added.

U.S. military members who have helped to unseat a vicious dictator and continue to fight to establish a free, democratic Iraq believe in their mission, Rumsfeld said. "I can tell you they're of proud of what they've been doing, they know what they're doing is important, they believe in what they're doing, (and) their families believe in what they're doing," the secretary said.

Saddam Hussein's killing fields and mass graves, he added, have given way to 25 million Iraqis having renewed hope in the form of reopened schools, clinics and hospitals, and rejuvenated commerce, Rumsfeld noted.

Handling other questions, Rumsfeld said efforts are being made to ensure that troops likely to be going into combat in Iraq – whether active, Guard and Reserve -- receive the newest equipment.

A military chaplain asked the secretary if he'd take the assembled troops on his aircraft and fly them to Disneyland. After a cascade of soldiers' cheers and applause, Rumsfeld replied, "The answer is sorry; we've got more important things for you to do. And we appreciate it."

Another soldier, from Pennsylvania, asked Rumsfeld if Pittsburgh Steelers' fans deployed in Iraq and other Middle East locales would be able to watch their team win the Super Bowl on television. "I can't answer the question about outcomes," the secretary replied, "but you'll have access to the television. You're going to have to figure out a way to encourage" the Steelers to get to the Super Bowl, he added.

An Army lieutenant colonel asked Rumsfeld if he could help 150 deployed soldiers get paid thousands of dollars of travel pay they've been owed since July, which has caused their families financial duress. Rumsfeld asked military officials to obtain details about the soldiers' pay situation.

"That's just not right," Rumsfeld said, noting "folks who've earned money and are due money ought to be able to get the money and they ought not have to put their families under stress while they're waiting for the money."

A soldier from Fort Bragg, N.C., asked Rumsfeld how much longer the military would use the "stop-loss" program to help maintain overseas troop strength. Stop-loss requires some volunteer military members to serve beyond originally agreed-to lengths of service.

The military has used stop-loss for years, Rumsfeld said, noting it "is something that you'd prefer not to have to use in a perfect world." However, he said, stop-loss maintains unit cohesion, a valuable commodity in wartime.

My thoughts exactly. I'm sure Sec. Rumsfeld knew what he was stepping into, and it says a lot that he showed up and listened.

It will say a lot more, however, if the legitimate problems get fixed.

Well, actually I think he did, he told them the manufacturing process is slow in the armor department, and we don't go to war with an army we wish we had we go to war with the army we have. Did the men of WWII, Korea, or Vietnam have all the armor that the current military has? Hell no... maybe the weekend warriors need to suck it up, be quiet and do their jobs...

"After his remarks, Rumsfeld encouraged the troops to ask "tough questions" in the question-and-answer session to follow."

That took guts. Can you imagine? A politician actually asks for non-scripted questions. When was the last time a major player did something like this?

Contrast Rumsfeld with Hillary's press conferences.

Yes, he took some hard shots, but I respect him even more than I already did because of his willingness to accept those shots. He knew he would have no note cards with which to answer whatever questions would come his way, but he did it anyway. To me, it shows that he cares about the troops, regardless of where they are getting their armor. That said, I hope sufficient armor for the troops will be a consequence of this briefing.

I think that to soldier's question was reasonable, and that Rumsfield's answer was weak. There's already been a mutiny over this issue.

The men in the field deserve better. During WWII, auto factories were converted to wartime production. Maybe that's needed again.

Is this a serious war or not? If it is, let's see a little initiative on the part of the government to actually fight a serious war.

During WWII, auto factories were converted to wartime production.

Yea during WWII, we were fight against tanks, thus we needed tanks of our own, do these terrorists have armor? NO... They are still willing to fight though aren't they?

Yea during WWII, we were fight against tanks, thus we needed tanks of our own, do these terrorists have armor

We're not talking about tanks, nor are we talking about the terrorists lack of armor. They're fighting a guerrilla war using homemade bombs. Unfortunately, these crude weapons are quite effective against poorly armored HumVees.

By now, the DOD should have figured this out and should be making the appropriate course corrections. If this requires converting existing manufacturing capacity to another purpose, so be it. It is a war, right?

I agree I think all Humvees should have had hard armor as basic equipment, but guess what... it wasn't, you can't just throw armor on a humvee and think it will work, armor is heavy, you also have to change the suspension and possibly upgrade the engine, for more horse power.. Its not just "hey bolt on this armor"

"Yea during WWII, we were fight against tanks, thus we needed tanks of our own, do these terrorists have armor? NO... They are still willing to fight though aren't they? "

Duh? They are willing to fight with car bombs and RPGs against our personnel and vehicles, not our tanks.

you can't just throw armor on a humvee and think it will work

Well, apparently you can.

It just seems a little late.

They make kits, but you will have a heavy Humvee that can't move when your done... ship an armor kit, and engine, and a suspension kit per humvee, along with alot of tool and a bunch of mechanics!

Look, this is real simple. If this is a war, and we intend to win it, then we fix the problems ASAP. Otherwise, we're just sending these soldiers out to be slaughtered.

There is no doubt in my mind that the problems with the armor can be fixed. This is not of the same difficulty as sending a manned mission to the moon, yet we did it using computers that today wouldn't be adequate as pocket calculators. Nothing is impossible.

The problem is, do the people in charge have the will to do it? That was the problem we faced in Vietnam, and we all know how that turned out.

Look with you way of thinking, all F-15 fighter pilots and refuse to fight because "we have the technology" for the F-22 Raptor... Yea it's expensive but come on! We have the technology! Or everyone in an Abrams M-1 A1 came refuse to go out because it does not have as good of armor or fire control systems as the A2 where does it stop?

Well, that's a bad comparison - this is not WW II, Korea or Vietnam. This is the 21st century and we are spending billions of dollars a month on this war. I'm sorry, but there is no excuse not to have these troops well equipped and as well-protected as possible. The troops are putting their lives on the line every day; there is no reason why they shouldn't have the best protection possible. This is the USA, not some second or third world country. This soldier's complaint has been heard for many months now, it should have been addressed by now.

What do you mean? He answered the question head on, and correctly.

The military's job is to fight a war when told to do so. Not when the US Military can ensure the safety of every soldier.

Kinda makes you wanta ask the previous adm what the hell they were doing for 8 years, 8 long years. Oh yea, clinton said he was having the best time of his life.

Well, the Pentagon has just recently announced that the military planners failed to plan for the "insurgency" we now are facing. IMHO, that's a big and stupid failure.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.