Posted on 12/08/2004 8:04:30 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
We're used to hearing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld answer questions about things that went wrong in Iraq by saying they went right. When he does that to reporters, it's annoying. When he does it to troops risking their lives in his failed test of bargain-basement warfare, it's outrageous.
Yesterday, Mr. Rumsfeld told soldiers at a staging area in Kuwait to ignore "the doubters" who say the escalating war is not going well. Then he invited the troops, some of them headed to their second combat tours, to ask him "tough questions." They evidently thought he meant it.
A National Guard scout from Tennessee asked why there was still an equipment shortage that forced units to scrounge for "hillbilly armor": "pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up, dropped, busted." When the cheering died down, Mr. Rumsfeld said that, really, there was plenty of armor and in any case, "all the armor in the world" might not save you from a roadside bomb.
"You go to war with the Army you have," Mr. Rumsfeld fumed, "not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." He may have forgotten that the timetable for invading Iraq was dictated by politics, not military necessity. The armor shortage was also an outgrowth of his zeal to prove that a country can be invaded and occupied by a small and lightly armed force. A spokesman for the questioner's unit told reporters that 95 percent of its 300 trucks were not sufficiently armored.
Later, a woman said she and her husband "joined a volunteer army" but were serving extra tours under the "stop loss" program, a forced-duty clause in military contracts. "The 'stop loss' has been used by the military for years and years and years," Mr. Rumsfeld lectured. "It's all well understood when someone volunteers to join the service."
Mr. Rumsfeld talks a lot about supporting the troops. We wish that someone powerful would explain to him that doing so includes treating them with respect and telling them the truth.
"Support for the Troops" coming from the Abu Ghraib Times is rich indeed.
Enough already.
exactly.
I want our guys protected as much as anyone. But no matter how much armor you put on something, someone else can still blow it up.
I happened to be tuned in to cnn when they played a clip of what Rumsfeld said, at least they played the entire clip, not just the, "you go to war with the army you have". Sounded more to me like Rumsfeld was answering in a matter of fact way, I'd hardly calling it fuming. After he said you go to war with the army you have, he also went on to say that they were trying to get the armoured vehicles from the manufacturer as quickly as they possibly can.
I saw this on TV.
The troops were p*ssed.
I don't believe soldiers in the field are political. They support the President.
So, when they indicate this is important, then it is important.
Rumsfeld blew this one. Pure and simple. Hopefully, he will fix it fast.
None of this press conference crap should be permitted. The NY Times would never admit this, but they want the Islamofacists to kill us all. 9/11 was their last big bonanza. They hate this country and all it stands for. The media should be given no quarter, let them all stay home and watch the news on Fox.
They should have asked that question of Clinton/Cohen.
1) More armor is a good thing in the current Iraq environment.
2) The SecDef is absolutely right. You fight with what you have. Since we still don't have enough armored transport vehicles, are some folks suggesting that we should have waited for several more years to fight in ANY conflict?
3) I've been in the service for 14 years. NEVER had an armored vehicle, and never expected one. I put sandbags in the floor and hoped for the best. I managed to stay with fight from the border to Baghdad without armor on my truck, without ceramic plates in my body armor, and without a scratch. Lucky me - but some haven't been so lucky. Therefore, see point #1. But, still, that's what you do when you are a soldier.
I'm told that industry is building up-armored trucks and add-on armor kits as fast as it can, but I have no direct knowledge of this.
So, complain a little - it's a soldier's right and a grand tradition - but when it comes time to cross the LD, just put your foot on the gas and go, no matter what you're driving.
Well put!!!
I also notice that no one is questioning the DemLibs in Congress who have voted to slash military funding for the LAST TWELVE YEARS!
What Rumsfeld should have said! j/k
http://funwavs.com/wavfile.php?quote=609&sound=342
...Later, a woman said she and her husband "joined a volunteer army"...
Wrong- her husband volunteered to join the Army. You have up to 6 months after enlistment to quit (IIRC). Stay longer and you belong to the Army.
The only happy serviceman is one who is bitching.
When they stop bitching, you have to start worrying.
Yes the MSM lifted these lines out of context and left out the part that manufacturing base for armour was curtailed during the Clinton years.
Bump.
We need to make it clear to the President that it's more important to us that the soldiers get the armor they think they need than it is that the National Endowment of the Arts et al get the dollars they want.
"SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it."
"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it’s a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment."
"I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they’re working at it at a good clip. It’s interesting, I’ve talked a great deal about this with a team of people who’ve been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on. "
And General Whitcomb, is there anything you’d want to add to that? "
"GEN. WHITCOMB: Nothing. [Laughter] Mr. Secretary, I’d be happy to. That is a focus on what we do here in Kuwait and what is done up in the theater, both in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. As the secretary has said, it’s not a matter of money or desire; it is a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it. The 699th, the team that we’ve got here in Kuwait has done [Cheers] a tremendous effort to take that steel that they have and cut it, prefab it and put it on vehicles. But there is nobody from the president on down that is not aware that this is a challenge for us and this is a desire for us to accomplish. " SEC. RUMSFELD: The other day, after there was a big threat alert in Washington, D.C. in connection with the elections, as I recall, I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They’re not there anymore. [Cheers] [Applause] They’re en route out here, I can assure you. Next. Way in the back. Yes.
I agree 100%
The same "we need more armor" complaint came from the Mog in 1993. And from the Germans at Stalingrad, and the Poles in 1939, and the Brits at Cambrai in 1917. Never enough armor.
Also, "more reinforcements", "more air support", "more artillery", and "less enemy". More beer would also be appreciated.
But you make do with what you have.
I doubt there has been any war in the history of the U.S. where logistics wasn't a major issue. Why would this one be any different? No one has developed the perfect war. You do the best you can with what you have.
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.