Posted on 12/09/2004 9:22:17 AM PST by Nascardude
Edited on 12/09/2004 10:05:10 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Here's a good question: Why were these Humvees and trucks ever made without this armor? This is a systemic problem. This problem was exposed in the 90s.
Why was the military starved in the 90s? Why was the bureaucracy so slow to move? Why, after Mogadishu, didn't the whole Humvee, light and heavy truck fleet get fully armored and fitted with bullet proof glass?
This has been an issue for awhile. It would have been nice if the military brass, Clinton appointees, Clintoon and the Congress had done something about this in the 90s. Where were all the whistleblowers then? Where the Hell was the media? The POTUS -- who was starving the military and slashing the Hell out of the Army's end strength.
Bush and Rummy have to answer for this, but much of our current problems stem from the neglect and abuse heaped on the armed forced during the 1990s.
Wouldn't we be better off if Clintoon hadn't cut so many divisions? Wouldn't there be less stress on the Guard and Reserve? Wouldn't we be better off if a complete audit of the campaign in Mogadishu had been done? Wasn't it plain as can be that the Humvees and other wheeled vehicles were exposed as easy-to-hit death traps in an urban fight with guerilla insurgents with RPGs? In Chechnya and the West Bank, we have seen what IEDs can do. Not a darn thing that we have seen in Iraq is new.
Why in the Hell were no lessons learned, appropriations sought, and on and on? Bush inherited a broken, underfunded, badly managed military. But Bush should have reacted better on some scores. In a just world, Clintoon would be getting hammered for this. Don't you remember the days, immediately after the fall of Baghdad, when the Clintoonistas declared that Bush had won the war with Clinton's army? There is no doubt, we are fighting this war with Clinton's army. In the postwar phase we are paying the price for the steep cuts in infantry divisions and the defunding of the 90s.
I didn't see anyone make that claim, did you?
My mistake . you are correct that you didn't post it
But you did link it and the rest of my response remains the same
No. The majority of them were probably not commanding
officers. (The commanders of this guy were rather upset
because they felt it made THEM look bad.) - The question
came out of left field, and it was made to look like here's
this low ranking guy with the hutzpah to confront the
head honcho about something of substance. I noticed the
guy was reading the question off a paper. I also noticed
that it didn't particularly throw Rumsfeld off all that
much; he didn't put the guy down, he answered his question.
At first, he didn't hear the first part of the question
and had to ask for him to repeat it. Clinton would have
had him arrested later and thrown in the brig if he had
done it to him.
Now, given the Ratheristic quality to the whole incident,
it brings on more thought as to the tactics used by the
MSM to produce the anti-war backlash they want.
So, Carville, what do you think of post 781? If the media was fair and balanced, the blame would be flowing in several directions-- one of which being Chappaqua.
See my post 781. It think it is a fair appraisal of this issue.
Look, it is what it is. You can't change the fact that the "journalist" put the guy up to asking the question and then reported on it as if it were a spontaneous event rather than something he himself had set up.
The Humvee was originally just a 2 1/2 ton utility truck to replace the Jeep.
And now it's being asked to do the job of what should be an ASV.
This poor fool E-4 will be under the microscope by his higher ups. They will jump on him when he makes another small infraction. No advancement for this young man. I can see restriction and extra duty.
Idiot.
The one I heard on the radio was his EX-wife. She was not at all surprised by his question or direct attitude. Perhaps you misunderstood her reaction, if this was the same woman.
From my stand point we have the wrong tool, with the wrong edge, doing their best at the wrong job.
Armies aren't for "nation building".
Humvee's weren't designed to do this work; nor designed to be quickly modified and neither were the troops. They are doing a yeoman's job, but we should have had a better monopoly on violence at the end of the war. To avoid civilian causalities, and perhaps in hope of a better nature amongst the liberated, we waged a "modern" war and not a Sherman War: a war to take their will and ability to wage war away.
Masefield is telling a straight truth, you go with what you have. Soldiers can take the truth. Civilians can't, and won't.
It gets even better. He was a school teacher before he bacame a journalist.
Nothing to prove...the soldier didn't say anything the enemy couldn't find out on the internet.
But they didn't. You discredit yourself right off the bat.
Yep, that's pretty much their job description.
However, it should frighten everyone reading this that a reporter can so easily taint a military Q&A. Tarl had it exactly right by saying Pitt's eploit has caused devisiveness between command and the enlisted men.
A member of the brass can't walk in to reassure his men by answering their questions now without wondering whether a reporter is carrying a loaded question, to be fired at him by a soldier with HIS (officer rank and name here) name in it. Wich is exactly what Rummy was doing. IMO, that rift was Pitts' entire objective.
" Soldiers can take the truth. Civilians can't, and won't."
Pentagon's response:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1298125/posts
No, you didn't. Some---not even close to all---of the troops present applauded after the question. Which got answered, by the way.
The reason the MSM did not respond as they should have on
Mogadishu was because their Messiah, Bill Clinton, was in
office. He got a pass on EVERYTHING, until at first on
Monica, and even then the MSM twisted itself into a pretzel
to finally give him a pass on that. The MSM is dedicating
itself to undermining the Bush (Republican) Administration
in every possible way it can, and if they can engineer an
impeachment of President Bush, they will, no matter what
they have to do. It will be night after night of relentless
attacks. The sad fact is that little Willie Clinton should
have gotten down and kissed Petah Jennings' feet instead
of getting testy with him for what little the MSM was
finally FORCED by the sheer weight of Clinton's depravity
to at least do lip service to making a stab at reporting the "truth". In the end, THEY,
along with the Democrats and the RINOs in the Senate saved his bacon. - He is in no
way being held accountable for leaving the military high
and dry in the '90's. Neither was Carter in the late
'70's.
I will say, though, that this armor business absolutely
must be addressed in a real tangible way. It has been
horrible press for this administration, and they had
better give it very high priority from here on out.
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.