Again, it is fine that the question was asked, but why do you say it "had to be"? From *the answer* and *the facts* it is an issue Rumsfeld and the DoD and the generals were aware of and have been in the process of addressing.
By framing it as "it had to be asked", you imply "or else it would be ignored" and that is the problem many of us had with the way the topic is being handled.
It is simple. If there was no need, there would be no questions.
And if everyone believed that they were getting the best there was in a timely fashion there would be few questions.
IMO, the real problem is that not enough really believe that the issues are being addressed adequately.
There isn't much bitching about stop losses and LAST YEAR I met reservists who were on their second rotation and some who were getting extended by some loopholes via switched UIC's. But they didn't gripe much because they beleived that there were no other options.
But with the armor and the HUMVEEs, there is enough doubt that the best effort is being expended to support the troops that these questions rise to the surface.
So stop asking how dare he ask the question and go to WHY the question was even possible to raise.