[Williams]

Yes, but is the problem with the armor true, and if so why? If so it is not acceptable. I am a strong supporter of Bush, Rumsfeld, and our troops having the equipment they are supposed to have.

In WWII My great aunt was working in a munitions factory. The workers were making bomb fuses and they knew that every fifth one was defective and not supposed to be. They were threatened with loss of their jobs, which they needed to survive. One woman said she didn't care, her son was a pilot in one of those bombers and she wasn't going to stay quiet. What/ if anything happened as a result, that part of the story was lost.

I support my president but I support the troops first. Abraham Lincoln carried the Union soldier vote because the troops had a saying about Lincoln: "If he finds out about it, it will stop."

[GraniteStateConservative]

Abraham Lincoln carried the Union soldier vote because the troops had a saying about Lincoln: "If he finds out about it, it will stop."

John Kerry talked about this all campaign long. The WH knew about this and they were dealing with it in a way of their choosing given the available options.

[Pox]

"If so it is not acceptable."

You make that statement as if the soldiers who are expressing their dismay at not having armored-to-the-hilt vehicles are on point. That is not the case.

On the other hand, a good portion of the country is still unstable and IED's are quite effective against unarmored, and many armored, vehicles. This shortcoming has been known since the beginning of the war, and steps have been taken to alleviate the problem.

In WWII, why didn't we just wait to perfect nuclear weapons and have them in bulk before counterattacking the axis? That could have saved so many of our soldiers lives.

IMO, this is actually a good thing for both "sides" of the issue, the troops for multiple reasons, and the government is hearing feedback that will hopefully spur some positive developments for our troops in reaction to their concerns.

[PigRigger]

Agreed. If this embarrassment causes our guys in the field to gain better protection, so be it.

May God Bless and Protect our President and our Troops as they bring the fight to the enemies of freedom.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

This equipment shortage is still a result of X42's reduction of the military materiel. It's still his legacy to destroy the military.

[JoeV1]

A Rummy said, It is physics not money that is the problem. Simply put the reinforced vehicles are being made at the fastest possible rate. What more can anyone do?

[proud American in Canada]

"I support my president but I support the troops first"

I agree. If the troops have to dig through trash bins in an effort to protect themselves, it's shameful.

[johnb838]

The armoire shortage is no secret.

[coconutt2000]

The armor issue is one of logistics. First the armor has to be produced, and then sent to the Middle East. Then the vehicles have to pulled out of service to be upgraded.

It would work better if we could just build and send over armored vehicles to replace those in use, but we can't build enough of them like that, which is why we're relying on upgrade kits, and the engineering teams in the field to fabricate the armor.

Availability and time are the two factors. What Rumsfeld said about having to work with the Army we have today, rather than the Army we would like to have or will have in the future is the truth. Every mission in Iraq is time critical because we're working on a series of strategic deadlines set at the beginning of the war.

If there was no time element involved we'd be waiting and ramping up the availability of the armor and deploying them to troops, while keeping the less armored vehicles in low risk zones. We don't have the luxury of time.

That said, remember Clinton vetoed attempts by the Republicans to start armoring the vehicles back in the 1990s. If they had succeeded, the logistical issue would not have been a problem since the army would've stockpiled the armor kits, and had more teams available to do the up-armor upgrades. Not to mention, fewer vehicles would've been unarmored to begin with at the start of the war.