RIPPING RUMSFELD, WRONGLY

New York Post ^ | 12/10/04

[kattracks]

It was as compelling a piece of video as you'll ever see: A scout with the Ten nessee National Guard, whose unit is headed for Iraq, publicly berating Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld over his fellow soldiers' alleged lack of adequately armored vehicles.

What made the footage even more powerful was Rumsfeld's response: The normally unflappable secretary stood motionless momentarily, seemingly at a loss for words, before answering.

Rumsfeld responded with characteristic candor. "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time," the secretary said during a town hall-type session with soldiers in an aircraft hanger in Kuwait.

It was red meat to the lions, who naturally ate it right up (while all but ignoring the context Rumsfeld offered).

It was a lead story on the network news broadcasts, and photos of the soldier and Rumsfeld dominated the top of the front page of The New York Times.

But there was a little bit more — and a whole lot less — to the story than what immediately met the eye.

For one thing, Rumsfeld was set up.

[Ruth A.]

btt

[tessalu]

USA has been down-grading the army for so long that soon we will not be able to fight our way out of a paper poke. We may have been strong once upon a time, but now we are no more than a paper tiger.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Rumsfeld responded with characteristic candor. "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time," the secretary said during a town hall-type session with soldiers in an aircraft hanger in Kuwait.

Geez, even the Post has to skip his first 5 or 6 sentences of his response:

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.

[lp boonie]

We may have been strong once upon a time, but now we are no more than a paper tiger.


Paper Tiger? Falluja? Get a clue.

[texasflower]

Tell that to the Taliban, Saddam, Fallujah, Zarqawi etc.

[texasflower]

Thank you for posting that. I hadn't seen the first part of Rumsfeld's answer.

That makes a world of difference. No wonder no one wants to print that.

That makes me so mad!

[DaveTesla]

He is right on the money.
It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.
We weren't geared for mass production of these items.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

It'll be entirely interesting to hear of the fall-out for this unit, if we ever do. It wasn't just Rummy who was deliberately embarassed, it was the entire chain-of-command. There is NO NCO who is unaware of what the "chain of command" is. If this NCO needed to ask these questions, and his Platoon CO or Company CO did not adequately respond, he could go to the unit's Senior NCO (usually a SGT Major). If he found his response inadquate, he could request a meeting with the C.O. ("request Mast", is what we call it in the Navy; think it's called "Quarters" in the Army). In responding to this NCO, the C.O. would have explained to him his rights to move his issue up the chain of command, and the Senior NCO would have counseled him on the benefits and risks of doing so.

In short, Soldiers, even in combat, have a number of well designed means of giving feedback, and if the issue is serious, it won't get stonewalled at any level. It's a major reason why our military is successful. It's not a democracy, but the chain of command has reasonable means of getting feedback from the grunts.

This reporter pushed these guys to circumvent the CofC. His "minders" were cooped. That reflects on the man (their C.O., and probably the Senior NCO) who selected them for that duty. The "Sargent in control of the mike" was also coopted for a partisan, political mission. All these guys were senior enough to know the rules (they weren't boots), and all these guys broke 'em.

The Unit C.O. is toast, and probably, so is his X.O., Company C.O., and the senior enlisted NCO's he worked for. It's not a matter of "recriminations". This C.O. didn't have control of his Command. If he's not relieved immediately, he'll get a little Christmas present in his Fitness Report which will make him ineligible for promotion, and probably put him out of the Army (or Guard) before retirement. Ditto with the rest of these guys CofC. It'll be done quietly. The unit will likely be pulled off the line for 6-8 weeks, so the gradual transition can be handled out of the limelight of the press.

As for this traitorous reporter ("aid and comfort to the enemy" means just that), the Pentegon will hopefully send him home ASAP, or better yet, post him with troops at the tip of the spear. Let him get his "gotcha" photo's while running from Sanji's bullets.

The political left in this country disgusts me. They hate me because of my conservative ideas. I hate them because they get people killed, and then smuggly blame everyone who ever lifted a finger to defend this country, while carefully avoiding putting their own rear end in harms way.

Heck, I'll bet this "embed" pulls himself out of there before the shooting starts. He probably calculated this stunt as a "double win", i.e. it makes him a hero in N.Y., while getting him the h*ll out of there before the REAL risks begin.

SFS

[Loyal Buckeye]

My guess is that Rummy could give a rat's patoot about the criticism.

[Redleg Duke]

You really went right off of the edge that time. You should really consider talking about things you have at least a bit of knowledge about.

[steve-b]

Rumsfeld was set up

Well, then, we need to do one of two things:

1. Politely ask all the enemies of the United States to never "set up" our armed forces.

2. Put someone in charge of our armed forces who is capable of coping with being "set up".

[steve-b]

What is this nonsense? Rumsfeld directed the soldiers to bypass all this stuff when he gathered them together to ask him questions directly.

[DHerion]

This thing was set up to attack the administration for the express purpose of attacking the administration not to get more armored vehicles to the troops. They could care less about them.

After Pearl Harbor we had 3 carriers and no battleships against Japan's 10 carriers, 11 battleships, etc. I don't recall reading about how we were suppose to wait a year or two to completely rebuild our fleet before taking on the Imperial navy. We went to war with the military we had not the one we wished to have.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

"What is this nonsense? Rumsfeld directed the soldiers to bypass all this stuff when he gathered them together to ask him questions directly."

"Nonsense"?? Hmmmm...

Having a meeting with the SECDEF with an "Q&A" period doesn't excuse this soldier. Every command has an "open door" policy, but that doesn't mean that a "boot" can go over the head of his NCO, his Division Officer/Company CO, right to the top guy in the command, everytime he has an itch. Likewise, this guy should have known better than to jump the chain of command on an issue he had apparently never raised before within his command.

It's about "good order and discipline", and every guy who enters the military understands what "Chain of Command" means. It's drummed into them in boot camp (or at the Military Academies, ROTC, OCS, etc., for Commissioned Officers), and reinforced continually.

If you're a civilian, you may not understand. If you're military, or ex-military, you certainly should. (Unless, maybe you were USAF. They're a bit less..ah.. rigid about some things.. lol).

FReegards.. SFS

[DaveTesla]

Your absolutely right.
What next?
Stale toast crisis perhaps?

[xone]

'We may have been strong once upon a time, but now we are no more than a paper tiger.'

Got a problem Moby?

[hunter112]

After Pearl Harbor we had 3 carriers and no battleships against Japan's 10 carriers, 11 battleships, etc. I don't recall reading about how we were suppose to wait a year or two to completely rebuild our fleet before taking on the Imperial navy.

And people lost their jobs in 1941 because of the lack of preparedness. We didn't have a lot of choice about going to war with Japan, but we controlled 100% of the timing about when to go to Iraq. Hopefully, they'll think a little better before knocking off Iran, Syria, etc.

If Rummy wants the photo-op, he had either better tell everyone exactly what to say, or be prepared for real questions from real troops doing the fighting. Blaming this "gotcha" on the media is a lame excuse for not doing his homework.

[DaveTesla]

U.S. Central Command has added armor to 22,000 of its 30,000 fleet



SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, December 10, 2004
The United States has satisfied about 70 percent of the military's combat armored vehicle requirements in the Middle East and surrounding regions.

Officials said that over the last year the U.S. Army has vastly increased the number of combat and support military vehicles that received armor. They said the aim was to armor every vehicle deployed by the U.S. military in the Middle East, Persian Gulf, South Asia and Central Asia regions.

Officials and soldiers said the accelerated rate of production has been insufficient to achieve the army's goal to armor its entire vehicle fleet in Iraq. They said the result has been a significant shortage of armored vehicles particularly among transport and support units, which has affected supplies to U.S. troops in Iraq.

At the same time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld echoed the Pentagon assessment that armored vehicles don't guarantee troop safety. He cited the destruction of U.S. main battle tanks from mines, and other officials said 120 up-armored Humvees were destroyed by insurgency attacks in Iraq, Middle East Newsline reported.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up," Rumsfeld said.