Posted on 12/10/2004 10:17:27 AM PST by Miami Vice
Another controversy about Iraq and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has developed. A soldier asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the Iraqi theater why the troops do not have armored M98HUMMVVV’s (Humvees). He told Rumsfeld that troops have to scavenge metal and improvise armor for the vehicles.
The soldier, a Tennessee National Guardsman, is currently in Kuwait scheduled to go to Iraq. He asked this during one of Rumsfeld’s question and answer sessions with troops stationed in the Iraqi theater.
Implicit in this question was that Rumsfeld and his Defense Department is either incompetent or corrupt or both. Its purpose was to discredit Rumsfeld and the Bush administration.
However, it was later revealed a journalist orchestrated the event. He told the soldier what to ask and arranged to have him ask it. He later remarked in a memo published by the Drudge Report that this was, “ his greatest day as a journalist.”
One has to wonder if the journalist was motivated by politics, ambition, or altruism. Most people will determine that for themselves.
Having said that, the most important issue is not the lack of journalistic ethics, it is to answer the question of Pentagon incompetence. The lack of armored Humvees available in Iraq is causing increased casualties. Why are they not there? Is it incompetence, corruption, or standard operating procedure.
Defense Update is an internet journal of the defense industry. According to the website it is published by journalists and industry analysts.
Issue number 3 for 2004, written prior to August 2004, addressed the issue of the armored Humvee. The article states, “As the most popular tactical vehicle today, the M998 HUMMWV (dubbed Humvee) is currently used with many armies. ….few …are operating protected Hummers…. During and after the Kosovo conflict, the US Army decided to protect a small part of its Humvee fleet. The armored version would be heavier – resulting in reduced deployment flexibility…. The US Marine Corps, requiring operational speed for its forces, opted not to protect its Humvees.” (italics mine)
The magazine recounts how the Marines borrowed some armored Humvees from the Army for use in Iraq. It then tells how “unlike the US army” which uses “the vehicle mainly for utility and cross-country transportation, the Israeli Army planned more tactical roles…, which required higher level of protection. The heavier armor protection required further automotive and structural modifications stretching …designated vehicles to their limits..”
A limited number of armored Humvees were being used as of May 204 according to Defense Update. However, the article states, “In autumn 2003, responding to urgent calls from the field, requesting armor suits for the soft vehicles, the US Army launched a crash program to protect many of Humvees. “
The Army, according to Defense Update, has accelerated production of armored Humvees. Part of its program consists of using the “implementation of improvised near-term solutions adding some protection levels to the crews.” The article then makes a pertinent statement, “ Makeshift armoring of vehicles, and ad-hoc in-the-field solutions became temporary measures by the forces in situ.” (italics mine)
So the answer to the question asked Rumsfeld is that this is exactly what the Army planned. It is a temporary measure used until armored versions of the vehicles can be manufactured and transported to them.
No corruption, no incompetence by Rumsfeld or anyone else. The Army requested funds from Congress to armor more Humvees after they received requests from commanders in the field. The appropriation was approved in May 2004. The Army initially calculated that only 1000 armored Humvees would be needed. Afterwards they changed their calculation to 2500.
There are a few important points to consider about this whole matter.
The Army did not want to armor many Humvees because of decreased utility. The Marines did not want any armored Humvees at all.
When the assignment for the Humvee changed from cross- country one to an urban one, the Army responded and ordered more armored vehicles.
The modification of the vehicles by scavenging is part of a temporary measure to provide armor until such time as they can be manufactured. It is not lack of planning – it is an Army policy.
All of this information was available to the reporter who manipulated the soldier
Most of the mainstream media has opposed the war from the beginning. They do everything they can do to destroy the morale of the American people and the military. The ultimate result of their efforts will be that more people will die.
The fact remains that Rumsfeld makes himself available for questions by troops in theater. I do not recall another Defense Secretary doing this. He is not attempting to conceal anything.
Will the scheming reporter do the same?
I'll take Door Number 2, Monty.
So how would he know for sure what the real deal is in Iraq? He hasnt been there yet.
As to the reporter who did this, he should be dis-embedded. There are questions to get information leading to solutions, and there are questions to AMBUSH. This smells more like the latter....the reporter just smells.
No one should really complain about Bush bashing anymore. Bush seems fine with it and they are friends of his so let's not get upset with it anymore.
Fact1: Armor costs money.
Fact2: Armor replaces payload.
Fact3: A truck that can carry 5 tons net, can carry 2.5 tons of armor and 2.5 tons of payload, or and combination up to 5 tons.
Fact3: Better than armoring all trucks (5 tons of goods is a fair amount, 5 tons of armor is a misleading inadequacy) is to arm a lot, armor a few, and have the armored and armed trucks escort convoys.
Fact4: None of this is new. IEDs were used by German anarchists against US trucks occupying Germany after WWI. And again after WWII.
Fact5: Field modifications tend to add armor, which is passive, and wears out roads and running gear even if noone is shooting at you. Army planned modifictions tend to add more weapons, which only cost money when they are actually shot, but have no effect on mines, or remote IEDs.
Don't be ridiculous. They have been training since February for this deployment and are going over the border any day now.
So what is new from those brain dead CRATS. The MSM are the same CRATS that are anti-American, and should be no doubt.
Why not require a tank for every troop ?
i disagree,
this article is pretty fair...
"The modification of the vehicles by scavenging is part of a temporary measure to provide armor until such time as they can be manufactured. It is not lack of planning – it is an Army policy."
Exactly, its called fieldcraft. :-)
"Implicit in this question was that Rumsfeld and his Defense Department is either incompetent or corrupt or both."
No, implicit were his questioning of stupid Army regulations that basically say that no armor at all is better than armor installed by "unqualified personnel". The bottleneck is not the production of the armor, but the installation of it. If they would just ship the stuff to the various units with a tehnician that can teach and supervise them while they install it, it could be done at about 10 time the current rate.
Bump!
Humvees produced way too much CO2 as it is. Adding amour makes it much worse. The liberals should be cheering the fact that some don't have the earth-killing armour.
They should be using the thousands of M-113's stockpiled
in the depots. The humvee is not designed to carry armor
and the stryker is suitable only for intimidating tribesmen
in the congo. Against a determined enemy this is a waste of
money.
That is the real scandal.
Nope.
Good article. Thanks.
Senator Christopher Dodd was the first critic to jump on the latest bash-Rumsfeld bandwagon.
However, I'll bet if somebody checked on how Christopher Dodd voted regarding the dismantling of the military during the Clinton years .. you would find Dodd was all for it.
Soooooo .. my question for Senator Dodd is this: How come YOU DEPRIVED OUR MILITARY OF THIS UPGRADE AND NOW YOU WANT TO BLAME RUMSFELD FOR IT - when Rumsfeld was not in the Congress at the time and had no control over THE MILITARY HE GOT!!!
Of course the leftists, the Dims and the MSM will NEVER ask this question because as we all know they get to have it BOTH ways!!
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.