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?
Senator Christopher Dodd was the first critic to jump on the latest bash-Rumsfeld bandwagon.
======
Dodd is a typical liberal Chameleon -- changing color to suit the surroundings. This is classic Bush-bashing, without a doubt. Rummy was set up by that stinking MSM traitor...and that soldier that cooperated with it, ought to have a blanket party conducted on his behalf. Being a vet myself, I can testify how effective they are at attitude adjustment.
Armor and bullets are not big-ticket defense contractor items but to the troops in the field they are life and death.
Regardless of the obvious political bias of the reporter in question and of his editor, we mustn't forget this is a serious issue which, fortunately, the military procurement system is attempting to fix. Not as serious, of course, as the Democrat administration's gaff in 1944 when it dropped/landed FOUR DIVISIONS of US troops in Normandy without having a clue there were these things called "hedgerows" there. Fortunately, the GI's themselves came up with a field-mod for Sherman tanks which solved the problem --- much as the Guard/Reserve people are coming up with "local solutions"..
Blanket party = Group of your company mates grab you out of your bed, throw a blanket over your head, then "adjust" your team attitude...
Blanket party = Group of your company mates grab you out of your bed, throw a blanket over your head, then "adjust" your team attitude...
You could say that...
How did it come about that every soldier (according to our “esteemed” media) expects to be protected as if in an Abrams tank?
You're right! It's the typical "projection technique" in action. Here is Dodd accusing Rumsfeld of not doing his job, when it was actually Dodd's job to see to it our military was outfitted with the best equipment.
www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041209-1765.html
Presser from Iraq yesterday.
You're right! It's the typical "projection technique" in action. Here is Dodd accusing Rumsfeld of not doing his job, when it was actually Dodd's job to see to it our military was outfitted with the best equipment.
=======
Exactly. Right out of the standard liberal handbook --- THEY ALWAYS ACCUSE THEIR OPPONENT OF DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO...you can bet your life on it.
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.”
Interesting tradeoff. Speed versus armour. Apparrently the Natl. Guard's mission placed a higher priority on armour. But for the Marines speed was paramount. I would like to see an explaination as why this is so.
The tragedy is THE DEMS DON'T SEE IT. I think they do it unconsciously because it's their moral equivalency thing. They do it and so they just assume everybody else does too. They still don't understand what morals or principles really mean.
LOL! Fieldcraft...exactly!
This is what distinguishes the American GI- they are resourceful and are encouraged to think on their feet. With all the shortcomings of the military- it is still uniquely AMERICAN - creative solutions to unexpected situations are all in a day's work.
I served in Germany in a jeep with no armor.
I also served in an armored vehicle. Each has its uses.
If you add armor, you can increase the size of the engine. Then you have to increase the size of the gas tank. Then you increase the size of the armor again. Then you increase the size and weight of the suspension. Then you increase the size of the engine and gas tank again. All these increase the cost, so you have fewer vehicles for a given number of soldiers, or a smaller number of soldiers, for a given about of tax money coerced from the tax payer.
Or, if you decrease the armor, you decrease the engine, decrease the engine, increase the speed, decrease the number of (unarmored) fuel tankers.
There is a balance. We can disagree on what the exact point of the balance is. We don't get anywhere calling each other names.
I recollect that we knew about the hedgerows. The intent was for the BRITISH to breakout on the left where there were no hedgerows. The US was supposed to secure the logistics. German destruction of the port at Cherbourg and the amazing performance of the Mulberry artificial harbors changed things.
Thanks to the German concentration of Armor on their right, the British were stopped. The break out at day 60 or so took place from a line that was supposed to be occupied at Day 6. Rommel's patchwork defense had been effective in stopping the allies. As Rommel had predicted, Allied air had been effective in slowing Runstadt's concentration of armor that was supposed to destroy the beachhead. The tactical stalemate Rommel achieved was a strategic victory for the Allies.
The break out occured as the US soldiers, unencumbered by doctrine, learned to fight effectively, and modified equipment to fit the terrain. US commanders drove tank formations through cities, contrary to doctrine. Heavy bombers were, contrary to doctrine, used as close air support and battlefield interdiction aircraft. US leadership paid a heavy price, (General McNair died from a errant bomb).
The Third Army was unleashed. 'nuff said.
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.