Replies

This whole kerfluffle raises some hard questions and I don't know where to get the answers.

How many of our troops were killed while riding in regular HumVees?
How many were killed by weapons the armor would have defeated? One general pointed out that some IEDs have flipped tanks over.
How would the terrorists have altered their tactics & weapons if all the HumVees had been armored?
If the Administration knew there would be an insurgency of this scope after the war, would they have removed Saddam anyway?
Would it have been a viable argument to say Saddam is a gathering threat but, in case there's an insurgency afterward, we need to wait until our HumVees are up-armored before we can remove him?
If we did first up-armor the HumVees, how many nanoseconds would elapse before liberal pantywaists complained the "military-industrial complex" was enriching themselves using money that should go to schools?

Feel free to add your own

"How many of our troops were killed while riding in regular HumVees?"

The main problem is that people are griping about an amazingly low casualty rate, saying it's too high. It's like your child coming home with all "A"s and one "B", and then kicking your kid out of the house for not getting straight "A"s.

Would you replace Rumsfeld with Ike? Remember D-Day? Would you replace Rumsfeld with Grant? Remember the high casualties there? Would you replace Rumsfeld with George Washington? Remember his bloody battles? I grant, perhaps Weinburger would do a better job, but he wasn't exactly war tested, other than Grenada. I would choose someone with two major campaigns under his belt: both amazing successes.

No Humvee armor is proof against the RPG, or against a close detonation of mortar or IED.

Our enemy prefers to use IEDs and RPGs. It is a non-issue.