Posted on 12/14/2004 6:31:05 AM PST by Stingray51
Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf said yesterday he was "angry" at Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's response to a soldier who complained he and his fellow grunts in Iraq lack sufficient armor plating. And Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a Vietnam War hero, reiterated that he has "no confidence" in the Pentagon boss.
After a soldier told Rumsfeld that he and his fellow servicemen must scrounge for metal to better fortify their Humvees, the secretary told him, "You go to war with the Army you have." That response didn't sit well with the former general.
"They deserve every bit of protection we can give them," Schwarzkopf scowled in an interview with "Hardball" host Chris Matthews on MSNBC. "I was very, very disappointed - let me put it stronger - I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense."
More than half of the more than 1,200 U.S. troops killed in Iraq have come from insurgent attacks on the vehicles.
"When he [Rumsfeld] laid it all on the Army, I mean, as if he as the secretary of defense didn't have anything to do with it, the Army was over there doing it themselves screwing up," Schwarzkopf said.
McCain piled on in an Associated Press interview .
"I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops - linguists, Special Forces, civil affairs, etc.," he said. "There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue."
LOL!
We would do well to listen to the General.
I wonder if Norman heard the whole exchange or just the cut down "army you have" part. Because, frankly, I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with what Rumsfeld said, which was more or less, "sometimes you won't know what you need until you need it."
It's being reported as if the soldier asked the question, and Rumsfeld's only response was "you go with the army you've got." That's not even close to the truth. He spoke for much longer than that, first saying that he knew it was a problem and that they were were working on it. The part about going with the army you've got was one sentence taken from the middle of his remarks.
Completely unfair.
If it turns out that the Army requested this equipment and the DoD denied their request, then Rumsfeld is responsible.
If nobody in command requested it, I don't see how it's the Secretary of Defense's job to do his own work and the work of the field officers as well.
There have been lots of folks who have wanted Rummy gone from day one. Most of them are lib/dems or so-called moderates.
Bureaucracy and slow communication channels often compound problems in the Military in terms of funding and action.
It happens a lot in the UK too. Troops suffer and people can die. Our army has been chronically underfunded and overused for decades but no one listened to the complaints. Now we have had to cut regiments just to surivive.
My housemates has just returned from Iraq and has spoken highly of the equipment used by the US.
So you agree with McCain? If he and the General are saying essentially the same thing...
If we'd waited until an occupation army had been drafted and trained we'd have never gone. It would have just meant more, and easier, targets for the terrorists anyway. More dead Americans.
Enough already!
Thank you for the welcome.
I'm aware of the agenda against Rumsfeld, but I have a lot of respect for Schwarzkoff (SP?), and I can't help but take into consideration the way the troops cheered when that infamous question was asked.
As for McCain, he should just become a Democrat already.
Note. The Democrats voted AGAINST the armor.
Norm needs to hear the whole story.
I suspect there are some behind the scenes bitterness between the two.
He allowed himself to be fooled by Saddam Hussein at the end of the first gulf war, by allowing SH to keep flying. The excuse being that the highways were damaged.
Schwartzkopf fell for it......and SH used that ability to wreak havoc on his enemies.
Related post here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1301024/posts
Says, among other things, humvee windshield frame is too weak for the full thickness armored glass.
PLEASE, since the dawn of man and war field savaging has been a part of it as killing. They do not fit EVERY vehicle with equipment because they don't have to. If equipment is broken or destroyed you take what you can and junk the rest. Or pick up the arrows off of the ground or take the musket from the dead guy. What the he$$ are you thinking? Norm just didn't like the answer. I wonder what his answer would have been.
That should be the first sentence out of each repub's mouth when answering a question.
rhetorical questions:
Did or did not the Humvee replace the jeep?
Which one provides better protection for moving troops?
This is a non issue.
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.