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."
I agree.
I think it's interesting (and disturbing) how people forget that a supposed ally denied us the right to enter Iraq through their country (you would think there would have been a reason that all the ships and troops being there would've indicated a feeling they were approved).
The denial could've made a major difference, and nobody seems to notice that the original plan (war plans often go awry (sp?)).
But I agree now that having the Fourth in the Sunni territories much sooner would have helped subdue the Sunni more quickly.
Easier said than done. In "peacetime" the Defense Budget is essentially split in 3 parts: Manpower; the so-call "Legacy Force" (the equipment we have); and the "Future Force" (the equipment we are going to have). The SecDef must balance these areas across all 4 services. Now throw in a war. This throws you budget projections completely out of whack.
When Rumsfeld came into office he was set on transforming the military to make it lighter & more deployable (emphasis on the Future Force). Much of this transformation came at the Army's expense. Retired Army Generals (like Wesley Clark) were already unhappy. Then 9/11 happens. Well, let's just say that the Army adapted & overcame, but those Rumsfeld critics were still there, keeping their powder dry. Now the insurgency heats up and those critics want their scalp (Rumsfeld's). It's really as simple as that.
Whoops---#60 was in reply to your #57.
Rumsfeld essentially said that (a) yes, we need more armored hmmwvs, and (b) we are producing them as rapidly as possible. What is wrong with that? The second part: that we are producing them as rapidly as possible. As has been demonstrated in numerous articles over the past several days, this is simply not true.
Rummy is getting a raw deal here. He gets nothing but abuse for doing the best he can with what he's got. Schwarzkopf and McCain are adding nothing to the effort in Iraq by siding with MSM, who are eagerly waiting for the defeat of the US (i.e., GWB & GOP) so that they can say I told you so, setting up the Dems in 2008. Obviously, McCain's statements are totally politically motivated. He needs to establish an alternative "support the troops" stance which looks stronger than that of Bush. Schwarzkopf is an over-rated, over-cautious figurehead whose supposed military genius is based on the superior overwhelming force he had been given, rather than any strategic brilliance on his part. This is why he is so quick to glom on to the criticisms of not enough armor, firepower, etc.
No harm done, I appreciate your input.
Your premise is hopelessly flawed. Not only is this just one campaign theatre of a greater war, but it is one of the most successful military campaigns in history.
The only reason people cannot see that is they are woefully ignorant about history and the MSM et. al. constantly move the "success" goalposts. As soon as one is blown past, they set up another criteria for failure.
Witness in the last four years: the US was supposed to fail in the Afghan invasion, then in the taking of Kabul, then in the pacifying of the general country, with tens of thousands of casualties. Then there was going to be no way we could set up representational government in a tribal society, then Afghans wouldn't be able to hold elections. All false prophesies.
The same pattern is being seen in Iraq. The only major miscalculation that I can see is that the Iraqi militants dissolved into the general population, rather than fight, and if we had been able to bring in the planned flanking from Turkey, that may not have happened.
The fact is that the soft-sided vehicles in question are Cold War thinking. They assume a "behind the lines" safe zone of travel which doesn't exist in modern mobile warfare. Do we need safer, more armored ways to transport troops and materiel? Surely, but neither Rumsfeld nor Bush, nor McCain can wave a magic wand and make them appear. We fight with the Army we have when the war happens, or we end up being like McClellan in the Civil War.
Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. My question is more logistical. We’ve had troops in Iraq for coming up on three years and we’ve always staged here out of Kuwait. Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromise ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don’t we have those resources readily available to us? [Applause]
SEC. RUMSFELD: I missed the first part of your question. And could you repeat it for me?
Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.
SEC. RUMSFELD: 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.
I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they’re working at it at a good clip. It’s interesting, I’ve talked a great deal about this with a team of people who’ve been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.
And General Whitcomb, is there anything you’d want to add to that?
GEN. WHITCOMB: Nothing. [Laughter] Mr. Secretary, I’d be happy to. That is a focus on what we do here in Kuwait and what is done up in the theater, both in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. As the secretary has said, it’s not a matter of money or desire; it is a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it. The 699th, the team that we’ve got here in Kuwait has done [Cheers] a tremendous effort to take that steel that they have and cut it, prefab it and put it on vehicles. But there is nobody from the president on down that is not aware that this is a challenge for us and this is a desire for us to accomplish.
SEC. RUMSFELD: The other day, after there was a big threat alert in Washington, D.C. in connection with the elections, as I recall, I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They’re not there anymore. [Cheers] [Applause] They’re en route out here, I can assure you. Next. Way in the back. Yes.
It probably DID make a major difference. It messed up our timing to a degree and it allowed a number of insurgents to melt away.
The French need to pay for that...
"It's obvious that you require no facts for your opinions..."
The only fact I need for the opinion I gave in my post was the fact that the soldiers cheered wildly when the question was asked. Maybe every single one of those soldiers was completely wrong about the armor issue, but they VERY OBVIOUSLY thought it was a legitimate question. Nothing you just posted alters that one iota. In fact, what you posted has absoltuley nothing to do with my point.
Maybe you should take the time to read more carefully instead of just jerking your knee (or any other body parts for that matter).
People seem to forget that ole Norm had six months to get his duckies in a row. So DAmn Insane left him alone to do just that something I don't understand to this day. The six months gave us time to put vast quantities of supplies and material in place.
That did not obtain in the current war.
After we arrived in Baghad, the looting went on and on. Rumsfeld said the looters had to burn off steam. I didn't agree with that comment and thought he should have stopped it, but evidently we didn't have enough troops.
At no time did I interpret the 'army you have' remark as a slur on the Army. Rummy was merely pointing out that you to to war with the men and equipment you have at the time.
Lets look at some historical facts...
Both you and I came up with the McClellan example in minutes and off the top of our heads. So, why can't some so-called journalist looking for an "angle"? Back in the day, that was how a reported made a name for himself, by finding a way around the conventional wisdom of the herd. Now, it would probably get you expelled from Columbia School of Journalism.
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.