Equipment For Added Troops Is Lacking

The Washington Post ^ | January 30, 2007 | Ann Scott Tyson

[corlorde]

Once again, you've nailed it. We also have this (which flies in the face of, "just let the Generals do their jobs!" mantra I read here on a daily basis).

Fallon says U.S. miscalculated Iraq

WASHINGTON - Adm. William Fallon, who is poised to become the top American commander in the Middle East, says the United States miscalculated the ability of Iraqi forces to take control and underestimated the enemy's persistence.

"Securing the stability of the country has been more difficult than anticipated," Fallon said in a written statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Our ability to correctly assess the political, economic and security situation in Iraq has been lacking."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_16

[leadpenny]

Good points. I never stop to think what this is doing to services other than the Army and Marine Corps.

[leadpenny]

I'm happy for good news, but I took my rose colored glasses off a long time ago.

[Joe 6-pack]

"Ten years ago we had 250,000 more troops than we do now. What did we do with all the stuff they were using?"

Check out the arms room of your local SWAT team...

[Paloma_55]

Here is the way it works. We are increasing troops because we are being forced to by political demands upon the President. He either ups the troops and tries to regain control, or he pulls out.

The Dems don't give a damn about our troops. They only want the president to fail.

The troops understand that sometimes you go into battle less than fully prepared. Look at the special ops guys. They get dropped behind lines with a Swiss Army knife and they feel like they are ahead of the enemy.

Lets just pray for them, and lets pray that the left in this country can manage to support them for a few months. It will be over soon. If the surge works, the fighting ends and they come home. If it doesn't, we are going to pull out and then we will be back to fight a bigger enemy in years to come.

[Paloma_55]

I have never met a general that didn't want more equipment for his men.

We go in with what we have.

Public debate of our equipment status works for the enemy.

Its the equivalent of complaining publically about this upcoming "D-Day Event"..."Ya know, they are cramming all of those soldiers into boats and gonna force them to climb onto a beach in Normandy"... ya, thats sympathetic to our troops to give away such info.

[Steel Wolf]

The troops understand that sometimes you go into battle less than fully prepared. Look at the special ops guys. They get dropped behind lines with a Swiss Army knife and they feel like they are ahead of the enemy.

You must watch a lot of TV. U.S. Special Operations troops are some of the best equipped guys on the planet. Certainly, they're the best equipped in the U.S. military. Having the tools to do the job and the skill to use those tools is what overthrew the Taliban in a matter of weeks, not Hollywood cliches and their bare hands.

[jude24]

Having the tools to do the job and the skill to use those tools is what overthrew the Taliban in a matter of weeks, not Hollywood cliches and their bare hands.

Someone confused McGuyver with the military.

[Paloma_55]

I agree that they are dropped in with good equipment. But suppose that equipment is not available? Do they whine about it?

[leadpenny]

Any commander worth his or her salt will always want more and war is very wasteful, but, once you are in a war you flood the system with what is needed so, hopefully, the troops are not wanting for the combat essentials.

Swiss Army knife? Steel Wolf addressed that.

[leadpenny]

Givin' it up for the enemy? Why has it been mostly talk when it comes to the "surge" since the election? Why didn't we just do it.

[corlorde]

This isn't wining:

Trucks are in particularly short supply. For example, the Army would need 1,500 specially outfitted -- known as "up-armored" -- 2 1/2 -ton and five-ton trucks in Iraq for the incoming units, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, the Army's deputy chief of staff for force development.

"We don't have the [armor] kits, and we don't have the trucks," Speakes said in an interview.

It's bringing to light a very worrisome problem. I'll tell you, the number one force protection issue in Iraq is IEDs. Thousands of servicemen and women are being injured over a problem that we have the remedy to fix, but the fix is coming slow. It's hardly reassuring to know that five maneuver brigades are being dropped into IED heaven when the vehicles they are to be using are not equipped right. Understand now? It's not throwing your hands up in defeat; it's addressing a very real problem. And if the media's reporting of such deficiencies puts a torch up someone's ass, then I'm all for it. Repeating administrations slogans like, "go to war with what you have" makes us feel good, but that and prayers aren't definitive answers.

[corlorde]

I meant to say, "this isn't whining" --my apologies.

[Paloma_55]

There has been a lot of armchair quarterbacking on the war, which is the worst possible thing we can do. If a general has problems with lack of equipment, that is for him to discuss with the SOD, not with the news.

Personally, I would have gone for setting up bases out in the hinterlands of Iraq and telling the Iraqi government to either get it in control, or we would start the bombing again and clean it up one more time.

As much as I disliked Bill Clinton's decision to go into Bosnia, his use of air power and safety of our troops was a good thing. You pound your enemy into submission, then back off and if they start to move, pound them again.

Our problem is trying to use our military like police.

But here I go, armchair quarterbacking.

Our military does not need, nor care about the bantering of civilians on how they should be fighting, or whether they have the right equipment.

What they DO care about is stopping the enemy and any activity we engage in that strengthens the enemy, hurts the troops.

The enemy in Iraq gains strength by articles proclaiming our defeat. (period!)

[Paloma_55]

Question: Do you think the Washington Post wrote this article because they care about the troops?

If so, do you think they are promoting an increase in supplies for our troops?

If not, who do they think gains from the article?

[leadpenny]

Back later. Good post, corlorde.

[corlorde]

or whether they have the right equipment.

That's factually incorrect.

Gains from the article may, be stepping up procurement.

[Paloma_55]

You really think the Washington Post wants more $$ for military spending??

Come on...get real!

[jwparkerjr]

My understanding was that these are additional troops being sent in to do a specific job, not just an increase in the speed and strength of scheduled rotations.

I apologize if I've gotten this wrong! I have a son-in-law, a nephew and a grandson in the Army, two of them are in Iraq right now. The son-in-law is a just retired Lt. Col. who has been with CentCom for the last five years. The picture I get of our efforts in Iraq is not the picture you are painting, but I realize you might be in a better position to know the actual workings of the effort since my knowledge is not firsthand.

In any event, I suspect we are are on the same page in that we want to fight this war the right way and get it done and bring our people home!

Thanks for the dialog, that's one of the things I really like about FreeRep!

[Wolfie]

There's paranoia involved, but the right in this country is also in a state of deep denial.

I actually heard one caller to a radio show opine that there shouldn't be such critical analysis of the troop "surge", since any soldier could just refuse to go if they didn't want to.