Rummy gets reamed...

[Gato_Solo]

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait — Disgrunted U.S. soldiers complained to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Wednesday about the lack of armor for their vehicles and long deployments, drawing a blunt retort from the Pentagon chief.

"You go to war with the Army you have," he said in a rare public airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.

In his prepared remarks earlier, Rumsfeld had urged the troops — mostly National Guard and Reserve soldiers — to discount critics of the war in Iraq (search) and to help "win the test of wills" with the insurgents.

Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own — not of the war itself but of how it is being fought.

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly two years after the start of the war that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Here's the rest...

 

[unclehobart]

Is not all of this type of complaining that is going about against the UCMJ somehow?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Is not all of this type of complaining that is going about against the UCMJ somehow?

Not if Rummy opened up a 'question and answer' session. As long as they're using proper forms of address, and not being personally derogatory, just about any topic is open.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

I thought it was a healthy session. The bottom line however is that Rumsfeld was feeding them a load of crap. He said armored hummers were coming into Iraq at about 400 per months and that it wasn't an issue of resources or money but a transportation issue. If Toyota alone can move 400 vehicles a day into the US i think the US military can do the job if they willed it. The fact is they simply were not on the ball.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

I think he replied with a quip about going to war with the army you have. Sadly, he's right. Defense spending cuts from previous administrations have gutted our soldiers' equipment to shameful levels. Yet we expect nothing less than 100% success from them.

I truly feel for our military personnel. With civilian expectations being what they are, coupled with the aforementioned budget cuts, they are in a no-win situation on the domestic/civilian front. We seem to be telling them, "Here. Take this stuff. We're not gonna give you more. Oh, and you better win. But play nice now, we'll sue you if you don't. Also, we'll be protesting and picketing and stuff the whole time you're there. Most likely, you'll return to no job, no benefits, and an unsympathetic populace who don't really care about you. But we still expect you to win. Oh, and win on our timetable, wouldya? Now go do what I ain't willing to do, do it my way, and be quiet about it. No, you can't have another cookie. Just go on now and do your little duty, while I stay here and nail your wife if I can and steal your job. You'll get your medal...someday."

Shameful.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I thought it was a healthy session. The bottom line however is that Rumsfeld was feeding them a load of crap. He said armored hummers were coming into Iraq at about 400 per months and that it wasn't an issue of resources or money but a transportation issue. If Toyota alone can move 400 vehicles a day into the US i think the US military can do the job if they willed it. The fact is they simply were not on the ball.

I beg to differ. We're sending armor out by the truckload from here. The amount of trucks per day is classified, and the destination is classified, but we're filling planes with the stuff. The Navy is also sending in supply ships. We can only move so much, so fast, due to the way the supply system works. As for the rest of your mis-statement, the fault of the armor lies not with the shipper, but with the receiver.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I think he replied with a quip about going to war with the army you have. Sadly, he's right. Defense spending cuts from previous administrations have gutted our soldiers' equipment to shameful levels. Yet we expect nothing less than 100% success from them.

I truly feel for our military personnel. With civilian expectations being what they are, coupled with the aforementioned budget cuts, they are in a no-win situation on the domestic/civilian front. We seem to be telling them, "Here. Take this stuff. We're not gonna give you more. Oh, and you better win. But play nice now, we'll sue you if you don't. Also, we'll be protesting and picketing and stuff the whole time you're there. Most likely, you'll return to no job, no benefits, and an unsympathetic populace who don't really care about you. But we still expect you to win. Oh, and win on our timetable, wouldya? Now go do what I ain't willing to do, do it my way, and be quiet about it. No, you can't have another cookie. Just go on now and do your little duty, while I stay here and nail your wife if I can and steal your job. You'll get your medal...someday."

Shameful.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

 

[Winky]

I bet the 'transnational insurgents" are complaining too, damn sahib why can't we get pre-made roadside mines, you know the advanced anti-vehicle kind they make in Russian it's bad enough we have to plant them at night when the Americans infidels have night vision and spy drones.
Then they either fail to detonate or are so poorly improvised that the armored Humvee escapes unscathed. Yep

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

I beg to differ. We're sending armor out by the truckload from here. The amount of trucks per day is classified, and the destination is classified, but we're filling planes with the stuff. The Navy is also sending in supply ships. We can only move so much, so fast, due to the way the supply system works. As for the rest of your mis-statement, the fault of the armor lies not with the shipper, but with the receiver.

I'm not going to argue the details with you as i know this is your field. The fact remaiins that if the defense department willed it they could easily rearange logistical priorities. Note that i'm not even stating that the defense department should reprioritize, all i'm saying is that rumsfeld should have given it to them straight and rather then telling them it couldn't be done he should have stated that other hardware has priority.

Also, can you expound upon the following statement?

the fault of the armor lies not with the shipper, but with the receiver

 

[A.B.Normal]

I beg to differ. We're sending armor out by the truckload from here. The amount of trucks per day is classified, and the destination is classified, but we're filling planes with the stuff. The Navy is also sending in supply ships. We can only move so much, so fast, due to the way the supply system works. As for the rest of your mis-statement, the fault of the armor lies not with the shipper, but with the receiver.

I thought it was that the manufacturers couldn't produce enough ,you can only /ship/receive what the supplier has.

Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

thats been the line from the onset of the shortage

Asked later about Wilson's complaint, the deputy commanding general of U.S. forces in Kuwait, Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, said in an interview that as far as he knows, every vehicle that is deploying to Iraq from Camp Buehring in Kuwait has at least "Level 3" armor. That means it at least has locally fabricated armor for its side panels, but not necessarily bulletproof windows or protection against explosions that penetrate the floorboard.

Speer said he was not aware that soldiers were searching landfills for scrap metal and used bulletproof glass.

Wheres he been .

 

[Winky]

I bet the 'transnational insurgents" are complaining too, damn sahib why can't we get pre-made roadside mines, you know the advanced anti-vehicle kind they make in Russian it's bad enough we have to plant them at night when the Americans infidels have night vision and spy drones.
Then they either fail to detonate or are so poorly improvised that the armored Humvee escapes unscathed. Yep

 

[Gonz]

My nephew is being sent back over there somewhere. He can't say. We don't pry. Everybody knows Turns out he had to buy his personel armor on his previous trip...and he's Airborne. That really really sucks. It's also nothing new. Do you think the first two or three waves of any invasion force is ever equipped properly?

Lets not forget;
A) he had an option to purchase,
B)the men at Normandy would have killed to have the technology,
C)almost 3/4 of everybody is now equipped. Over 80% of the vehicles are equipped.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I thought it was that the manufacturers couldn't produce enough ,you can only /ship/receive what the supplier has.

A C-17 can 'only' carry between 70 and 90 thousand pounds of cargo for each trip over. If we ship over between 70 and 90 thousand pounds of HMMWV armor to the Iraq theater of operations, and we send over more than one aircraft per day, you do the math. It's there, but they either don't have the manpower to retrofit, or the vehicles aren't being swapped out for the retrofit. Hence, it's the receiver's fault the vehicles aren't armored.

 

[Winky]

Give everyone a Bradley
no wait that probably wouldn’t work huh

 

[PostCode]

My nephew is being sent back over there somewhere. He can't say. We don't pry. Everybody knows Turns out he had to buy his personel armor on his previous trip...and he's Airborne. That really really sucks. It's also nothing new. Do you think the first two or three waves of any invasion force is ever equipped properly?

Lets not forget;
A) he had an option to purchase,
B)the men at Normandy would have killed to have the technology,
C)almost 3/4 of everybody is now equipped. Over 80% of the vehicles are equipped.

Now that really sounds stupid Gonz. Comparing Normandy to this. Normandy had a country that was on a wartime economy! The way you make it sound is a soldier is expect to purchase the very equipment that to help protect his lie that should be issued to him! No force should ever go into combat without proper supplies in place for any circumstance. We fucked up on the logistic front big time and we are still fucking up. If a soldier doesn't even has the proper equipment for himself before entering combat then he shouldn't be entering combat. Period.

Rumsfeld has fucked this Army up so bad it's near the point of unrepairable. Moral is pathetic. I still have a lot of buds on the inside. None of them are happy. They aren't getting enough equipment to them, plain and simple.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Now that really sounds stupid Gonz. Comparing Normandy to this. Normandy had a country that was on a wartime economy! The way you make it sound is a soldier is expect to purchase the very equipment that to help protect his lie that should be issued to him! No force should ever go into combat without proper supplies in place for any circumstance. We fucked up on the logistic front big time and we are still fucking up.

Not on my end. We send supplies out just about as fast as we get them.

If a soldier doesn't even has the proper equipment for himself before entering combat then he shouldn't be entering combat. Period.

Rumsfeld has fucked this Army up so bad it's near the point of unrepairable. Moral is pathetic. I still have a lot of buds on the inside. None of them are happy. They aren't getting enough equipment to them, plain and simple.

Sounds to me like they should be shooting their supply guys. Not that I'm into fragging, mind you, but once they start 'suffering the consequences', they'll start moving the supplies.

 

[Professur]

Before everyone gets their knickers in a twist

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

Before everyone gets their knickers in a twist

Doesn't make it any less true. I've been hearing about this for months.

 

[rrfield]

Doesn't make it any less true. I've been hearing about this for months.

Ditto, from my brother who was in Iraq until a few weeks ago.

 

[The Other One]

Now that the election is over the media is working double duty to come up with stories to bash Bush; why does the media have this ongoing agenda?


Why is President Bush being attacked for a problem the previous president sat on for 8 years ?

http://www.cfr.org/pub5962/lawrence_j_korb/thank_clinton_for_a_speedy_victory_in_iraq.php

Thank Clinton for a Speedy Victory in Iraq /By Lawrence J. Korb/The New York Times, May 13, 2003


As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld noted, the battle plan that led to the American success .... More important, the military forces that executed that plan so boldly and bravely were for the most part recruited, trained, and equipped by the Clinton administration.

The first Bush defense budget went into effect on Oct. 1, 2002, and none of the funds in that budget have yet had an impact on the quality of the men and women in the armed services, their readiness for combat, or the weapons they used to obliterate the Iraqi forces.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=9379

Clinton Military Triumphs In Iraq!/by Matthew Miller April 9, 2003

The remarkable feats in Iraq are being performed by Bill Clinton's military.

Hmm. Let's see. Between 1992 and 2003, the person who was president for the bulk of that time was ... Bill Clinton. It's true that President Bush has been throwing money at the Pentagon since Sept. 11, but defense planners will tell you that none of the impressive leaps in our military capability have taken place suddenly in the last 18 months.

Well, there was no armor in Bosnia, no tanks in Somalia.... but if troops under BUSH are lacking something, suddenly its on every front page for three days and all the libs light up and start to care about something they didn't care about the day before.

Just imagine the WHINING if the Pentagon had tried to appropriate more money for newer high tech armor BEFORE the war. Rumsfeld is right-- when war becomes necessary, you have to make due with what is at your disposal.


Remember that guy who complained about spending too much money in Iraq:

"....while making America pay $200 billion for a go-it-alone policy in Iraq. That's the wrong choice; that's the wrong direction; and that's the wrong leadership for America."

At issue is that a reporter (a supposedly objective observer) planted a question---at an event reporters were told they were not allowed to cover. By doing this he is not reporting the story---he IS the story. Journalistic integrity He should be fired.