On Clueless Civilians running the Military...

Here is the ONE that should have resigned or be fired from the cabinet together with his deputy...

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait - Disgruntled 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.

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

... "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.

... "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

Easy to say when your civilian ass is sitting behind a comfortable chair thousands of miles from the action!

This guy has not listened to what his field commanders have been telling him since day one. For whatever is worth, I hold him and Paul Wolfowitz responsible for the death of each and everyone of our troops.

This is not about being pro or against the war. It is too late for that. It is about providing the best possible equipment and support for the men and women that are stuck there.

Write to your congressmen and to the Department of Defense. Don't bitch about the war or your letters will be thrown away. Simply demand that our soldiers are properly equipped and taken care of!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20041208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/rumsfeld

- T -

I could not agree with you more Tito and I HAVE written, but will do so again (and I'm getting my friends to write in too).

This is not the only issue, they had no bullet proof vests and were eating cold sandwhiches when they should have been getting hot meals.

I have to ask - where is all this money being spent on the War with Iraq going?

Certaintly not into protecting our soliders.

Let's see.

The Romans had no "bulletproof armor"... and few hot meals.
The Militiamen and soldiers who wintered over at Valley Forge had no such armor.
Soldiers on neither side in the American Civil War had anything approaching armor.
WWI soldiers began to consider armor but Joe average Snuffy the Infantryman had nothing to speak of.
WWII's boys in green had nothing on average tho there is a small bit of evidence that personal armor was developed for a few troops.
The Korean War boys actually saw personalize armor vests - well, 1-5% of them did according to the official records, if I remember correctly.
It was only during the Vietnam Conflict that personal armor for the infantryman was considered to be de riguer/somewhat essential....and even then it wasn't always worn because it was only partially effective and was hot as hell.

Gulf War time and all of a sudden we have to have personal armor for every Tom, Dick and Harry who goes overseas?

Give me a break.

As for Rummy resigning... and with respect to his comment - you DO fight with what you have, not what you planned to have. If you can't understand that, you don't understand logistics. You can't issue what you don't have. Ever try getting soldiers to turn equipment in so that it can be issued to another unit? Good luck if the "losing group" of soldiers believe that that equipment is essential to their OWN survival... which is actually very debatable in this instance.

That he has or has not served as a soldier cannot be used as a logical reason for him to resign - no more, at least, than the "Slide Rule Boys" that Kennedy hired should have had to serve to do their jobs as DoD advisors. This is a specious argument without reasonable support.

GrayFriar,

We have the capability and financing to provide armor for our troops. Is it important for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have armor? I would ask their mothers, children, and wives.

The Romans fought with spears, swords, and arrows. By your logic it would be OK to send our troops armed with these instead of modern wepondry.

The technology and resources exists to fully equip our troops. The problem is the beurocracy that is keeping them from getting it.

The technology existed at the end of WW2 to equip the forces on both sides with jet aircraft.

The supply chain, the industrial infrastructure did not exist on either side.... at least in terms of having sufficient equipment, parts and personnel to support that technology at that time.

In this instance, my argument is sure, we hav eth etechnology. But no it is not a "filled supply chain" and no, this is nothing new as far as new requirements for soldier support - this happenes each time a "new" logisitcs requirement is encountered that will be issued to or involve every individual in the service. An example is a simple uniform change - in this case, it has slightly more "mdeia interest" because of the "human interest story"/media outrage angle.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Then again, I don't think the combatants on the "other" side have personal armor issued to each of their personnel... and they seem to be doing some damage.... but that's just my opinion. It still doesn't mean that Rummy should resign or be replaced over this.

Perfect! We don't want them to either. Ours is a presence of technology, not superior numbers.

As far as Rummy goes...I have no idea. I will let you political types argue that one.

Personally I would think the absolute number one priority of our administration would be to keep our troops as safe from harm as possible while they follow orders. If we have technology to help protect our troops, then that would be THE MOST IMPORTANT matter at hand. Far more important than making sure Haliburton gets every chance to line thier pockets and rip off the tax payer. But it seems that our soldiers lives are far less important than the profit margin for Bush buddies and campaign supporters. I'd sure love to see what all this money we are spending on George W's little greed-induced war is going. In fact, I'd like to see where the money from Iraqi oil is going as well.

It's pretty damn basic. Human lives vs. profit marin. Guess who wins..

Yep. A conspiracy.. It must be.

Sad to say, but this isn't new. In the first golf war troops were writing back to their family asking them to go out and buy all kind of things. Specifcally amunition, socks, boots, armered vests. I have herd storys about hole platunes buying their own guns, Because they don't trust the wepons they had been issued from locking up.

Not a conspiracy but a fact.

Poor supplies hurt soldiers

Penny-pinching and privatization make life tougher for troops

PAUL KRUGMAN

New York Times


A few days ago I talked to a soldier just back from Iraq. He'd been in a relatively calm area; his main complaint was about food. Four months after the fall of Baghdad, his unit was still eating the dreaded MREs: meals ready to eat. When Italian troops moved into the area, their food was "way more realistic" -- and U.S. troops were soon trading whatever they could for some of that Italian food.

Other stories are far worse. Letters published in Stars and Stripes and e-mail published on the Web site of Col. David Hackworth (a decorated veteran and Pentagon critic) describe shortages of water. One writer reported that in his unit, "each soldier is limited to two 1.5-liter bottles a day," and that inadequate water rations were leading to "heat casualties." A U.S. soldier died of heat stroke Saturday. Are poor supply and living conditions one reason why U.S. troops in Iraq are suffering such a high rate of noncombat deaths?

The U.S. military has always had superb logistics. What happened? The answer is a mix of penny-pinching and privatization -- which makes our soldiers' discomfort a symptom of something more general.

Hackworth blames "dilettantes in the Pentagon" who "thought they could run a war and an occupation on the cheap." But the cheapness isn't restricted to Iraq. In general, the "support our troops" crowd draws the line when that support might actually cost something.

The usually conservative Army Times has run blistering editorials on this subject. Its June 30 blast, titled "Nothing but Lip Service," begins: "In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap -- and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately." The article goes on to detail a series of promises broken and benefits cut.

Military corner-cutting is part of a broader picture of penny-wise-pound-foolish government. When it comes to tax cuts or subsidies to powerful interest groups, money is no object. But elsewhere, including homeland security, small-government ideology reigns. The Bush administration has been unwilling to spend enough on any aspect of homeland security. The decision to pull air marshals off some flights to save on hotel bills -- reversed when the public heard about it -- was simply a sound-bite-worthy example. (Air marshals have told MSNBC.com that a "witch hunt" is now under way at the Transportation Security Administration, and that those who reveal cost-cutting measures to the media are being threatened with the Patriot Act.)

There's also another element in the Iraq logistical mess: privatization. The U.S. military has shifted many tasks traditionally performed by soldiers into the hands of such private contractors as Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary. The Iraq war and its aftermath gave this privatized system its first major test in combat -- and the system failed.

According to the Newhouse News Service, "U.S. troops in Iraq suffered through months of unnecessarily poor living conditions because some civilian contractors hired by the Army for logistics support failed to show up." Not surprisingly, civilian contractors -- and their insurance companies -- get spooked by war zones. The Financial Times reports that the dismal performance of contractors in Iraq has raised strong concerns about what would happen in a war against a serious opponent, like North Korea.

Military privatization, like military penny-pinching, is part of a pattern. Both for ideological reasons and, one suspects, because of the patronage involved, the people now running the country seem determined to have public services provided by private corporations, no matter what the circumstances.

In Iraq, reports The Baltimore Sun, "the Bush administration continues to use American corporations to perform work that United Nations agencies and nonprofit aid groups can do more cheaply."

The logistical mess in Iraq isn't an isolated case of poor planning and mismanagement: It's telling us what's wrong with our current philosophy of government.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times, 229 W. 43rd St., Room 943, New York, NY 10036.

You do not plan and advise for a full scale invasion of a country knowing that your troops are not adequately prepared and armed to be successful. And if they didn't know, they should lose their jobs for not knowing!

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are the master minds behind Iraq. Against the strong opposition of most every high ranking military officer, they advised the President to invade. They are fully responsible.

The job of the Secretary of Defense is to look out for the security of this Nation and the interests of the United States Armed forces. He is not doing either one.

Screw the good ol' boys in Washington. They are not doing the fighting, our friends, our neighbors, our families are. And as a tax payer, I want my tax dollars to be used to do the best to protect them, as simple as that.

- T -

Did you read the article referenced? Did you see that all combat vehicles required for the advance WERE armored? Do you understand that the problem NOW is that non-combat vehicles are being armored or being requested to be armored at a rate/percentage never before seen? Or are you ignoring this little inconvenient fact?

I could care less about the politics that you are arguing. It doesn't matter to me whether this is occuring on the Republican watch or the Democratic one. The situation is what it is.

Personally, I don't think the armor is an absolute necessity. As the man said, people die in armored vehicles also. It is not a cure all.

The problem is the same that was faced during Vietnam - pacification of the populace. That never happened.. and eventually we left. Guess what? We will eventually leave - and more or less men and women will die regardless of whether or not their vehicles are armored.

I have a question for you who are callin gfor his resignation with such indignation. Do YOU want Rummy's job? Not before... NOW. With the current situation.. deal with the present, not the past... That is over. Do YOU think you can do a better job from this point forward? If not, then sugges someone who can or shut up. Whining won't solve this"problem".

I'll take his job gladly. I know literally nothing about how to do it and I have every confidence that I could perform it in a manner much better for the population of the United State, compared to what he has done and is doing.

I would not want the job - but here is the person that I nominate: Max Cleland

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Max_Cleland.htm

There are many things that Cleland voted for or against that I don't agree with. But I think that the people that I care about who are in Iraq would have a much better chance if he was in Rumsfelds position.

And you base that claim on what?

Having followed Max's career for w while, I don't think he wants the job.

If the CEO of a corporation fails to predict supply and demand for a product, and the company is caught with their pants down because of his/her bad judgement and it results in a substantial loss of earnings and/or market share, the board of directors and shareholders will demand to have his/her head served in a silver platter. No excuses.

In that kind of position, whether a top executive at a corporation or in government, their job is simply to know. That is why they get paid the big bucks.

In Rumsfeld's case, he was informed by the top brass that they were not ready for such an adventure. He ignored them and here we are.

- T -

I love how it was Kerry's fault, according to the RNC. You know, for his protest vote on the 80 billion bill that was obviously going to pass anyway (98-2). Even though the bill still didn't provide armor for soldiers.

How about the fact that Rumsfeld sold Iraq in the 80s years ago some of the weapons they are using on our troops today?

You still haven't told me why this is Rummy's fault.
Seriously.
The current lodigistics stash in all services is a product of 230 or so years of Congressional funding and non-funding. In a "perfect world" of one sense, Congress would have funded EVERYTHING the DoD ever asked for and it would have been funded to a point where all of the best of the best articles were issued to every soldier, sailor, airman and maroon everywhere - including lil Joe Snuffy the Ragman sitting all snug at his desk in the bowels of the base at Thule Greenland - a truly "dangerous place".
That's not the case now. What is in the supply pipeline is what has been authorized and purchased - years ago as well as more recently.
Even attempting to armor non-combat vehicles has not historically been an issue - so this is a "new levy" and new levies take time.

I've already stated that I think this is overkill and that Rummy's statement is correct - all the armor in the world can't save a tank at times.
So, I am still waiting for a logical reason for why Rummy is to blame for what is occuring NOW and why someone else could do it better from this point forward. Assume for a second, just for the purpose of answering THAT question, who could do a better job - if anyone. Then name him/her and tell me why. Then I might be able to see the reason that Rummy is such a bad Secretary. Until then, it just sounds like people are being overly-emotional and extremely partisan.

Partisan? Read all my posts leading up to the election...

I am a Republican, I voted for Bush, I proudly served in the Army, and I believe Hussein and his scum bag sons deserved to die so they can rot in hell for eternity to pay for the vicious murder of tens of thousands of innocent Iraquis.

However...

The way we went about Iraq was a huge mistake. Hussein could have been taken out without invading, and this was not the right time. The first priority was Al-Qaeda and cleaning up Afghanistan.

The so called 'educated' minds in that little circle in Washington D.C. obviously did not have a clue, or chose to ignore how things work in the Arab world.

It is beyond my comprehension how the heck they expected Iraqis or the rest of the Arab world to welcome infidel Christian troops to Muslim lands with open arms. Especially, with our close relationship with Israel. Those who ignore history....

In their ignorance, and contrary to all red flags brought up by the intelligence community, the military, and even Secretary of State Colin Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of that little group, convinced the President that we could take out Iraq fast and with limited troops and equipment.

Even during the early days of the war, if you go back and read the newspapers, Rumsfeld continued to state that we had enough troops and equipment, contrary to what field commanders were saying.

Who would I replace Rumsfeld with? My top choice would be retired USMC General Anthony Zinni.

Why Zinni? Here is a link for you. Compare his experience and intelligence to Rumsfeld's.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

Again, this is not about taking sides in the war. We are in, we are screwed. We need to finish what we went in to do so that all our troops can come home as soon as possible - in one piece. And for that, we need to Pentagon to look after their needs.

It is quite easy for some old man with grandiose ideas to talk the talk, but does he walk the walk?

- T -

Some views from GEN. Zinni on the carrying of the war...

"In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility, at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was dereliction in lack of planning,” “The president is owed the finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He didn’t get the first two.”

One of Zinni's responsibilities while commander-in-chief at Centcom was to develop a plan for the invasion of Iraq. Like his predecessors, he subscribed to the belief that you only enter battle with overwhelming force.

But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld thought the job could be done with fewer troops and high-tech weapons.

How many troops did Zinni’s plan call for? “We were much in line with Gen. Shinseki's view,” says Zinni. “We were talking about, you know, 300,000, in that neighborhood.”

Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged that he hadn't anticipated the level of violence that would continue in Iraq a year after the war began. Should he have been surprised?

“He should not have been surprised. You know, there were a number of people, before we even engaged in this conflict, that felt strongly we were underestimating the problems and the scope of the problems we would have in there,” says Zinni. “Not just generals, but others -- diplomats, those in the international community that understood the situation. Friends of ours in the region that were cautioning us to be careful out there. I think he should have known that.”

Full article...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

Zinni is a good dude. I met and talked with him a couple of times.

OTOH, I don't think he wants the position either.

He is a commander - for more that than a bureaucrat. He actually did a fine job of balancing the admin crap he was saddled with when I knew him with the command stuff he far preferred.

OTOH, Rummy knows where his limitations are, I believe. He is a grand strategist but not a tactician by any means. Lots of people disagree with his grand strategy - guess what. So do I. I have never said otherwise.

The point is, assuming I grant that he screwed the pooch and the current situation is ALL attributable to HIM, who could improve the situation AS Sec Def from this point forward - in a way that Rummy can't or won't? In answering, explain how Rummy can't or won't do things this other person can and will.

Armor won't save your life every time... so we might as well not bother with any armor whatsoever, right?

Seat belts won't save your life every time... so we might as well not bother with any seatbelts whatsoever, right?

Doctors won't save your life every time... so we might as well not bother with any doctors whatsoever, right?

Don't mind me, I'm just trying to be annoying.

Actually you are making my point for me - and probably not realising it...

If a soldier in the safety of the US has armor and one in Iraq does not right now, then the armor is misallocated, correct?

Well, maybe.

See, there are different types - and guess what. Everyone wants "the best" 100% of the time. So, taken to extremes, you can choose either of these two diametrically opposed solutions - not issue any to anyone until everyone can have it... or, you can choose to issue what you have without regard to the individual threats-needs concern of the individual and situation.

I don't think that either solution is desirable.

Rummy doesn't either, of that I am certain. No logical person that I know of would.

So, given the system in place, given the logistics currently extant - meaning how many available items are there and where are they -,given that the past cannot be changed, and given that future production is just that - in the future - well, YOU try to solve the problem without stopping time.

Rummy is not the enemy here no matter how anyone tries to twist it... at least not as far as I can see ---- which limits this to a question or armor availability, situational needs, soldier desires, and how the current system is designed to work. The difficulty is changing expectations - some of which are totally unrealistic in my opinion. People with armor WILL die.. of that, I am certain. People without armor WILL survive. I am equally certain of that also. Armor, in and of itself, will not ensure survival or death.

So, play the game of absurd extremism all you want. The situation is what it is.

Rummy said you do the best you can with what you have when you are on the ground. I think that is one of the most sane things I have ever heard said.

Regardless of whether or not the armor is or is not available.... regardless or whether you are for Rummy, neutral abotu him, or against him.. this is why I am generally cynical with respect to media and their hidden agendas/operations in the field.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcp.htm

It happens all the time... this reporter admits to having an ulterior motive.

Despite that, the national media jumped on the story... with less than complete information. The other soldiers at the press conference, obviously and understandably biased favorably towards anything conceivably helping to keep them alive, were also set up by what was a planted question intended to create controversy.

/me shakes my head..... knowing this is the way things are and sorry that this is so... and will likely never change. That is, people (myself included) are self-centered (the reporter) and seldom realize or care about their negative impact on others.