Donald Rumsfeld was, in my opinion, right about his comments that you ‘go to war with the army you have,’ (despite the fact that it came across as callous and uncaring), because you don’t plan and engage in military operations based on the possibility of future weapons and equipment breakthroughs. If I had my way, we would have sent 100k M1A1’s in there- but that just wasn’t and isn’t a possibility, and infantrymen are vital to winning a war. But, if this shit is still going on, some damned heads need to roll:
John Tod of Mesa had been prepared to face Father’s Day worrying about his son’s pending date with the war in Iraq.
Then Uncle Sam stepped in with more disappointing developments.
Marine Pfc. Jeremy Tod called home with news that his superiors were urging him and fellow Marines to buy special military equipment, including flak jackets with armor plating, to enhance the prospects of their survival. advertisement
The message was that such purchases were to be made by Marines with their own money.
“He said they strongly suggested he get this equipment because when they get to Iraq they will wish they had,” Tod said.
Total estimated cost: $600.
Tod said his son’s call about two weeks ago from the Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma was a sobering reminder that the military is not prepared to equip Pfc. Tod and fellow Marines with the best equipment.
Besides the essential flak jacket with steel “trauma” plates, the shopping list for the young Marine included a Camelbak (water pouch) special ballistic goggles, knee and elbow pads, a “drop pouch” to hold ammunition magazines and a load-bearing vest.
Having just been burned by the Paynter story, I know how columnists fly fast and loose with the truth, but if this is truth, someone needs to have their ass handed to them on a damned platter. Donald Rumsfeld just had this to say:
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that Iraq is “statistically” no safer today than it was after Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was overthrown in 2003.
Asked on BBC television whether Iraq was safer since the US-led invasion ended the rule of dictator Saddam Hussein, Mr Rumsfeld replied: “Well, statistically no.”
“But clearly it has been getting better as we’ve gone along,” he added.
“In other words, at the end of the war the army fled, was captured … and the country was defeated,” Mr Rumsfeld told veteran interviewer David Frost.
If it is statistically no safer, and if you look at this piece by Dean Esmay, we are experiencing an uptick in violence (and this trendline should not use the casulaties in major combat operations- only post-Saddam Iraq should be measured to get a real picture), then shouldn’t body armor be a priority?
Just so we are clear- those things represented in the trend-lines? Those are people. Our people. They should have the f-ing equipment they need. If this story is legit, we have failed our troops.
But hey- Gitmo makes us safer, right?
Andrew Olmstead addresses the issue, saying things aren’t what they seem. I defer to someone who is still in.
SomeCallMeTim
I am unwilling to believe this story is true, and I can believe almost anything about this Administration.
steve
Don’t know how accurate the story is, but my cousin, who’s currently in Afghanistan and has done a tour in Iraq, told me the same basic story when I saw him a few months ago. He’s a staunch republican, but to hear him lay into Rumsfeld was jarring.
Anderson
Sounds perfectly plausible to me, but let’s wait & see.
Rick
Here’s a good round up of armor issues.
Cordially…
JG
‘Donald Rumsfeld was, in my opinion, right about his comments that you ‘go to war with the army you have,’ (despite the fact that it came across as callous and uncaring), because you don’t plan and engage in military operations based on the possibility of future weapons and equipment breakthroughs.’
I disagree. He was answering a question about why soldiers and vehicles (trucks with cloth doors?) went to Iraq ill-armored and ill-equipped. Since this war was planned and executed on our own timeline his answer is unacceptable IMO. We went to war with the Army we had because if anyone had gone to Congress before the war asking for the cash to build up the nescessary Army questions would be asked and we wouldn’t have gone to war. (Instead they asked for the cash after and labelled anyone who questioned it unpatriotic) His answer was basically a blow off to the left since it was only the left that was asking. The right doesn’t ask questions about these things. (Not my opinion BTW, its clear since anyone who asks unconfortable questions is called a lefty therefore no uncomfortable questions come from the right. Right?) Rumsfeld only cares for the people who think its treasonous to ask the question, the ones who attack the people asking questions.
I don’t understand why parents and soldiers are buying armor. We’re a pretty rich country. Have we lost revenue someplace?
Mike S
How many corners do you have to turn before you figure out you’re just going in circles?
Jon H
“because you don’t plan and engage in military operations based on the possibility of future weapons and equipment breakthroughs.”
Except the problem wasn’t that we face “future weapons and equipment breakthroughs”.
The problem was that Rumsfeld didn’t bother to sufficiently stock up on current mundane hardware during the long buildup before the war.
Nor have they sufficiently stocked up in the two years the war has been under way.
It’s not like we went into Iraq and were faced with guys in unexpected high-tech battle armor. We’re facing low-tech IEDs, which are basically the same as mines, which are an entirely predictable aspect of warfare.
Rumsfeld could get away with the “army you have” BS if he applied it to Afghanistan. That was a rush job. But it’s clear that Iraq was on the horizon at that point, so Rumsfeld should have made certain that he’d have a more adequate army when Iraq was invaded. He should have had suppliers lined up, orders placed, recruitment increased, long-term retention programs put in place, etc, etc, etc.
The Army of March, 2003 was the Army Rumsfeld put in place. Its resources were not the result of being caught by surprise.
Stormy70
Didn’t the additional armor on some vehicles, cause some accidents because the vehicle underneath was not built for additional weight. This sounds like a logistical problem having to do with both the type of vehicle, and whether armor belongs on it. I think Wretchard commented on this issue some time ago, and I would trust this guy over some journalist.
Jon H
“its clear since anyone who asks unconfortable questions is called a lefty therefore no uncomfortable questions come from the right. Right?)”
In fact, when the Republican head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting hired an Indiana guy to research the political backgrounds of people featured on Bill Moyers’ NOW show, the person categorized Chuck Hagel as a liberal.
Why? Because he was critical of the administration’s policies.
(And this high-quality research cost taxpayers about $14,000).
Jon H
Stormy70 writes:”Didn’t the additional armor on some vehicles, cause some accidents because the vehicle underneath was not built for additional weight. This sounds like a logistical problem having to do with both the type of vehicle, and whether armor belongs on it.”
If there are weight issues, then surely the time and place to work that out was in 2002, in the US.
Instead, we had troops jury-rigging armor as best they could, in the field, without the resources that would be available to manufacturers in the states.
SomeCallMeTim
Because if there’s one guy you can count on to give you the straight dope, it’s our own Marcus Panglossicus of Iraq, Wretchard.
BumperStickerist
This site, adopt a sniper, gives some background on these kinds of issues.
http://americansnipers.org/faq.html
Tim F
I like that, adopt-a-sniper.
If I give $500 to the CIA, do you think I could get my name engraved on a waterboard? It’d be a code name of course, ‘Tom F’ or maybe ‘Tim D.’
James Emerson
Strangely enough…it sounds just like the Marine Corps I was in during the Vietnam era. Never seemed to get the latest in equipment until the army was done with it. Hand me down weapons, but in better trained hands. I guess some things really don’t change…
Bottom line for the Marines is that they’re the Navy’s redheaded step child. Nothing more, nothing less…
cfw
Buying some personal equipment is to be expected. As I recall, the uniforms are bought by the troops (or were).
$600 spread out over 3 months is nothing crippling even for an E-2 or E-3. Combat pay kicks in and helps pay for these things, as I recall.
Might want to start the combat pay 3-4 months before movement to Iraq, to provide funding for the latest flak protection, etc.
“Besides the essential flak jacket with steel “trauma” plates, the shopping list for the young Marine included a Camelbak (water pouch) special ballistic goggles, knee and elbow pads, a “drop pouch” to hold ammunition magazines and a load-bearing vest.”
Keep in mind government procurement cycle is long for things like new-design flak jackets. Technology moves quckly. Until things slow down a bit, better to have this stuff bought by the soldier with his/her tax-free combat pay, no?
Reid
Sorry, I’m not buying “you go to war with the Army you have.” I would have bought that back in March, 2003. It is now 27 months later.
There is absolutely no excuse for a Marine (or their parents) to have to purchase their own flak jacket with trauma plates, “a Camelbak (water pouch) special ballistic goggles, knee and elbow pads, a ‘drop pouch’ to hold ammunition magazines and a load-bearing vest.”
“cfw” claims they have to pay for uniforms, as well. Why not make them buy their own M-16, too? Our armed forces need to not only be volunteer, they need to be self-funding.
What this country clearly needs is more tax cuts.
Fledermaus
Keep in mind government procurement cycle is long for things like new-design flak jackets. Technology moves quckly. Until things slow down a bit, better to have this stuff bought by the soldier with his/her tax-free combat pay, no?
Or perhaps the military could just, ya know, reimburse soldiers like every other business does?
If they can afford $80 hammers they can shell out for this.
RSA
Might want to start the combat pay 3-4 months before movement to Iraq, to provide funding for the latest flak protection, etc.
Way to support the troops. “Look, if you wanted to spend your pre-deployment combat pay on your sick grandmother instead of a good flak jacket, that was your decision. Now get out there on patrol.”
Also great for esprit de corps, each soldier protected by whatever he can afford personally.
Andrei
“$600 spread out over 3 months is nothing crippling even for an E-2 or E-3. Combat pay kicks in and helps pay for these things, as I recall.”
There you go! New marketing slogan for joining the Army:
Put your life on the line for your country and PAY for the privilege.
Brilliant.
I agree with Reid, who is obviously being coy… What this country clearly needs are more tax cuts.
jdm
It is fascinating to read all the comments that try and put a political spin on this issue. Apparently, when Democrats are in charge, the armed forces never lack for anything, everything is planned for, plans don’t need to change, and the equipment is always the best, most up-to-date, and distributed to all.
No plan – nor equipment – ever met a war that didn’t require some re-thinking or changes. Big Ol’ tanks like the M-1 were supposedly dead just a few years ago (starting in the Clinton years and right up through the first year in Iraq). Oops. Turned out big ol’ heavily armed & armored vehicles still have a use.
Besides, American armed forces have a great tradition of fixing things in the field. The bocage (hedgerows) in Normandy (France in WWII) was a problem that probably should’ve been solved in ’42, but it was solved in the field.
Sometimes the problems arise from military bureaucrats who are too far from the war to care. This is the case with the Warlock jammer system to prevent roadside bombs from going off. Bureaucracy, not politics.
Reid
You know, we’re not talking about armored Hummers and M1-A2’s here, despite some of the misdirection above. We’re talking about flak jackets with trauma plates and assorted gear that apparently is readily available for citizen marines (or their parents) to buy … if they’ve got $600.
One would assume the same must be true for the Defense Department.
The math on this is truly sad. If we’ve got 130,000 troops in Iraq, at $600 per troop, that’s $78 million. Order up three sets, due to rotations, and call it a quarter billion dollars.
The defense budget for this fiscal year is 1600 times that amount, $400 billion.
What greater priority do we have than making sure the lowliest grunt has the equipment they require?
jdm
You are correct, Reid. Well, except for your accusation of misdirection.
BumperStickerist
Another take on the body armor issue:
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4374
Jon H
jdm writes: “No plan – nor equipment – ever met a war that didn’t require some re-thinking or changes. ”
There was no plan. There was no equipment. Despite months of foreknowledge that a significant conflict was in the offing.
ppgaz
John, I agree with the first 90% of your post. My comment is aimed at the last sentence.
Sure, Gitmo makes us safer! In the same way that the war in Iraq makes us safer. The Terror Alert Color Code made us safer. The Patriot Act makes us safer. The president’s original objection to the 9-11 Commission investigation made us safer. The fact that our leaders know that Iraq insurgency is in its “last throes” makes us safer. Political and verbal browbeating of the president’s critics makes us safer. Calling for the “censure” of a thoughtful and obviously patriotic Democratic senator makes us safer. I Heart Gitmo shirts makes us safer. Pimping nonexistent WMDs and a nonexistent connection between Saddam and 9-11 made us safer. Donald Rumsfeld makes us safer. The Defense of Marriage amendment will make us safer. Going after Usama Bin Laden “dead or alive” made us safer. Abu Ghraib makes us safer. John Ashcroft made us safer. Your government’s response to the (apparently known) Al Qaeda threat, in 2001, made us safer. An intelligence mission that could track truckloads of oil but apparently could not track weapons development, systems and deployment in Iraq made us safer. Mocking our recalcitrant allies in Europe made us safer. Complete neglect of post-invasion planning in Iraq made us safer.
Everything these geniuses do is making us safer, John. Why do you hate America, with your mocking questions?
Pug
When does Don Rumsfeld get his Presidentaial Medal of Freedom to go along with George Tenet’s?
Nobody is ever called to account with these guys. Instead, they get promoted or get a medal.
Rick’s link really does give a pretty good overview of the problems the military has had with body armor.
That’s why SNAFU is a military term, I guess.
CaseyL
Funny how how Saddam was such a terrible threat to the US that Bush rushed us into a war in Iraq without a well-equipped military and without enough troops to secure those weapons sites that were supposedly the reason to rush to war.
Funny how so many documents and speeches make it clear Saddam wasn’t really that much of a threat, and that the Bush Admin knew he wasn’t much of a threat.
Maybe it’s a good thing we went to war in a country that wasn’t much of a threat. Since we don’t have enough soldiers, and we don’t have enough equipment to outfit the soldiers we do have.
Can you imagine the mess we’d be in if Iraq actually had been a real threat?
You might not have to imagine it, actually.
Think: Iran.
Barry
Reid: “Sorry, I’m not buying “you go to war with the Army you have.” I would have bought that back in March, 2003. It is now 27 months later.”
I’m actually not buying it even more. Sep 2001 to Feb 2003 was over a year; a year in which is was obvious that we were going to be at war with godknowswho in godknowswhere; ramping up military production of such things should have started in Fall 2001. From Woodward’s book, and what else has leaked out since 9/11, it’s clear that the ‘go’ date for the invasion of Iraq was actually Sept 12, 2001.
Remember that, by now, more time has has elapsed than the US took for WWII. We should judge issues of production and preparedness by that timeline.
“There is absolutely no excuse for a Marine (or their parents) to have to purchase their own flak jacket with trauma plates, “a Camelbak (water pouch) special ballistic goggles, knee and elbow pads, a ‘drop pouch’ to hold ammunition magazines and a load-bearing vest.””
I had an interesting thought, a while after seeing this – **how** could an ordinary Marine buy cutting-edge body armor? Shouldn’t those production runs already have been bought by the Army and the Corps?
Assuming, for laughs, that Rumsfield had finally figured out what was going on in Iraq, and felt like doing something about it, aside from BS-ing everybody in sight.
“cfw” claims they have to pay for uniforms, as well. Why not make them buy their own M-16, too? Our armed forces need to not only be volunteer, they need to be self-funding.”
True. G*ddamned grunts, alway whining about it being cold, or hot, or raining, or shrapnel coming in, or mines going off, or pissing away their ammo in firefights rather than saving it for future use. Making them pay their own way will build some character.
“What this country clearly needs is more tax cuts.”
Of course. We haven’t had one for months now, and I heard that Paris Hilton wasn’t able to afford a solid-platinum Roll – she had to go for gold, the poor child.
Posted by Reid
Richard Bottoms
Troops buy their own uniforms, gasp! We always did, that’s why we got a yearly clothing allowence.
As for the stupidity and lack of preparation. Well, Republicans control all three branches of government. I suppose you could continue to blame Clinton.
After all, he only left town five years ago.
Rick
Think: Iran
Think: Who is now in place to deal with it from NE and SW.
Should things come to that.
Cordially…
Barry
Rick, you can certainly chug the kool-aid.
Barry
Rick, you can certainly chug the kool-aid.
Rick
Barry,
No, I can view a map with some comprehension.
Think: Iraq=low-hanging fruit.
Cordially…