Grumbling from the Troops
Poorly armored vehicles are a major concern among U.S. troops getting ready to go to Iraq. Wednesday in Kuwait, during a visit with troops waiting for orders, one soldier caught Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld off-guard with a question many wanted an answer for. Specialist Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee National Guard received cheers from fellow troops when he asked pointedly, "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles, and why don't we have these resources readily available to us?"
"As you know, you go to war with the army you have," Rumsfeld responded, "not the army you want or wish to have at a later time." Later a pentagon spokesman claimed that the problem has been worked on over the months and that three out of four humvees are now armored, saying the fact that commanders did not anticipate the need for more armored vehicles in Iraq until well after the announced end of major combat operations did not reflect poor planning on the part of Pentagon leaders, as some critics have alleged. "Combat planning is not a crystal ball; it’s not predictions," the spokesman said.
A recent 60 Minutes story from Iraq explained that the major problem is that the retro armor jobs, whether junkyard or professional, do not armor the underside of the vehicle, which is the most vulnerable to roadway bombs. If Rumsfeld or the top brass are going to personally ride around Iraq, you can bet they make sure their vehicles are armored, including the underside. But I doubt they take to the Iraqi roads; it is safer for them to stay in Kuwait.
I heard the exchange on NPR this morning and was struck by the boldness of the question, but even more so by the spontaneous cheers of the other troops. Discontent with war and warmakers usually starts with draftees, but in their absence recalled reservists and national guard are the next most likely to grumble; I know, because I was one at the time of the Vietnam War. Yet another parallel to Vietnam has been observed.
"As you know, you go to war with the army you have," Rumsfeld responded, "not the army you want or wish to have at a later time." Later a pentagon spokesman claimed that the problem has been worked on over the months and that three out of four humvees are now armored, saying the fact that commanders did not anticipate the need for more armored vehicles in Iraq until well after the announced end of major combat operations did not reflect poor planning on the part of Pentagon leaders, as some critics have alleged. "Combat planning is not a crystal ball; it’s not predictions," the spokesman said.
A recent 60 Minutes story from Iraq explained that the major problem is that the retro armor jobs, whether junkyard or professional, do not armor the underside of the vehicle, which is the most vulnerable to roadway bombs. If Rumsfeld or the top brass are going to personally ride around Iraq, you can bet they make sure their vehicles are armored, including the underside. But I doubt they take to the Iraqi roads; it is safer for them to stay in Kuwait.
I heard the exchange on NPR this morning and was struck by the boldness of the question, but even more so by the spontaneous cheers of the other troops. Discontent with war and warmakers usually starts with draftees, but in their absence recalled reservists and national guard are the next most likely to grumble; I know, because I was one at the time of the Vietnam War. Yet another parallel to Vietnam has been observed.
posted by Tom Blake | 5:33 PM
4 Comments:
Am I mistaken or is all the criticism of Rumsfeld coming from Republicans? Arizona's Senators are split. McCain has been criticizing Rumsfeld since the election (before that he was strongly supporting Bush or saying nothing). Kyl wants to be Bush's best friend. Our Republican Congressmen are also split. JD Hayworth (former disk jockey and right wing talk show host with a potential big career ahead of him) gives lukewarm support to Rumsfeld but strongly supports McCain to replace Rumsfeld. A joke of course - that would open a Senate seat for Hayworth, and as if McCain would subordinate himself to Bush.
We do have a couple of Democratic Congressman from gerrymandered Hispanic and Indian districts. I think there was a couple of squeaks from them against Rumsfeld.
Once again the Democratic Party is showing its leadership abilities.
Yes, it is the Republicans now who are making the noises against Rumsfeld. The Democrats criticized him during the campaign and have not changed their tune. They just don't need to sing it now, when the Republicans are putting together such a large, new chorus. If this new chorus does not include any Democrats, then the Dems cannot be blamed if someone thinks the chorus is out of tune.
The question from the soldier about the lack of armor, the cheers he received from his comrades and the flip response from Rumsfeld was what finally turned some Republicans publicly agains Rumsfeld. Investigation is showing how shamelessly little the Pentagon actually considered the safety of our troops.
I expect Rumsfeld will be kept through the Iraq election and then maybe a month or two more to make it look good, but then will be leaving by the end of Spring. Even if McCain was willing to serve, I don't think George would put him in charge. I think they prefer to have chicken hawks for Sec of Def, not peope who actually served in the armed forces.
Just for the record, I believe McCain's criticism of Rumsfeld began shortly after the election and before that brave soldier spoke out. But either way, it's all music to my ears.
It seems to me that if Rumsfeld is removed his replacement would have to be someone who would not stand pat. Either he would begin a disengagement or iniate a buildup. McCain's criticisms cetainly support the latter possibility. Would that mean a draft would be instituted? If so, Bush's popularity would drop.
John from Phoenix
I don't see how anyone could seriously argue for disengagement at this point. Iraq is a shambles of turmoil. The January election at best can only be one more step on a long process of something new in world history - attempted unilateral, pre-emptive, invasive and prejudicial nation building. The fewer the troops the greater the turmoil. Current US forces cannot maintain adequate control. Our token allies are gradually withdrawing. Iraqi forces are not being trained to even a token extent. We wrongfully invaded Iraq, but pulling out now leaving the mess we created would also be wrong, and two wrongs still do not make a right.
Sending more troops might seem like putting more ducks in the shooting gallery, but we owe it to the Iraqi people to send more US forces to try to raise the level of security while the flawed nation building attempt continues. If a legitimate nation building attempt had been made, it should have planned on the use of the Iraqi army or the use of troops from Islamic nations.
The draft issue deserves a separate article which I intend to post shortly.
Post a Comment
<< Home