Rumsfeld hears, dismisses concerns voiced by our troops - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Seaver · 12-09-2004, 10:15 AM

Just because one group refuses to fight is not an indication of mass unrest.

Locobot · 12-09-2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Just because one group refuses to fight is not an indication of mass unrest.

And what would the cheering from thousands of soldiers in this case be indicative of?

ObieX · 12-09-2004, 10:45 AM

Also i would like to point out that when people refer to an "unarmored" humvee they don't mean that they dont have extra metal over the metal doors, or that they are even plastic. They mean the roof and doors are made of CLOTH (canvas), and in some cases not even that. That is completely unacceptable.

Lebell · 12-09-2004, 11:09 AM

Those that have made up their minds will not be swayed, nor is that my intent.

But for those to whom it matters, the Humvee was never intended to go into combat, so it is performing exactly as designed.

Soldiers cheering when someone gets to air a beef does not a mass rebellion make.

Since Humvee's are being called into such service, without knowing exactly how fast these vehicles are being armored, how many need to be armored, the logistics, etc, it is premature to make the conclusions some are making.

The snafu's of WW2 and the heroic effort of those soldiers doesn't logically lead to any conclusion that these troops are somehow 'less committed'. From all accounts I've read, the greater majority of these soldiers are as committed to this war as their forefathers were to their war and perhaps even more, considering that this is a conscript army and that one was not.

The survivability of our troops is the highest is has ever been and the speed at which this army advanced is the fastest perhaps in history. Yet some people say that this war is akin to Viet Nam.

Again, I don't expect to change any minds, but those who wish, can ponder these points.

Locobot · 12-09-2004, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Those that have made up their minds will not be swayed, nor is that my intent.

But for those to whom it matters, the Humvee was never intended to go into combat, so it is performing exactly as designed.

The only way I can see this as a true statement is with a very narrow definition of "combat." Supply trucks are not offensive weapons, but they are designed to enter a combat zone. Why don't our soldiers just use Dodge mini-vans if there is really no difference?

Quote:

Soldiers cheering when someone gets to air a beef does not a mass rebellion make.

No, not mass rebellion but it is indicative of mass unrest.

Quote:

Since Humvee's are being called into such service, without knowing exactly how fast these vehicles are being armored, how many need to be armored, the logistics, etc, it is premature to make the conclusions some are making.

Okay if it must be quantified then it's your responsibility to tell us what the guidelines are. How long does it have to take before we give creedence to the conspiracy theory? When will we be sure that our government has blown it's budgetary wad on inapplicable weapons like the V-22 Osprey at the expense of providing basic protection for the troops on the ground?

Quote:

The snafu's of WW2 and the heroic effort of those soldiers doesn't logically lead to any conclusion that these troops are somehow 'less committed'. From all accounts I've read, the greater majority of these soldiers are as committed to this war as their forefathers were to their war and perhaps even more, considering that this is a conscript army and that one was not.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was a typo. Our president had this mix up too. "We will not have an all-volunteer army in Iraq....[audience heckling] We will have an all-volunteer army!" -GWBush.

Quote:

The survivability of our troops is the highest is has ever been and the speed at which this army advanced is the fastest perhaps in history. Yet some people say that this war is akin to Viet Nam.

Is the survivability of our troops the only basis on which we can draw historical corollaries?

Quote:

Again, I don't expect to change any minds, but those who wish, can ponder these points.

Thanks for the pondering points.

Lebell · 12-09-2004, 12:01 PM

-I would think that the diffence between a Dodge mini-van and a GM Humvee is fairly obvious. The Humvee is also the replacement for the time-tested Jeep, which had even less armor.

-In your opinion, but not mine.

-Since you are the one making the charges, it seems that it would be your responsibility to make such charges stick. And this is the first mention of a conspiracy theory I've seen. Can you explain what you are talking about?

-I looked again at what I typed, and didn't see a typo.

-It seems that the survivabilty and casuality rate would be one logical metric on the technical success of the war. What basis would you use? Because it seems that at least on the surface, you want to make the corallary based solely on the (un)popularity of these wars with the left.

-If you're not careful, your face will freeze like that

Coppertop · 12-09-2004, 12:11 PM

Quote:

The snafu's of WW2 and the heroic effort of those soldiers doesn't logically lead to any conclusion that these troops are somehow 'less committed'. From all accounts I've read, the greater majority of these soldiers are as committed to this war as their forefathers were to their war and perhaps even more, considering that this is a conscript army and that one was not.

You're saying the current armed forces of the US are conscripts?

Mojo_PeiPei · 12-09-2004, 12:13 PM

Looks like Lebell got it mixed up.

Bodyhammer86 · 12-09-2004, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

The snafu's of WW2 and the heroic effort of those soldiers doesn't logically lead to any conclusion that these troops are somehow 'less committed'. From all accounts I've read, the greater majority of these soldiers are as committed to this war as their forefathers were to their war and perhaps even more, considering that was a conscript army and this one was not.

Fixed

Edited for quote brackets

Lebell · 12-09-2004, 12:29 PM

Oh, I see. Forest for the Trees.

No, I was not saying that the current crop are conscripts. I was thinking "conscripts = WW2" and put it in the wrong place.

Thanks for catching that.

guy44 · 12-09-2004, 06:06 PM

I don't think Rumsfeld really did care very much about the troops. That, or he is the worst planner in the history of humans planning things in advance. I mean, they STILL haven't ordered more armor even though they could at any moment:

http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archi...price-physics/

Quote:

Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday the Army was working as fast as it can and supply is dictated by “a matter of physics, not a matter of money.'’

Jacksonville, Florida-based Armor Holdings last month told the Army it could add armor to as many as 550 of the trucks a month, up from 450 vehicles now, Robert Mecredy, president of the company’s aerospace and defense group said in a telephone interview today.

“We’re prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month,'’ Mecredy said in the interview. “I’ve told the customer that and I stand ready to do that.'’

Insurgent attacks on the vehicles with homemade bombs and rocket-propelled grenades are accounting for as much as half of the more than 1,000 U.S. deaths and 9,000 U.S. wounded in Iraq, according to Congressional estimates.

President George W. Bush said concerns raised by soldiers in questions to Rumsfeld yesterday in Kuwait are being addressed,'’ Bush said in response to a reporter’s question. “We expect our troops to have the best possible equipment. If I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country I’d want to ask the Secretary of Defense the same question, and that is are we getting the best'’ equipment, he said. “They deserve the best.'’

stevo · 12-09-2004, 08:40 PM

So, you guys know that this question was planted by a reporter, right? He prepped the soldier with the question because the media wasn't allowed to ask any. Now, I don't doubt that soldiers are rummaging around to gather scrap metal for more armor, but I just want you guys to know that this guy probably didn't have this question on his mind the week before.

guy44 · 12-09-2004, 09:08 PM

stevo22:

1. proof?

2. got a link supporting this?

3. even if that is true, how come all the other soldiers cheered?

theusername · 12-09-2004, 09:17 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ter/index.html

Yep. Proof. Regardless my personal opinion is that it is an embarassment that our tanks are not armored properly. At the same time it was not right for this reporter to do as they did. Media reports news, doesn't create it. That's how it should be.

stevo · 12-09-2004, 09:17 PM

Quote:

RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS WITH SOLIDER
Thu Dec 09 2004 11:49:38 ET

Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter Edward Lee Pitts is embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, now in Kuwait preparing to enter Iraq, and is filing articles for his newspaper. Pitts claims in a purported email that he coached soldiers to ask Defense Secretary Rumsfeld questions!

When reached Thursday morning, various Chattanooga Times Free Press staffers offered 'no comment' on the development.

From: EDWARD LEE PITTS, MILITARY AFFAIRS
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:44 PM
To: Staffers

Subject: RE: Way to go

I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.

So during the Q&A session, one of my guys was the second person called on. When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years here soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees, the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question. Then Rumsfeld answered something about it being "not a lack of desire or money but a logistics/physics problem." He said he recently saw about 8 of the special up-armored Humvees guarding Washington, DC, and he promised that they would no longer be used for that and that he would send them over here. Then he asked a three star general standing behind him, the commander of all ground forces here, to also answer the question. The general said it was a problem he is working on.

The great part was that after the event was over the throng of national media following Rumsfeld- The New York Times, AP, all the major networks -- swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with. Out of the 1,000 or so troops at the event there were only a handful of guys from my unit b/c the rest were too busy prepping for our trip north. The national media asked if they were the guys with the armor problem and then stuck cameras in their faces. The NY Times reporter asked me to email him the stories I had already done on it, but I said he could search for them himself on the Internet and he better not steal any of my lines. I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I foud out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it. But it felt good to hand it off to the national press. I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be to late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after.

The press officer in charge of my regiment, the 278th, came up to me afterwords and asked if my story would be positive. I replied that I would write the truth. Then I pointed at the horde of national media pointing cameras and mics at the 278th guys and said he had bigger problems on his hands than the Chattanooga Times Free Press. This is what this job is all about - people need to know. The solider who asked the question said he felt good b/c he took his complaints to the top. When he got back to his unit most of the guys patted him on the back but a few of the officers were upset b/c they thought it would make them look bad. From what I understand this is all over the news back home.

Thanks,

Lee

EDWARD LEE PITTS FILED STORY ABOUT THE TROOPS BEFORE THE POW-WOW WITH RUMSFELD

Developing...

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

Quote:

Editor Backs Embed in Rumsfeld Incident, but Criticizes Aftermath

By Joe Strupp

Published: December 09, 2004 8:00 PM ET

NEW YORK The editor/publisher of the Chattanooga [Tenn.] Times Free Press offered support late Thursday for his embedded reporter who has been criticized for prompting a national guardsman to ask Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld a controversial question during a visit to Kuwait.

"I think he was doing what he felt he was embedded to do: tell the stories of the soldiers of this unit," said Tom Griscom, editor and publisher of the paper. But he criticized the embed's story about the incident, which did not mention the reporter's connection to the soldier who asked the question.

The embed, Lee Pitts, sought a response from Rumsfeld about why military units in Iraq are lacking proper armor for many vehicles. A lengthy email that he wrote to a fellow reporter ended up on several Web sites, including Romenesko, the Drudge Report and E & P Online, which Griscom lamented.

"He is there to write stories, not make news himself," Griscom said of Pitts. The editor added that the recipient of the e-mail, whom he would not identify, should not have passed it along.

Griscom was communications director in the Reagan White House in 1987-1988.

He said Pitts' story on the incident, which ran Thursday, should have included an explanation of how the embed, barred from questioning Rumsfeld himself during an appearance in Kuwait Wednesday, convinced a Tennessee national guardsman to pose the question.

"In the rush of putting the story together, it was unfortunately a stitch that got lost," said Griscom. "But tomorrow, we will pick that stitch up." He has written an editor's note for the Friday paper.

Pitts has been covering the local guard unit since last summer, Griscom said, and went to Kuwait with the unit three weeks ago as an embedded reporter. Griscom said he had not spoken with the reporter since the e-mail was discovered, during a "blackout" period, but supported his effort to get Rumsfeld to comment on the issue.

"Lee has written the story about the armor problem several times, this is not an issue out of thin air," Griscom said. "We did a front page story on it last week and have done others."

The editor pointed out that Pitts only mentioned the possible question to the national guardsman, Specialist Thomas Wilson, and could not have forced him to ask it. "It is appropriate to talk to a soldier about what he would ask," Griscom said. "Then it is up to the soldier. The soldier asked the question." The question, in any case, drew loud and sustained applause from other soldiers in the town hall meeting.

In his email, Pitts wrote, "I just had one of my best days as a journalist today," and explained how he hooked up with two national guardsmen before the event. Only soldiers were allowed to ask questions of Rumsfeld.

Lawrence Di Rita, a Pentagon spokesman, released a statement yesterday noting that "Town Hall meetings are intended for soldiers to have dialogue with the secretary of defense. It would be unfortunate to discover that anyone might have interfered with that opportunity, whatever the intention."

But Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon press officer, told The New York Times that the episode had violated no rules and that no action would be taken against either Specialist Wilson or the reporter.

Still, Griscom commented that Pitts' drawing attention to himself via the lengthy email was not wise. "We ought to know," he explained, "that anything sent electronically can be passed to someone else."

He added: "One thing that bothered me was that none of my senior editors or myself were aware of the e-mail until noon (Thursday), about 24 hours too late."

Griscom would not say if the reporter who received the e-mail from Pitts, and forwarded it on, was disciplined. "We had a discussion about what we expect in relation to e-mails and I'll leave it at that," he said.

He said he had receive many calls from media on Thursday, from as far away as San Francisco, and also heard from "Rush Limbaugh listeners" along with supportive calls from soldiers' families.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1000735190

Seaver · 12-09-2004, 10:04 PM

Quote:

I don't think Rumsfeld really did care very much about the troops. That, or he is the worst planner in the history of humans planning things in advance.

Really? wow that's one HELL of a statement.

How about Hitler's army not ordering winter clothing before invading Russia (tens of thousands dead because of cold alone... much worse than one). How about sending people to the front lines with only half to quarter the normal ammo (Battle of the Bulge relief forces). How about marching an army into the desert with no water, and with no knowledge of any oasies along the way (various crusades, napoleon's trip to tripoly). How about invading a country with only foot soldiers against an army of pure cavalry archers, leaving no way to get the other side to commit to a fight... only firing volley after volly to get torn apart (Romans invading Parthia). How about marching an army into an ambush so large it took 3 days of non-stop fighting to end the killing (Romans invading Germany). How about stopping the bombing of British airbases (on the verge of total collapse) and going after London, giving the air corps time to train new pilots (Battle of Britain).

I could go on...

Look the Hummer replaced the Jeep, it DOES have a lot more armor that the Jeep did. We planned to use it in very mobile warfare, the warfare changed, something we werent entirely sure we'd have to adapt completely to. But in no way does it come close to being as bad as you're implying.

pedro padilla · 12-09-2004, 10:22 PM

man, like lots of you folk out there, Rummy can talk and scowl and ignore all reality but hes never been anywhere close to putting his ass on the line. This guy don´t give a flying fuck about the soldiers. They´re statistics. Sorry all you right wingers out there but this guy is one of the biggest assholes walking. Lock him up next to Saddam. Throw Kissingers slimy ass in to keep em company. war criminals? the US is running a christmas special.

Bodyhammer86 · 12-09-2004, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedro padilla

man, like lots of you folk out there, Rummy can talk and scowl and ignore all reality but hes never been anywhere close to putting his ass on the line. This guy don´t give a flying fuck about the soldiers. They´re statistics. Sorry all you right wingers out there but this guy is one of the biggest assholes walking. Lock him up next to Saddam. Throw Kissingers slimy ass in to keep em company. war criminals? the US is running a christmas special.

Wow, you're begging to get flamed here....

pedro padilla · 12-09-2004, 11:15 PM

to say Rumsfield is incompetent would give him too much credit. disaster after failure after sheer stupidity. complete indifference and the refusal to accept any responsibility for same. absolutely no concern or care for the men and women on the ground. you do not go to war with the army that you got if you are invading a country in pre emptive, unjustified and completely fictitious circumstances.
so, once more, what an asshole.
Homeless Iraq vets showing up at shelters

By Mark Benjamin
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

Washington, DC, Dec. 7 (UPI) -- U.S. veterans from the war in Iraq are beginning to show up at homeless shelters around the country, and advocates fear they are the leading edge of a new generation of homeless vets not seen since the Vietnam era.
"When we already have people from Iraq on the streets, my God," said Linda Boone, executive director of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. "I have talked to enough (shelters) to know we are getting them. It is happening and this nation is not prepared for that."

"I drove off in my truck. I packed my stuff. I lived out of my truck for a while," Seabees Petty Officer Luis Arellano, 34, said in a telephone interview from a homeless shelter near March Air Force Base in California run by U.S.VETS, the largest organization in the country dedicated to helping homeless veterans.

Arellano said he lived out of his truck on and off for three months after returning from Iraq in September 2003. "One day you have a home and the next day you are on the streets," he said.

In Iraq, shrapnel nearly severed his left thumb. He still has trouble moving it and shrapnel "still comes out once in a while," Arellano said. He is left handed.

Arellano said he felt pushed out of the military too quickly after getting back from Iraq without medical attention he needed for his hand -- and as he would later learn, his mind.

"It was more of a rush. They put us in a warehouse for a while. They treated us like cattle," Arellano said about how the military treated him on his return to the United States.

"It is all about numbers. Instead of getting quality care, they were trying to get everybody demobilized during a certain time frame. If you had a problem, they said, 'Let the (Department of Veterans Affairs) take care of it.'"

The Pentagon has acknowledged some early problems and delays in treating soldiers returning from Iraq but says the situation has been fixed.

A gunner's mate for 16 years, Arellano said he adjusted after serving in the first Gulf War. But after returning from Iraq, depression drove him to leave his job at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He got divorced.

He said that after being quickly pushed out of the military, he could not get help from the VA because of long delays.

"I felt, as well as others (that the military said) 'We can't take care of you on active duty.' We had to sign an agreement that we would follow up with the VA," said Arellano.

"When we got there, the VA was totally full. They said, 'We'll call you.' But I developed depression."

He left his job and wandered for three months, sometimes living in his truck.

Nearly 300,000 veterans are homeless on any given night, and almost half served during the Vietnam era, according to the Homeless Veterans coalition, a consortium of community-based homeless-veteran service providers. While some experts have questioned the degree to which mental trauma from combat causes homelessness, a large number of veterans live with the long-term effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse, according to the coalition.

Some homeless-veteran advocates fear that similar combat experiences in Vietnam and Iraq mean that these first few homeless veterans from Iraq are the crest of a wave.

"This is what happened with the Vietnam vets. I went to Vietnam," said John Keaveney, chief operating officer of New Directions, a shelter and drug-and-alcohol treatment program for veterans in Los Angeles. That city has an estimated 27,000 homeless veterans, the largest such population in the nation. "It is like watching history being repeated," Keaveney said.

Data from the Department of Veterans Affairs shows that as of last July, nearly 28,000 veterans from Iraq sought health care from the VA. One out of every five was diagnosed with a mental disorder, according to the VA. An Army study in the New England Journal of Medicine in July showed that 17 percent of service members returning from Iraq met screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety disorder or PTSD.

Asked whether he might have PTSD, Arrellano, the Seabees petty officer who lived out of his truck, said: "I think I do, because I get nightmares. I still remember one of the guys who was killed." He said he gets $100 a month from the government for the wound to his hand.

Lance Cpl. James Claybon Brown Jr., 23, is staying at a shelter run by U.S.VETS in Los Angeles. He fought in Iraq for 6 months with Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines and later in Afghanistan with another unit. He said the fighting in Iraq was sometimes intense.

"We were pretty much all over the place," Brown said. "It was really heavy gunfire, supported by mortar and tanks, the whole nine (yards)."

Brown acknowledged the mental stress of war, particularly after Marines inadvertently killed civilians at road blocks. He thinks his belief in God helped him come home with a sound mind.

"We had a few situations where, I guess, people were trying to get out of the country. They would come right at us and they would not stop," Brown said. "We had to open fire on them. It was really tough. A lot of soldiers, like me, had trouble with that."

"That was the hardest part," Brown said. "Not only were there men, but there were women and children -- really little children. There would be babies with arms blown off. It was something hard to live with."

Brown said he got an honorable discharge with a good conduct medal from the Marines in July and went home to Dayton, Ohio. But he soon drifted west to California "pretty much to start over," he said.

Brown said his experience with the VA was positive, but he has struggled to find work and is staying with U.S.VETS to save money. He said he might go back to school.

Advocates said seeing homeless veterans from Iraq should cause alarm. Around one-fourth of all homeless Americans are veterans, and more than 75 percent of them have some sort of mental or substance abuse problem, often PTSD, according to the Homeless Veterans coalition.

More troubling, experts said, is that mental problems are emerging as a major casualty cluster, particularly from the war in Iraq where the enemy is basically everywhere and blends in with the civilian population, and death can come from any direction at any time.

Interviews and visits to homeless shelters around the Unites States show the number of homeless veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan so far is limited. Of the last 7,500 homeless veterans served by the VA, 50 had served in Iraq. Keaveney, from New Directions in West Los Angeles, said he is treating two homeless veterans from the Army's elite Ranger battalion at his location. U.S.VETS, the largest organization in the country dedicated to helping homeless veterans, found nine veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan in a quick survey of nine shelters. Others, like the Maryland Center for Veterans Education and Training in Baltimore, said they do not currently have any veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan in their 170 beds set aside for emergency or transitional housing.

Peter Dougherty, director of Homeless Veterans Programs at the VA, said services for veterans at risk of becoming homeless have improved exponentially since the Vietnam era. Over the past 30 years, the VA has expanded from 170 hospitals, adding 850 clinics and 206 veteran centers with an increasing emphasis on mental health. The VA also supports around 300 homeless veteran centers like the ones run by U.S.VETS, a partially non-profit organization.

"You probably have close to 10 times the access points for service than you did 30 years ago," Dougherty said. "We may be catching a lot of these folks who are coming back with mental illness or substance abuse" before they become homeless in the first place. Dougherty said the VA serves around 100,000 homeless veterans each year.

But Boone's group says that nearly 500,000 veterans are homeless at some point in any given year, so the VA is only serving 20 percent of them.

Roslyn Hannibal-Booker, director of development at the Maryland veterans center in Baltimore, said her organization has begun to get inquiries from veterans from Iraq and their worried families. "We are preparing for Iraq," Hannibal-Booker said.

All those slashed benefits for enlisted families help show a bit more of that compassionate humanitarian side of this brave bunch of patriots. Asshole.

guy44 · 12-10-2004, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Really? wow that's one HELL of a statement.

How about Hitler's army not ordering winter clothing before invading Russia (tens of thousands dead because of cold alone... much worse than one). How about sending people to the front lines with only half to quarter the normal ammo (Battle of the Bulge relief forces). How about marching an army into the desert with no water, and with no knowledge of any oasies along the way (various crusades, napoleon's trip to tripoly). How about invading a country with only foot soldiers against an army of pure cavalry archers, leaving no way to get the other side to commit to a fight... only firing volley after volly to get torn apart (Romans invading Parthia). How about marching an army into an ambush so large it took 3 days of non-stop fighting to end the killing (Romans invading Germany). How about stopping the bombing of British airbases (on the verge of total collapse) and going after London, giving the air corps time to train new pilots (Battle of Britain).

I could go on...

Look the Hummer replaced the Jeep, it DOES have a lot more armor that the Jeep did. We planned to use it in very mobile warfare, the warfare changed, something we werent entirely sure we'd have to adapt completely to. But in no way does it come close to being as bad as you're implying.

Apparantly, along with irony, hyperbole is dead.

It was exaggeration used for the purpose of dramatic effect. Of course I don't really believe that Rummy is the worst planner in the history of humankind. It is amazing, consistently amazing, how people online cannot figure out when someone is being sarcastic. I mean, if I read someone's post saying that in the entire history of mankind, nobody was ever worse at planning things than Donald Rumsfeld, instead of writing an itemized list of poor planning decisions in the past, I think I would have assumed that he was exaggerating for effect.

So yeah, I don't really think that. However, he is a bad planner and a disastrous SecDef.

P.S. You forgot that he at least didn't mired in a land war in Asia - oh, wait. Nevermind.

Locobot · 12-10-2004, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo22

So, you guys know that this question was planted by a reporter, right? He prepped the soldier with the question because the media wasn't allowed to ask any. Now, I don't doubt that soldiers are rummaging around to gather scrap metal for more armor, but I just want you guys to know that this guy probably didn't have this question on his mind the week before.

Damn liberal media and their Jedi mindtricks!

The same questions have been asked multiple times by the press over the past year and they received essentially the same answers from Rumsfeld. The difference here is that the question is being asked by a soldier on active duty of his own free will. Soldiers have had these complaints for months.

And it turns out that Rumsfeld is lying through his teeth too, we are not producing armored humvees as fast as possible according to the people who actually make them. According to defense contractors we could produce another 50-100 armored humvees per month, but the U.S. government has not ordered them.

Coppertop · 12-10-2004, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theusername

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ter/index.htmlMedia reports news, doesn't create it. That's how it should be.

How DARE those reporters question what our government says and does! They should simply tell the public what the government says!

Yeah, that's what I want to see: government approved news, 24/7.

bingle · 12-10-2004, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theusername

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ter/index.html

Yep. Proof. Regardless my personal opinion is that it is an embarassment that our tanks are not armored properly. At the same time it was not right for this reporter to do as they did. Media reports news, doesn't create it. That's how it should be.

However, in a press-conference situation, the question would not have been reported on, if the reporter was even allowed to ask it. These days, reporters have to submit lists of questions to be pre-approved by the government, and only the approved questioners get called on. With that system in place, is it any wonder that the reporter actually did some legwork and got the question asked and into the public sphere of debate?

Also, note that even if the question was "planted" by the reporter, the troops obviously feel strongly about this issue - unless you feel that the 3000 cheering people were also planted.

Bingle

trickyy · 12-10-2004, 10:00 PM

yeah, i don't think it was "planted" per se. the reporter discussed the question with the soldier but didn't force him to ask anything. even though rumsfeld's response wasn't 100% correct, the pentagon will undoubtedly increase the production of armor soon.

bush seemed to think it was a good question anyway (from link above).

Quote:

"If I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country, I would want to ask the secretary of defense the same question. And that is, 'Are we getting the best we can get us?' And they deserve the best," Bush said.

sounds pretty reasonable, really.

Lebell · 12-10-2004, 11:10 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rmored_humvees
------------------------------------------------------
Army Moving to Speed Up Armor Production

34 minutes ago White House - AP Cabinet & State

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Army entered negotiations with an armor manufacturer Friday in an effort to accelerate production of armored versions of the Humvee to get them to the troops more quickly, Army and company officials said.

Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey spoke with officials at Armor Holdings, Inc., based in Jacksonville, Fla., who told him Friday they could increase production by up to 100 vehicles a month.

Army officials had previously believed the factory was working at capacity until the company told the news media Thursday that it could make more. Democrats immediately criticized the Bush administration for not boosting production sooner.

Still, company officials said the Armor Holdings plant was not immediately capable of boosting output. Armor Holdings said in a statement issued Friday that it could increase its rate of production by February or March.

"During the interim period, we will continue to build as many vehicles as possible, as we have done to date. In fact, we are currently ahead of the Army's production schedule by more than 330 total vehicles," the statement said.

In addition, the Army would also have to go to Congress for additional funding if Armor Holdings sought more money, officials said.

The Army has ordered 8,105 of the armored Humvees, and 5,910 are in Iraq (news - web sites), Afghanistan (news - web sites) and nearby countries. Armor Holdings is already producing 450 a month, meaning they would be finished sometime in the early spring. Any increased production by the company before then would accelerate the completion of the order.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfield, responding to a soldier's complaint about not enough armored vehicles for the troops, said Wednesday the Army was working to produce more armored vehicles, but it was "a matter of physics, not a matter of money," suggesting that production lines at operating at capacity.

But Armor Holdings spokesman Michael Fox said Thursday that the company recently completed an analysis after the Marines inquired about buying 50 to 100 armored vehicles each month.

"We determined it was doable," Fox said.

Armor Holdings said it expected to produce about 4,000 armored vehicles this year, compared to 500 in 2001, 600 in 2002, and 850 in 2003.

Cost of the armored Humvees is about $150,000 each.

Production has to be coordinated with AMC General LLC of South Bend, Ind., which produces the trucks used to make the Armored Humvees.

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record), who continually decried the lack of equipment during his unsuccessful presidential campaign, on Friday called on Rumsfeld to investigate.

Several companies that manufacture protective equipment have indicated they can significantly boost production, Kerry said in a letter to Rumsfeld.

There are thousands more Humvees in Iraq that were built without the extra armor. The military has purchased thousands of kits with bolt-on armor, but several thousand Humvees, and thousands more heavy trucks, remain without armor for use against insurgent bombs, guns and rockets.

The soldier's question to Rumsfeld, at a town-hall meeting in Kuwait this week, has led critics to ask why the Pentagon (news - web sites) has been unable to send enough armored equipment 21 months into the war. They said war planners had too rosy a picture of how the campaign would last and didn't think so many troops and so much armor would be needed for so long.

"This is about faulty analysis and a failed strategy," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat who sits on the House Armed Services Committee. "We've never had enough troops on the ground since the fall of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government to deal with the insurgency because we didn't expect one."

Loren Thompson, a defense industry analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank, agreed.

"We have pretty much miscalculated every step along the way — why we went, how we should do it, what we needed, what support we would have, how long it would last — we pretty much got it all wrong," he said.

There was far too little advanced body armor and there were too few armored vehicles to deal with what the Pentagon has since acknowledged is a far stronger and longer insurgency than expected. Officials say more is being manufactured as fast as possible.

host · 12-11-2004, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Easy company in the 101st fought the battle of the bulge with NO heavy winter clothing and short on ammo. They complained twice and then went forward and defended the line without it.

I doubt that anyone who reads this will disagree that Easy Company of the
101st Airborne Division was fighting an enemy that was a credible threat to
the U.S. and to much of the world. I'm posting the following because I agree
with enough of it's points to let it speak for me. I believe that at least half of the people who post on this forum will also agree with much of it.

Quote:

<h3>No Apologies For Dissent: Truth And Cowardice</h3>

by Paul Street
December 07, 2004

My November 23rd article "Loves, Hates, Kills, Dies," about an episode of fawning imperial war journalism at Time Magazine (see <a href="http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/loves_hates_kills_dies/">blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/loves _hates_kills_dies</a>, continues to evoke angry response from militarist quarters. In the essay, I provided extensive quotes from a Time article that spoke in glowing terms about the military heroics of Army Staff Seargent David Bellavia (DB). The chilling Time piece showed Bellavia in the glorious act of killing a handful of Iraqi "insurgents," portraying Bellavia in practically hero-worshipping terms as a warrior prince who is ready to discuss the Renaissance during breaks in imperial violence. "You're a better man than me," one of Bellavia's comrades tells him after DB dispatches numerous insurgents to an early grave. The US troops in Fallujah, Time relates, refer to themselves as "Terminators." My article also noticed the curious, somewhat surreal and interesting juxtaposition between this rugged hyper-masculinist war coverage and the softer, more officially feminine consumerism and bourgeois wealth-worship on the advertising pages of the same Time issue. I also mentioned the curious combination in the same issue of an urgent story about the melting Arctic with a large number of advertisements for SUVs and min-vans, two large contributors to the alarming, "man-made" petro-capitalist global warming that is causing the dangerous rollback of polar ice and permafrost. Since this article was published, US military supporters and empire defenders have written to tell me that: * I have no right to criticize a man (DB) who is fighting to save his own life and my life too... * Bellavia did not declare war; he is just following orders, doing his job and trying to save himself and his men. * I am "a coward who hides behind a keyboard" because I am not fighting in Iraq. * I am "a traitor." * I should be "ashamed" of myself because I criticize the war in Iraq. * I am "free because SSG Bellavia is doing what he's doing. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is protecting me, making me "free." I owe my freedom to the war in Iraq. * It's those "terrorists" who are hurting the Iraq people. They are terrible people who be-head other human beings. * "We" (America that is) are there to "free" Iraq and to help the the Iraqi people. * I should get on a plane to Iraq and "see what kind of mercy" those Iraqi terrorists would show me. "You won't be singing their praises when they be-head you and show the film of your be-heading on CNN," notes one writer, "between advertisements for cars and diapers." Many of the letters I received come from people with friends and/or relatives in the military. I am going to refer people who write these notes to the following response letter, posted here for whatever literary and anti-war merit it may possess and to save me from having to cut and paste this letter again and again. I could say a lot more than what's here but this will have to do for now.... DEAR MILITARISTS AND EMPIRE SUPPORTERS WHO ARE ANGERED BY MY ARTICLE "LOVES, HATES, KILLS, DIES": I offer my sincere apology for any and all mis-representation of SSG Bellavia and his comrades. Of course he and they are fighting for their lives. I hardly blame them for that. Of course they did not declare the war. I blame Bush and his cabal and his many elite enablers, including John Kerry, for that. The article was not mainly about SSG Bellavia. It was mostly about the practically fascist way Time Magazine was presenting the bloody and illegal US attack on Fallujah. And it was about the surreal juxtaposition within "mainstream" media between terrible hyper-masculinized violence and officially feminized consumerism. The embedded Time journalist made DB the lead protagonist in his write-up and that's why DB is so prominent in mine. Have you written to Time to complain about their provocative portrayal of SSG Bellavia, deleting any context on who makes the big and murderous decisions on what happens and who kills and dies on the great chess-boards of empire? You have no legitimate basis for calling me a coward simply because I dare to oppose a specific imperial "war" (invasion and occupation that is) and the way it is being sold and because I oppose the murder and mayhem that is being carried out in the name of my country. My favorite peace button says "Not in My Name." "My country right or wrong" is Nazism. Uncle Sam is wrong right now in Iraq; dead wrong. This is my opinion and it's the opinion of the very preponderant share of the human race. I think US actions in Iraq are quite literally criminal but for what its worth I do not locate the core criminality in the activity of the front-line troops. I see the real criminality ----and the real cowardice, by the way --- in the White House and the Pentagon. I am sorry if my article seems to primarily blame Bellavia and his embattled comrades in Fallujah. That's not my position at all. I suspect that I was raised and socialized differently, with different loyalties and commitments, than you and (perhaps) your friends or relatives who are in the military. I am sure you are a good person but it seems that my values, for whatever accidental reasons, are much less nationalistic and much less trusting of what I see as illegitimate national authority, ie, Bush and Rumsfeld and the other chickenhawks who have put DB and many others in grave and unnecessary, illegitimate danger. My primary reference group is the human race, and yours seems to be the nation state --- "your" (you think) nation state, that is. I will never support or acquiesce to the prosecution of a war that I see as illegitimate, like this one or like Vietnam. This war is, in my opinion, transparently imperial and unjust, something that is well understood in every corner of the planet except the American "homeland." I think parents should make sure that the White House is not allowed to use their children as fodder in its widely documented plan to rule the world by force....a plan that has used 9/11 as its Reichstag fire: justification for increasing empire abroad and inequality and repression at home. I think your son/husband/father/mother/daughter in Iraq is being terribly exploited and needlessly endangered by US policymakers. I think children should be raised and educated to make the distinction between legitimate patriotism and racist imperialism. "Never," we should tell them, "let someone call you a coward because you refuse to join a fight that you know to be wrong." There's an interesting group of people who think that the US invasion is not about Iraq's liberation at all but is instead about imperial control over strategic oil reserves: the Iraqi people, about 1 percent of whom think this invasion is about spreading democracy. Yes, one percent. The entire world agrees by a huge margin. And the rest of the planet is much closer to the truth than you, I'm afraid. Somehow we Americans seem to think that God and/or History has granted "us" (well, our rulers) some exceptional right to shred basic international laws and norms with murderous impunity. This dangerous and toxic belief will come back and hurt us, at home and abroad again and again. Many millions will suffer, at home and abroad, as the world descends ever further into barbarism with Uncle Sam all too often leading the charge and setting the tone and pace. Most of the US populace now says that the invasion of Iraq --- which is being implemented about as poorly as any imperial occupation in history, by the way --- was "a mistake." And the great majority of the American people polled in a recent social science opinion survey told the conservative Chicago Council on Foreign Relations that we should simply leave Iraq and indeed the Middle East if most of the people in that country and in that region want us to leave. Well, Iraqis and Arabs want us out. The decent and noble thing is to leave....militarily that is. In terms of medical and social services and re-building, we owe the country and the region many billions worth of dollars of assistance and reparations to compensate not just for this latest war but also for the first war on Iraq and for the devastating consequences of more than a decade of murderous economic sanctions and bombings. I am also concerned with how empire deepens American inequality at home and about how the rich alone will benefit from this latest imperial campaign. And, speaking of cowardice, how many really affluent, wealthy people --- including folks from, at the highest level, the top 1 percent that owns 40 percent of American wealth --- have fought and directly killed in this noble Iraq campaign, which happens to be thoroughly illegal under Nuremberg law? If not zero, the answer is close to zero. That's interesting since rich people tended to vote strongly for the Messianic Militarist Iraq Warrior George W. Bush and to provide ample financial support to his campaign. The great majority of people in combat roles are of lower or working-class background. Cowardice? That's a standard, practically automatic, Pavlovian accusation that is typically made against those who oppose wars. But I'm not sure it applies. Put me in the US in 1942 and I'm signing up to fight the Nazis. Put me in Illinois in 1863 and I'm ready to join the Union Army to fight the slave power in the South. Personally, I'm not a pure pacifist. But this "war?" The Vietnam War? Never, not on my life. This is not cowardice; it is moral discernment. We all make our own choices, in accordance with our own values and how we were raised and socialized. Is, say, the CEO of the Boeing Corporation (maker of the Blackhawk Helicopter and the B-2 bomber, among other hugely expensive taxpayer-financed war tools) a "coward" "hiding behind a keyboard" as he types a note say, to order up a fresh new batch of cruise missiles to pulverize Iraqi "insurgents" and families, even while he is not fighting in Iraq? How about military planners and other officers in Pentagon rooms hitting keys that cause death, bitterness, and more terror recruits in Iraq even while these "defense" personnel sit safely in warm offices removed from the glorious Fallujah action recounted by Time and from the havoc their keystrokes cause across the world? If you are going to start calling people "cowards" for not fighting in the war and using keyboards (does this include piano players?), then you are going to have to include a few million Americans in your charge. But, of course, you are calling me a "coward" because (ironically enough) I dared to speak against this war and the way it's being conducted and covered. I guess that's the first thing that came to your mind --- so Pavlovian at this point. Personally, I think it's cowardly to oppose an unjust war and not to voice that opposition. I need you and/or your friends and/or relatives in the military to protect me? Sorry, but I am capable of defending myself and I do not need your friend or relative to defend me. As I said above, moreover, I think this latest war heightens the American peoples' vulnerability. It endangers us and does not protect us. Why would I fly to Iraq? Why would I need to worry about whether or not they would "show me mercy" if I wasn't over there occupying their country in the first place? Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. If Iraqis don't want me there than I have no business going it seems to me. Of course some of the "insurgents" are resisting in the most chilling and vicious ways they can. Who has all the military hardware....the Bradleys, the Blackhawks, the cluster bombs, the Stealth bombers, the Daisy Cutters...(the list of "our" awesome slaughter tools goes on and on)? "We" do. Of course some of the "insurgents" are monsters. Certainly the be-heading of hostages is unimaginably horrible. So is using bombs and missiles and artillery shells to cut Iraqi children and other noncombatants in half. The civilian casualty stories and numbers are simply horrendous in Iraq. The number of Iraqis, including large numbers of civilian so-called "collateral damage," that "we"" have killed through war and sanctions is also truly monstrous. Who said we had the right to patrol the Mekong Delta in the 1960s or the Sunni Triangle or the Tigris and Euphrates in the 21st century? The world is not our oyster. We do not own other nations. Americans were considered to be terrorists, for daring to resist imperial occupation, during the late 1770s and early 1780s. Bush and Rumsfeld are liars: Iraq was no threat to you or I. No threat. Zero. Iraqis, including Saddam, had nothing to do with 9/11, contrary to what they've been telling your son/father/friend/daughter/husband in boot camp and in the field. DB sounds like a tough and smart man who stands up for himself and his comrades. Good. We need his sort of energy and skills to be directed against the privileged few, the "Masters of War" that Bob Dylan wrote about in 1962...the 'elite' chiefs who "hide in their mansions while young people's blood flows out of their bodies and gets buried in the mud. They fasten the triggers for the others to fire and sit back and watch while the death count gets higher." They are the cowards we need to focus on a bit more, I think. "They" are the rulers of the military industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower left the White House rightly warning us about in 1960. WHEN are you all going to learn to direct your anger away from the officially designated overseas Evil Others (generally non-white people you refuse to seriously understand) you are told to hate and away from people at home who are trying to stop the madness and make a more peaceful and just world --- fellow Americans you smear as "cowards" and "traitors" ---- and start to deal with the real masters, the real rulers, the real cowards, the "elite" possessors of concentrated wealth and power, who hire their violence for a pittance and enjoy the comfort of their safe and luxurious estates while bitter and damaged young men return from distant, unjust battlefields with missing limbs and shattered souls? All of our troops who come back and who have killed --- and it's a very one sided war, with more than 100,000 Iraqi deaths to date ---- will suffer enormous negative consequences from the violence they were ordered to inflict. If you are currently attached in way to a US soldier in Iraq, I wish you strength and support as your friend/loved one/relative struggles with recovery and return. Meanwhile, I'm afraid that George "Fortunate Son" Bush will be out on the golf course ("now watch me hit this drive") and Rumsfeld is preparing his criminal war memoirs in the quiet seclusion of a comfortable den. Interesting. As a young man, George "Bring 'Em On" (remember that comment?) Bush was content to let other poorer and browner men than him fight a war that he supported. Fifty-eight thousand Americans died in Vietnam. Countless others were crippled and maimed. Many never really made the transition back; many Vietnam War veterans have killed themselves, haunted by the memories of what they saw, felt, and did in another imperial war ordered by Uncle Sam. Meanwhile, George "Mission Accomplished" (that was another good Dubya slogan, wasn't it) Bush has played a lot of golf, taken a lot of vacations, and generally enjoyed the unjust privilege of birth into super-concentrated wealth and special family name. But he's not a "coward" in your mind, I strongly suspect. That's curious. The current 'war' is actually endangering Americans and threatening what's left of world stability so that American big shot policy makers can secure more control of strategic oil resources and thereby more effectively (they hope) rule the world. It's all, well largely, about tightening the imperial stranglehold on that pivotal Persian Gulf petro-spigot. Many troops know this very well. I hope more and more of them will rebel and refuse to engage in the current unjust and immoral occupation of Iraq. So, no, sorry I am not ashamed of myself or of the many other Americans who think like I do about all of this. I am an American who takes seriously the eloquent words of James Madison: "THE FETTERS IMPOSED ON LIBERTY AT HOME HAVE EVER BEEN FORGED OUT OF THE WEAPONS PROVIDED FOR THE DEFENSE AGAINST REAL, PRETENDED, OR IMAGINARY DANGERS ABROAD" (1799). Empire does not protect us; it oppresses and divides us. Your letter to me is symptomatic of this, I think. Here's another quotation, sent to me by a reader in Spain: "Naturally the common people don't want war. But after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." That's from Hermann Goering, Adolf Hitler's Reich Marshall, reflecting on how imperialists can use fear and the charge of cowardice and treason to whip the people into support of wars of conquest. It happens to be a good description of Bush administration rhetoric and propaganda strategy during the last three plus years. As is generally known across the policy-making elite, the Iraqi danger was thoroughly imaginary --- something Madison and other Founders would immediately grasp. If anything, moreover, Iraq has been turned into a dangerous state, a hotbed of terrorism, precisely by this illegal and immoral and murderous US invasion. We are breeding untold millions of new terrorists, something that was predicted in key establishment circles and pointed out by the conservative Catholic CIA Middle Eastern area expert "Anonymous" in his 2004 book Imperial Hubris: Why The West is Losing the War on Terror. "Anonymous" has recently been purged by the Bush administration, along with others who made the mistake of retaining some minimal commitment to non-partisan truth-telling in government. Truth-telling is not cowardice. Support the troops: bring them home. American troops: resist this unjust war. Sincerely, Paul Street P.S. You didn't say anything about the global warming issue. Paul Street is an urban social policy researcher in Chicago, IL. He is the author of Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, November 2004).

guy44 · 12-11-2004, 12:32 AM

Quote:

On Thursday, Rumsfeld softened his tone. "It doesn't happen instantaneously, but it has been happening pretty rapidly," he said.

A day earlier, he had called it "a matter of physics, not a matter of money ... It's a matter of production and the capability of doing it." But spokesmen for two companies making armor for vehicles said Thursday they had offered to step up the pace of production:

• Former Republican congressman Matt Salmon of Arizona, a spokesman for ArmorWorks in Tempe, Ariz., said his company will finish a $30 million contract with the Pentagon this month to make 1,500 armor kits for Humvees. "We are at 50% capacity, and we could do a lot more," he said. "They are aware of it."

• Armor Holdings of Jacksonville told the Army last month it could add armor to as many as 550 trucks a month, up from 450, said Robert Mecredy of its aerospace and defense group. "We're prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month," he said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...resbackonarmor

So, Rummy, is it money (we've spent billions so far, how much to Halliburton's corrupt pockets alone?) or physics that is responsible for this?

host · 12-11-2004, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_wall

Obviously the poeple who support Rumsfeld don't support our troops. Let me ask you republicans, why do you hate america?

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

This has to be one of the worst comments I have ever seen here, even if it is an attempt at irony.
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1571747&postcount=24">http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1571747&postcount=24</a>

I "second" the first part of the The_wall's question, quoted above, and I think
that it should be changed to read "Obviously the people who support Bush and Rumsfeld's instigation of and prosecution of military operations in Iraq, cannot
simultaneously "support" the U.S. troops who are ordered to serve in Iraq,
because they are being killed and horribly wounded when they get there,
in continually rising numbers for no honest or just reason yet articulated
publically by Bush."

I am still making my mind up as to whether Rumsfeld and Bush supporters
"hate America".

Unless Bush, at long last, speaks to us honestly as to why he ordered our
troops to invade Iraq and why he continues to order 150,000 of our troops
to maintain an occupation of Iraq that is violently resisted by ever increasing
numbers of ordinary Iraqi citizens, I can only conclude that he is a liar and
a war criminal, that Rumsfeld is a principle accomplice, and that the lives
and limbs of our troops are sacraficed for no justifiable reason.
<h3>It is sad but predictable that strong objection is voiced here against
The_wall, because of his choice of words, and not at Bush and Rumsfeld for
the death and destruction that they mete out in Iraq, with no credible justification.</h3>

This thread subject is not new. It is widely known, and there is still no
armour solution beign addressed for a major vunerability,,,,,vehicle floors:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/31/60minutes/main652491.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/31/60minutes/main652491.shtml</a>
GIs Lack Armor, Radios, Bullets

Oct. 31, 2004

Oregon Army National Guard Spc. Eric S. McKinley, 24, of Corvallis, Ore., was killed north of Baghdad when his unarmed Humvee hit a roadside bomb on June 13, 2004. (Photo: AP Photo/Statesman Journal)

(CBS) Two weeks ago, a group of Army reservists in Iraq refused a direct order to go on a dangerous operation to re-supply another unit with jet fuel.

Without helicopter gunships to escort them over a treacherous stretch of highway, and lacking armored vehicles, soldiers from the 343rd Quartermaster Company called it a suicide mission.

The Army called it an isolated incident, a temporary breakdown in discipline, and an investigation is underway.

But the 343rd isn't the first outfit to be put in harm's way without proper equipment, and commanders in Iraq acknowledged that the unit's concerns were legitimate, even if their mutiny was not.

With a $400 billion defense budget you might think U.S. troops have everything they need to fight the war, but that's not always the case.

Correspondent Steve Kroft talks to a general, soldiers in Iraq, and their families at home about a lack of armored vehicles, field radios, night vision goggles, and even ammunition - especially for the National Guard and reserve units that now make up more than 40 percent of U.S. troops.

In this report, Kroft also talks to Sen. John McCain about how pork-barrel politics have shortchanged troops on the ground.Every couple of weeks Karen Preston gets a telephone call from her son Ryan who is serving in Iraq with the Oregon National Guard.

But Karen Preston has been worrying a lot ever since last summer when Ryan returned home on leave and showed her these photos of the unarmored vehicles his unit was using for convoy duty in Iraq.

Lacking the proper steel plating to protect soldiers from enemy mines and rocket propelled grenades, they had been jerry-rigged with plywood and sandbags.

"They were called cardboard coffins," Preston says.

There have been more than 9,000 U.S. casualties in Iraq so far – more than 8,100 wounded and 1,100 killed. Nearly half of those casualties are the result of roadside bombs, known as improvised explosive devices or IEDs in military jargon. Yet the U.S. military still lacks thousands of fully armored vehicles that could save American lives.

Specialist Ronald Pepin, who serves in Baghdad with the New York National Guard, says, "They have no ground plating. So if you hit something underneath you, then it's going to kill the whole crew, you know? And that's just something you have to live with."

Staff Sgt. Sean Davis from the Oregon National Guard was critically wounded last June when his unarmored Humvee hit an IED outside of Baghdad. He suffered shrapnel wounds, burns, and was unable to walk for six weeks.

Davis said his Humvee was armored with plywood, sandbags, and armor salvaged from old Iraqi tanks.

He considers himself lucky that he wasn't killed in the blast. His friend and fellow guardsman Eric McKinley, who was riding in the same vehicle, wasn't so fortunate. The 24-year-old Army specialist died of his wounds. His father Tom said his son was supposed to have been discharged from the Oregon National Guard a few months before his death, but was held over because of the war.

McKinley says his son would have stood a lot better chance of surviving had his vehicle been fully armored.

"Our troops need to be protected over there to the best ability that we can protect them and it's not being done," he says.

The Department of Defense denied a 60 Minutes request for an on-camera interview to explain the situation. But responding to a written question about vehicles traveling dangerous routes in Iraq being armored with plywood and sandbags, the Army told us, "As long as the Army has a single vehicle without armor, we expect that our soldiers will continue to find ways to increase their level of protection."

60 Minutes went to a man more familiar with the problems facing the Oregon National Guard than anyone else – its commanding general, Ray Byrne. General Byrne was somewhat reluctant to talk when 60 Minutes showed him pictures of his men's Humvees and trucks, armored with plywood and sandbags.

"If you have nothing then that's better than nothing. The question becomes then again when – when are they going to receive the full up armored Humvees? And I don't have that answer," says Gen. Byrne.

"It distresses me greatly that they do not have the equipment. I don't have control over it. The soldiers don't have control over it. The question becomes, 'When is it going to be available? When is it going to be available? When will they have it?'"

There are still no good answers to those questions. Most of the vehicles in Iraq arrived there without armor plating, because the Pentagon war planners didn't anticipate a long, bloody insurgency.

But 18 months after President Bush declared an end of major combat, the Pentagon is still struggling to provide the equipment needed to fight the war.

Oregon Congresswoman Darlene Hooley, a Democrat whose district includes Gen. Byrne's National Guard, complained to the secretary of defense. She says she thinks the vehicles are not fully armored yet because military planners didn't anticipate an insurgency.

"We didn't have enough armored vehicles," she says. "They weren't manufactured."

Congress has appropriated additional money for armored trucks and Humvees, over $800 million in the current defense bill.

The Army told 60 Minutes they will have produced 8,100 fully-armored Humvees by March.

However, production is lagging behind the urgent need, and the Pentagon's interim solution is shipping so-called "add-on armor" kits to Iraq, where they are being bolted on to thousands of vehicles.
<h3>
But most of those add-ons don't protect the bottom of the vehicle, leaving them vulnerable to an explosive device.</h3>

And it isn't the only equipment problem facing soldiers in Iraq.

Oregon guardsman Sean Davis told us that his unit was short ammunition and night vision goggles, and lacked radios to communicate with each other.

He says guardsman were using walkie-talkies that they or their families purchased from a sporting goods or similar store. "And anybody can pick up those signals, you know," he says. "And we don't have the radios that we need."

Gen. Byrne says stories about families in Oregon having to go out and buy for their sons and daughters radio equipment, body armor, GPS gear, computers and night vision goggles because they weren't being issued are true.

He said some Guard units are also using Vietnam era M-16 assault rifles, which he calls adequate for state duty but not acceptable for duty in Iraq. There is also a bullet shortage for training, he says.

It bothers him, but "there's nothing I can do about it," he says.

"If I was making the decisions, I would readjust," he says. "The soldier on the ground should be a focus. When that's taken care of you can take care of other stuff."

The Army acknowledged to 60 Minutes that there is a shortage of radios in Iraq and a shortage of bullets for training, and says both are in the process of being remedied. There have also been problems with maintenance and replacement parts for critical equipment like Abrams tanks, Bradley personnel carriers and Black Hawk helicopters.

Winslow Wheeler, a long time Capitol Hill staffer who spent years writing and reviewing defense appropriations bills, thinks he knows one reason why those shortages exist, after looking at the current Defense budget. Army accounts that pay for training, maintenance and repairs are being raided by Congress to pay for pork-barrel spending.

Wheeler says $2.8 billion that was earmarked for operations and maintenance to support U.S. troops has been used to "pay the pork bill."

Wheeler, who has written a book called "The Wastrels of Defense," says congressmen routinely hide billions of dollars in pet projects in the defense bill.

And buried in the back of this one, Wheeler found a biathlon jogging track in Alaska, a brown tree snake eradication program in Hawaii, a parade ground maintenance contract for a military base that closed years ago, and money for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration.

By law, these projects can't be cut, so Pentagon bookkeepers will have to dip into operations and maintenance accounts to pay for them.

"They do all kinds of things that adds up to: 'We're basically eating our own young to support the war,'" he says.

According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a member of the Armed Services Committee who speaks out against pork-barrel spending, there is a total of $8.9 billion of pork in this year's defense bill, which would go a long way toward upgrading all the equipment used by the National Guard.

"I don't think that this war has truly come home to the Congress of the United States," McCain says. "This is the first time in history that we've cut taxes during a war. So I think that a lot of members of Congress feel that this is just sort of a business-as-usual situation."

"The least sexy items are the mundane - food, repair items, maintenance – there's no big contract there," says McCain. "And so there's a tendency that those mundane but vital aspects of war fighting are cut and routinely underfunded."

It is not a comforting thought for families with loved ones in Iraq, who lack armored vehicles, radios or things they need to stay alive. It's on Karen Preston's mind every time she talks to her son.

"He's very pro-military, as am I," she says. "I just want them to have the best equipment."

Some armored vehicles have now been shipped to her son's unit, but without protection on the bottom of the vehicle, an insurgent's explosive is just as deadly.

Specialist Pepin on the New York Guard says, "It's kind of like an act of faith. When you get in your vehicle, you just hope, you know. Say a little prayer before you go out."

This weekend, Acting Secretary of the Army Les Brownlee wrote to 60 Minutes saying, "The Army has made great strides in improving the capabilities of all units deploying to Iraq as the nature of the conflict has changed." He noted the president approved spending $840 million to improve the armor on Humvees in Iraq.

sob · 12-18-2004, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

-I would think that the diffence between a Dodge mini-van and a GM Humvee is fairly obvious. The Humvee is also the replacement for the time-tested Jeep, which had even less armor.

-In your opinion, but not mine.

-Since you are the one making the charges, it seems that it would be your responsibility to make such charges stick. And this is the first mention of a conspiracy theory I've seen. Can you explain what you are talking about?

-I looked again at what I typed, and didn't see a typo.

-It seems that the survivabilty and casuality rate would be one logical metric on the technical success of the war. What basis would you use? Because it seems that at least on the surface, you want to make the corallary based solely on the (un)popularity of these wars with the left.

-If you're not careful, your face will freeze like that

What I have yet to see in this thread is the statement, repeated many times by Sean Hannity, that the only sin committed by Rumsfeld is not having the proper figures at his fingertips.

At the beginning of the conflict, we supposedly had 200-odd armored vehicles in Iraq. Now, 18 months later, due to increased production and relocation of available assets, we have 15 THOUSAND armored vehicles there.

Can anyone disprove Hannity's statement?

I also wonder how the military got into such a predicament in terms of equipment shortages. Seems like it would have taken six or 8 years of underfunding to reach such a state.

sob · 12-18-2004, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedro padilla

man, like lots of you folk out there, Rummy can talk and scowl and ignore all reality but hes never been anywhere close to putting his ass on the line. This guy don´t give a flying fuck about the soldiers. They´re statistics. Sorry all you right wingers out there but this guy is one of the biggest assholes walking. Lock him up next to Saddam. Throw Kissingers slimy ass in to keep em company. war criminals? the US is running a christmas special.

I realize that this post is a few days old, but a brief search indicates that Rumsfeld served in the Navy from 1954-1957.

When did YOU serve?

12-09-2004, 10:45 AM	#43 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Also i would like to point out that when people refer to an "unarmored" humvee they don't mean that they dont have extra metal over the metal doors, or that they are even plastic. They mean the roof and doors are made of CLOTH (canvas), and in some cases not even that. That is completely unacceptable. __________________ We Must Dissent.

12-09-2004, 11:09 AM	#44 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Those that have made up their minds will not be swayed, nor is that my intent. But for those to whom it matters, the Humvee was never intended to go into combat, so it is performing exactly as designed. Soldiers cheering when someone gets to air a beef does not a mass rebellion make. Since Humvee's are being called into such service, without knowing exactly how fast these vehicles are being armored, how many need to be armored, the logistics, etc, it is premature to make the conclusions some are making. The snafu's of WW2 and the heroic effort of those soldiers doesn't logically lead to any conclusion that these troops are somehow 'less committed'. From all accounts I've read, the greater majority of these soldiers are as committed to this war as their forefathers were to their war and perhaps even more, considering that this is a conscript army and that one was not. The survivability of our troops is the highest is has ever been and the speed at which this army advanced is the fastest perhaps in history. Yet some people say that this war is akin to Viet Nam. Again, I don't expect to change any minds, but those who wish, can ponder these points. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-09-2004, 12:01 PM	#46 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	-I would think that the diffence between a Dodge mini-van and a GM Humvee is fairly obvious. The Humvee is also the replacement for the time-tested Jeep, which had even less armor. -In your opinion, but not mine. -Since you are the one making the charges, it seems that it would be your responsibility to make such charges stick. And this is the first mention of a conspiracy theory I've seen. Can you explain what you are talking about? -I looked again at what I typed, and didn't see a typo. -It seems that the survivabilty and casuality rate would be one logical metric on the technical success of the war. What basis would you use? Because it seems that at least on the surface, you want to make the corallary based solely on the (un)popularity of these wars with the left. -If you're not careful, your face will freeze like that __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-09-2004, 12:13 PM	#48 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Looks like Lebell got it mixed up. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

12-09-2004, 12:29 PM	#50 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Oh, I see. Forest for the Trees. No, I was not saying that the current crop are conscripts. I was thinking "conscripts = WW2" and put it in the wrong place. Thanks for catching that. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

12-09-2004, 10:15 AM	#41 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Just because one group refuses to fight is not an indication of mass unrest.

12-09-2004, 08:40 PM	#52 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	So, you guys know that this question was planted by a reporter, right? He prepped the soldier with the question because the media wasn't allowed to ask any. Now, I don't doubt that soldiers are rummaging around to gather scrap metal for more armor, but I just want you guys to know that this guy probably didn't have this question on his mind the week before.

12-09-2004, 09:08 PM	#53 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	stevo22: 1. proof? 2. got a link supporting this? 3. even if that is true, how come all the other soldiers cheered? __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

12-09-2004, 09:17 PM	#54 (permalink)
theusername Insane	http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ter/index.html Yep. Proof. Regardless my personal opinion is that it is an embarassment that our tanks are not armored properly. At the same time it was not right for this reporter to do as they did. Media reports news, doesn't create it. That's how it should be. __________________ ?

12-09-2004, 10:22 PM	#57 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	man, like lots of you folk out there, Rummy can talk and scowl and ignore all reality but hes never been anywhere close to putting his ass on the line. This guy don´t give a flying fuck about the soldiers. They´re statistics. Sorry all you right wingers out there but this guy is one of the biggest assholes walking. Lock him up next to Saddam. Throw Kissingers slimy ass in to keep em company. war criminals? the US is running a christmas special.

12-09-2004, 11:15 PM	#59 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	to say Rumsfield is incompetent would give him too much credit. disaster after failure after sheer stupidity. complete indifference and the refusal to accept any responsibility for same. absolutely no concern or care for the men and women on the ground. you do not go to war with the army that you got if you are invading a country in pre emptive, unjustified and completely fictitious circumstances. so, once more, what an asshole. Homeless Iraq vets showing up at shelters By Mark Benjamin UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL Washington, DC, Dec. 7 (UPI) -- U.S. veterans from the war in Iraq are beginning to show up at homeless shelters around the country, and advocates fear they are the leading edge of a new generation of homeless vets not seen since the Vietnam era. "When we already have people from Iraq on the streets, my God," said Linda Boone, executive director of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. "I have talked to enough (shelters) to know we are getting them. It is happening and this nation is not prepared for that." "I drove off in my truck. I packed my stuff. I lived out of my truck for a while," Seabees Petty Officer Luis Arellano, 34, said in a telephone interview from a homeless shelter near March Air Force Base in California run by U.S.VETS, the largest organization in the country dedicated to helping homeless veterans. Arellano said he lived out of his truck on and off for three months after returning from Iraq in September 2003. "One day you have a home and the next day you are on the streets," he said. In Iraq, shrapnel nearly severed his left thumb. He still has trouble moving it and shrapnel "still comes out once in a while," Arellano said. He is left handed. Arellano said he felt pushed out of the military too quickly after getting back from Iraq without medical attention he needed for his hand -- and as he would later learn, his mind. "It was more of a rush. They put us in a warehouse for a while. They treated us like cattle," Arellano said about how the military treated him on his return to the United States. "It is all about numbers. Instead of getting quality care, they were trying to get everybody demobilized during a certain time frame. If you had a problem, they said, 'Let the (Department of Veterans Affairs) take care of it.'" The Pentagon has acknowledged some early problems and delays in treating soldiers returning from Iraq but says the situation has been fixed. A gunner's mate for 16 years, Arellano said he adjusted after serving in the first Gulf War. But after returning from Iraq, depression drove him to leave his job at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. He got divorced. He said that after being quickly pushed out of the military, he could not get help from the VA because of long delays. "I felt, as well as others (that the military said) 'We can't take care of you on active duty.' We had to sign an agreement that we would follow up with the VA," said Arellano. "When we got there, the VA was totally full. They said, 'We'll call you.' But I developed depression." He left his job and wandered for three months, sometimes living in his truck. Nearly 300,000 veterans are homeless on any given night, and almost half served during the Vietnam era, according to the Homeless Veterans coalition, a consortium of community-based homeless-veteran service providers. While some experts have questioned the degree to which mental trauma from combat causes homelessness, a large number of veterans live with the long-term effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse, according to the coalition. Some homeless-veteran advocates fear that similar combat experiences in Vietnam and Iraq mean that these first few homeless veterans from Iraq are the crest of a wave. "This is what happened with the Vietnam vets. I went to Vietnam," said John Keaveney, chief operating officer of New Directions, a shelter and drug-and-alcohol treatment program for veterans in Los Angeles. That city has an estimated 27,000 homeless veterans, the largest such population in the nation. "It is like watching history being repeated," Keaveney said. Data from the Department of Veterans Affairs shows that as of last July, nearly 28,000 veterans from Iraq sought health care from the VA. One out of every five was diagnosed with a mental disorder, according to the VA. An Army study in the New England Journal of Medicine in July showed that 17 percent of service members returning from Iraq met screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety disorder or PTSD. Asked whether he might have PTSD, Arrellano, the Seabees petty officer who lived out of his truck, said: "I think I do, because I get nightmares. I still remember one of the guys who was killed." He said he gets $100 a month from the government for the wound to his hand. Lance Cpl. James Claybon Brown Jr., 23, is staying at a shelter run by U.S.VETS in Los Angeles. He fought in Iraq for 6 months with Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines and later in Afghanistan with another unit. He said the fighting in Iraq was sometimes intense. "We were pretty much all over the place," Brown said. "It was really heavy gunfire, supported by mortar and tanks, the whole nine (yards)." Brown acknowledged the mental stress of war, particularly after Marines inadvertently killed civilians at road blocks. He thinks his belief in God helped him come home with a sound mind. "We had a few situations where, I guess, people were trying to get out of the country. They would come right at us and they would not stop," Brown said. "We had to open fire on them. It was really tough. A lot of soldiers, like me, had trouble with that." "That was the hardest part," Brown said. "Not only were there men, but there were women and children -- really little children. There would be babies with arms blown off. It was something hard to live with." Brown said he got an honorable discharge with a good conduct medal from the Marines in July and went home to Dayton, Ohio. But he soon drifted west to California "pretty much to start over," he said. Brown said his experience with the VA was positive, but he has struggled to find work and is staying with U.S.VETS to save money. He said he might go back to school. Advocates said seeing homeless veterans from Iraq should cause alarm. Around one-fourth of all homeless Americans are veterans, and more than 75 percent of them have some sort of mental or substance abuse problem, often PTSD, according to the Homeless Veterans coalition. More troubling, experts said, is that mental problems are emerging as a major casualty cluster, particularly from the war in Iraq where the enemy is basically everywhere and blends in with the civilian population, and death can come from any direction at any time. Interviews and visits to homeless shelters around the Unites States show the number of homeless veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan so far is limited. Of the last 7,500 homeless veterans served by the VA, 50 had served in Iraq. Keaveney, from New Directions in West Los Angeles, said he is treating two homeless veterans from the Army's elite Ranger battalion at his location. U.S.VETS, the largest organization in the country dedicated to helping homeless veterans, found nine veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan in a quick survey of nine shelters. Others, like the Maryland Center for Veterans Education and Training in Baltimore, said they do not currently have any veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan in their 170 beds set aside for emergency or transitional housing. Peter Dougherty, director of Homeless Veterans Programs at the VA, said services for veterans at risk of becoming homeless have improved exponentially since the Vietnam era. Over the past 30 years, the VA has expanded from 170 hospitals, adding 850 clinics and 206 veteran centers with an increasing emphasis on mental health. The VA also supports around 300 homeless veteran centers like the ones run by U.S.VETS, a partially non-profit organization. "You probably have close to 10 times the access points for service than you did 30 years ago," Dougherty said. "We may be catching a lot of these folks who are coming back with mental illness or substance abuse" before they become homeless in the first place. Dougherty said the VA serves around 100,000 homeless veterans each year. But Boone's group says that nearly 500,000 veterans are homeless at some point in any given year, so the VA is only serving 20 percent of them. Roslyn Hannibal-Booker, director of development at the Maryland veterans center in Baltimore, said her organization has begun to get inquiries from veterans from Iraq and their worried families. "We are preparing for Iraq," Hannibal-Booker said. All those slashed benefits for enlisted families help show a bit more of that compassionate humanitarian side of this brave bunch of patriots. Asshole.

12-10-2004, 11:10 PM	#65 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rmored_humvees ------------------------------------------------------ Army Moving to Speed Up Armor Production 34 minutes ago White House - AP Cabinet & State By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Army entered negotiations with an armor manufacturer Friday in an effort to accelerate production of armored versions of the Humvee to get them to the troops more quickly, Army and company officials said. Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey spoke with officials at Armor Holdings, Inc., based in Jacksonville, Fla., who told him Friday they could increase production by up to 100 vehicles a month. Army officials had previously believed the factory was working at capacity until the company told the news media Thursday that it could make more. Democrats immediately criticized the Bush administration for not boosting production sooner. Still, company officials said the Armor Holdings plant was not immediately capable of boosting output. Armor Holdings said in a statement issued Friday that it could increase its rate of production by February or March. "During the interim period, we will continue to build as many vehicles as possible, as we have done to date. In fact, we are currently ahead of the Army's production schedule by more than 330 total vehicles," the statement said. In addition, the Army would also have to go to Congress for additional funding if Armor Holdings sought more money, officials said. The Army has ordered 8,105 of the armored Humvees, and 5,910 are in Iraq (news - web sites), Afghanistan (news - web sites) and nearby countries. Armor Holdings is already producing 450 a month, meaning they would be finished sometime in the early spring. Any increased production by the company before then would accelerate the completion of the order. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfield, responding to a soldier's complaint about not enough armored vehicles for the troops, said Wednesday the Army was working to produce more armored vehicles, but it was "a matter of physics, not a matter of money," suggesting that production lines at operating at capacity. But Armor Holdings spokesman Michael Fox said Thursday that the company recently completed an analysis after the Marines inquired about buying 50 to 100 armored vehicles each month. "We determined it was doable," Fox said. Armor Holdings said it expected to produce about 4,000 armored vehicles this year, compared to 500 in 2001, 600 in 2002, and 850 in 2003. Cost of the armored Humvees is about $150,000 each. Production has to be coordinated with AMC General LLC of South Bend, Ind., which produces the trucks used to make the Armored Humvees. Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record), who continually decried the lack of equipment during his unsuccessful presidential campaign, on Friday called on Rumsfeld to investigate. Several companies that manufacture protective equipment have indicated they can significantly boost production, Kerry said in a letter to Rumsfeld. There are thousands more Humvees in Iraq that were built without the extra armor. The military has purchased thousands of kits with bolt-on armor, but several thousand Humvees, and thousands more heavy trucks, remain without armor for use against insurgent bombs, guns and rockets. The soldier's question to Rumsfeld, at a town-hall meeting in Kuwait this week, has led critics to ask why the Pentagon (news - web sites) has been unable to send enough armored equipment 21 months into the war. They said war planners had too rosy a picture of how the campaign would last and didn't think so many troops and so much armor would be needed for so long. "This is about faulty analysis and a failed strategy," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher (news, bio, voting record), a California Democrat who sits on the House Armed Services Committee. "We've never had enough troops on the ground since the fall of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government to deal with the insurgency because we didn't expect one." Loren Thompson, a defense industry analyst with the Lexington Institute think tank, agreed. "We have pretty much miscalculated every step along the way — why we went, how we should do it, what we needed, what support we would have, how long it would last — we pretty much got it all wrong," he said. There was far too little advanced body armor and there were too few armored vehicles to deal with what the Pentagon has since acknowledged is a far stronger and longer insurgency than expected. Officials say more is being manufactured as fast as possible. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!