Rumsfeld hears, dismisses concerns voiced by our troops
 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041208/D86RG6580.html
Seems that Rumsfeld is blinded to the truth and doesn't want to accept that things aren't going perfectly. It seems to me that letting ideology block out facts is something that can be seen across the board within the administration. Personally, I would like to see more public outcry against a cabinet member who obviously does not care as much as he should about our armed forces. The very least he could do is to acknowledge that landfills and scrap yards are not the ideal place to get armor for vehicles that should be better equipped in the first place.

Complaints are just that, complaints. Some may be valid, some may be not valid, and may be valid but unavoidable.

Should he pretend to care for the cameras like in the Clinton years, and do nothing, or should he tell the truth? NOTHING in war is ever perfect, look at accounts of WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Name me a war where soldiers got everything they wanted and had no complaints.

Gulf War 1

Desert Storm....went pretty much as planned, few complaints (if any) Great planning, plenty of troops, and a clear objective. The commander in Chief at the time knew the likely results of taking out the Government, and wisely avoided it.

In my opinion there is an acceptable level of confusion/failure in warfare.....we have exceeded this level and then some.

Doesn't sound like he "dismissed" amything.

He was asked questions, he gave answers. What more can you expect from that?

I was waiting for this.....

While comparing the two is a bit difficult being they were far different types of conflicts, I must assume you haven't heard of Gulf War Syndrome, friendly fire, 'excessive' use of force on the 'highway of death', and we of course should bring up DU.

Also Bush's reasoning, which he was HIGHLY criticized for was that he thought there was no way Saddam's regime would survive after such a defeat, so going into Baghdad wasn't needed. He was wrong, and that mistake cost a lot of Iraqis their lives after failed attempts at rebellion.

Iraq is going far better at far less a cost in life than ANY previous war of its kind to date.

The fact that this line of questioning was cheered on by several thousand active service people during wartime, only miles from the battleground, does not speak well regarding the state of military morale. Some of these troops though seem to be realizing things they should have thought about before they volunteered for service: that it's very well possible they could die in battle, that if necessary the generals will sacrifice their lives as a diversion even (I'm not saying this is being done, but it is possible), that war is fundamentally an unsafe venture.

I'm not sure how I might react to Rumsfeld essentially saying "shut up and die for oil pussies" I'm fairly sure I would start thinking about desertion. Then again I'm not subject to the constant indoctrination and brain washing that our troops in the field receive daily.

National Guard people are intelligent though, most join to put themselves through college. Many of them know that the reason there's no funding for properly armored vehicles is that the Dept. of Defense is allowing Halliburton and other military contractors to loot our national treasury. They know that money went to funding congressional pet projects like the V-22 Osprey flying deathtrap, don't see many of those in active service do we?

In world war two there was never this persistant whining from our troops about being ill-equipped (Sherman tanks v. Panzers, wool pants for the African theater, etc.) although they certainly were in several instances. Why do you think this is? We're seeing the fallout in the form of low troop morale for the disingenuous reasoning and bald-faced lies that our President and others used as rationale for the Iraq war.

Saw it on CNN and Rumsfeld was really trying hard to put the right words in his mouth.

It certainly doesn't sound like a vote of confidence when Rumsfeld replies to serious questions with,.." You go to war with the Army you have," not the one you might want,...or this,..'And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents' weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive device that has killed and maimed hundreds, if not thousands, of American troops since the summer of 2003.'

Maybe Rumsfeld is clueless about what is actually happening given recent criticisms from upper military personnel questioning the tactics used in Iraq, most notably concerning Mosel and Fallujah.

I guess I would be interested in hearing what (serious) response he should have given.

It sounds like he did a pretty good job, especially since it seems like the questions were unscreened and unexpected.

You should never assume too much Ustwo.

The instances you mention,ie: Gulf War Syndrome, Friendly Fire, Depleted Uranium....etc. Have little to do with the issues brought up in the topic, and nothing to rebut the success of Gulf War 1.
It is interesting to me, that you consider Desert Storm a relative failure and consider Enduring Freedom a success. As for Bush Sr. and his "incorrect" choices following the routing, and virtual elimination of Iraqi military forces, I suppose you could interpret such descisions as flawed.
If however, you seriously believe that the descision was based stricktly on thoughts of Saddams regime going away....I will accept this for what it is.

As far as this conflict going " far better at far less a cost in life than ANY previous war of its kind to date." I will reflect on your openingstatement.

"While comparing the two is a bit difficult being they were far different types of conflicts"

Obviously....with no basis for comparison....one could easily accept your statement as truth. We have never allowed ourselves to become involved in a war of this type....unless you wish to make the dreaded Viet Nam comparison.

Do You?

Try reading more about the history of WWII.

How can you use DU on this thread in defense of your position when you completely discount its effects in another thread on this same board??

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...pleted+uranium

okay...done. My stance is unchanged. Try posting some actual data if you wish me to question my postion.

No it didn't. You just didn't have the press looking for shit. Armchair quarterbacking a war will never give anyone a real opinion of the events that transpired.

I was there and there were plenty of fucked up things. My buddy got a dishonorable for calling in two helos at the same coordinate. He was given the coordinates by his superior, then told not to question the order. The result: the helos crashed and we had guys killed. Did the supervisor get it? Nope, my buddy did and it he has carried the guilt around ever since.

Also, didn't we lose more people to friendly fire than to enemy fire?

Anyway, not to defend Rummy, but you always want more than you have. You always feel like you need more than you have.

We didn't get what we needed, so we got creative. Anybody that has been in the military, regardless of the president, regardless of the Sec. of Def., will back this up.

Sure, it sucks, but that is the way it is/was/will always be. In life you do not get everything you want.

/and yeah, I bitched a lot when I was in too. It was hot (really, really fuckin' hot), shit didn't work, we were tired, couldn't get fresh milk (goat's milk sucks), we needed better tools, etc. Hell, we didn't even have decent armament, but such is life, we made do and moved on.

I agree with the soldier, its unacceptable to have under-armoured vehicles going into a warzone. I can completely understand his point, and its a valid one. If unaddressed, this kind of thing can dangerously snowball, into morale issues which can then affect operational objectives, so the sooner it is addressed the better.

The problem, unfortunately, is a bureaucratic one. The shortcomings in the armor were discovered in the field under active duty. Not an ideal place to conduct Research & Development. Now that the problem has been identified, its going to take time to correct. In the meantime, all the soldiers can do is keep their fingers crossed, and wait.

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.

Working within the context of an increased level of complaining is part of the common pattern of behavior these days. Leading a more complaint-ridden pool of people is a common lot as well.

dk -

I was thinking the same thing regarding Easy.

Some bitch, others get the job done.

Good stuff there, KMA-628.

...exactly so.

Thanks KMA, gotta love a first hand account of our perfect little war.

Easy company also suffered a 150% casualty rate by the end of WWII...If this is to be our model for success in Iraq then we had better start drafting replacements now. I thought I was being harsh on our soldiers in my first post, but I've been outdone. I guess all these "support our troops" yellow-ribbon magnets I've been seeing don't mean shit.

The point isn't how brave our soldiers were in WWII, or how well (or poorly) Desert Storm was planned. The point is, Rummy fucked up planning for THIS war, and as a result there isn't enough armor, body armor, etc. to go around.

This issue is also entirely divorced from whether or not ivading Iraq was in and of itself a good idea.

And it seems to me that Rummy's answer, when questioned, was not, "I'm sorry, I know you've had to make due with some tough conditions and I'm proud of you. We are doing our best to remedy the situation, and give everyone adequate armor. In the mean time, keep up the good work, and I promise that we will do everything possible to improve things."

Instead, he said, "Well, I don't really give a shit that I inadequately supplied you. Tough."

And that is completely unacceptable. For that alone he should resign.

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

Mabye I'm missing something.. or dont understand what casualty rate means.. but how can the rate be 150%?

This has to be one of the worst comments I have ever seen here, even if it is an attempt at irony.

why is that?

What did you add to this discussion?

Personally, that comment royally pissed me off.

Have you served? In combat?

/eh, I better stop

I was being sarcastic and trying to add a little humor to the discussion, not trying to offend anyone. I thought it was pretty obvious from my wording I wasn't really serious, if it wasn't obvious I'm sorry. You need to lighten up if you get really pissed off over what someone said on a message board, maybe you should smoke some pot with hippy liberals. And what does it matter whether or not I've served in combat? If you must know I'm not allowed in the military, I do however have a good friend who was lost in Iraq, does that make my opinion count any more?

Funny, I was under the impression that the objective of GW1 was to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. We did. War over. When was the stated objective the overthrow of Hussein in GW1? Please, show me some documentation on this.

Easy Company is a GREAT example for our military.

The purpose of a Unit is to get the job done. Only secondary to that is get it done with the least amount of casualties OR in the allotted time (depends on the situation), and teritry is civilian casualties/etc.

They got the job done. Did they get 150% casualties compared to most units? Yeah. But soldiers die in battle, it seems soldiers are the only ones left in America that realize this.

And other areas in WWII that people complained:
the Shermans who couldnt punch through German tank armor, yet would be torn apart by their guns.
Bomber corps flying/bombing Germany without proper escort
Submarines going out to fight with torpedoes with +50% dud rate
Fighters going up with only 5sec of ammo because not enough were available to go around
Not having proper cold-weather clothing (already presented)
Having Green painted tanks in the desert (hit me signs)
Carpet bombing our own troops the first few tries
...

I could go on. Complaints never stopped during WWII. Yes these were justified, but there were many many more that were just that, complaints. The heat, the cold (outside of frostbite), of VD, of the same food over and over, etc. As long as they can still complete their mission that's all that matters from a military perspective.

Anything said, by, or for or against any of the present administration about it's performance in this war for me, in my mind, gut and heart, tremendously and beforehand already biased by my enduring strong belief that this war was a mistake from day one and by day one, I don't mean the day the shooting started, I mean the day that George W. Bush began to get an inkling that he might become president of the United States, and be entering a phase of his life in which he might be able to show Daddy that, after a miserable start and preparation prior to that time, that he is good for something after all. Wrong again George, you no good SOB.

from and Korean War vet.

The equipment that we have, or don't have, is directly related to military spending. You can't keep cutting and cutting and just expect shit to magically appear when the time comes.

Thanks for reminding me about the torpedo debacle.

Oy vey, their was one battle where the Japanese boat was disabled and the US sub kept shooting and shooting and *thunk!* every time, the torp wouldn't detonate. The sub finally ran out of torpedos and the ship escaped.


And you forgot that whole scene from SPR concerning the gliders. That shit wasn't made up. Not only were they scattered all over the place, but they thought those hedges in France were little things (based on the air pics) and that the gliders would just roll over them. Too bad they were in actuality 10-12 feet high in places...

Oh yeah, there were some tremendous foul-ups.

I THINK that was the Wahoo, (the sub) and I forget the captains name but he was a very famous sub commander. He later went MIA in the sea of Japan. I could look it up on Google but that would be cheating :D

Yeah, I have a great article on it out of "American Science and Technology", but it's in a box somewhere...

Yeah, my point was in EVERY war there WILL be unforseen problems. There will also be problems that were (for countless reasons) dismissed, which in hindsight seem obvious to armchair generals.

From a military perspective this war broke records. Fastest advance of ANY army EVER, the best kill ratio with exception of the first gulf war (though completely different because they didnt actually occupy any land), and one of the best logistic maintenance considering the vast amount of travel required.

Yes, people have and are dying, but people die in war.

And folks lost lives on it. there wasn't a good ID system for troops in the days following d-day, and my grandfather was nearly shot as an infiltrator D+6. He had gone over to England with Bill Donovan and the OSS to work as a intel operation before the US was officially involved, adn so he was commissioned as a British officer. his Royal Navy uniform looked like an Waffen-SS one, with only slightly diff. insignia. The GI's who took him prisoner eventually bought his story, and i'm in their debt.

the war was won, and i'm proud of what they did to do so. but there was extreme scarcity, full mobilization, and this nation throwing everything it had in to that war. if there wasn't enough to arm and protect them, it was becase there wasn't enough, period.

we're fighting a war of choice, when we choose the place and time. that we're running low on body armor isn't just stupid, it's a crime against the men and women we're asking to fight. we had time to prepare, and the choice of waiting until more supplies were ready. D-day was put off for some time before Eisenhower was sure we had the ability to win the fight.

Oh please. Would you have us believe that the generals are right now slapping themselves on the forehead and saying "ARMOR! Damn! It's so obvious in hindsight. I wish I'd thought of that before!"

That's absurd. A 3rd grader could figure out that soldiers need armor if they're gonna have a shot at surviving in a modern warzone. If the top brass at the military couldn't figure that out before they sent tens of thousands of kids over there to get picked off one by one, then that's not a reflection on anyone but the brass.

And the remark on the intelligence of the soldiers because this is what they signed up for is misguided. This is not what they signed up for. They signed up to DEFEND OUR COUNTRY. Not attack other countries who aren't doing anything to us. They have every right to be pissed. Their trust has been abused. Their lives have been unnecessarilly placed in danger.

We have not been appointed the world's policeman. We are not the only hope for the globe. We must stop horning in on other countries' affairs.


Oh, and I'll step up and start the vietnam comparison here. This war IS viet nam without trees. Same situation. Big bad USA comes in to fuck with people that don't need to be fucked with. The people (surprise!) don't like it and fight back. USA has piss poor planning and idiotic strategies (we captured this town! Let's leave and wait for the enemy to occupy it, then come capture it again!) just as we did in viet nam. And all in pursuit of an "enemy" that has not made a move against us.

Unbelievable.

Interesting fact you are overlooking, the military doesnt decide how much money is spent on the military.

And you can spend all the time talking about how this is just like Vietnam, it isnt, and can not be approached in the same way. Fighting in the desert is a LOT different than in the jungle...

And yes, soldiers signed up to defend our country, but to say they never expected to fight in a war other than on US soil when it gets invaded is insulting their intelligence. The last war of national survival started 60 years ago, since then they have taken place everywhere else but in the nations immediate defense. To say they dont know when signing up that the future wars wouldn't be taken place in Utah is insulting to them.

armor is the reason that another group of soldiers defied orders a few weeks ago.

i thought rumsfeld recovered fairly well, although he paused long enough to allow for supporting applause...and the fact that we don't have the ideal army for the job is due to a variety of decisions made in post-Saddam Iraq (coupled with the rush to begin fighting). the situation is bad and the defense department holds a lot of the responsibility. but it is good that rumsfeld is at least engaging the troops.

Thanks for all the great examples from world war two to bolster my argument that although there were equipment "snafus" in that war our troops soldiered on because they believed in the righteousness of their cause. In the Iraq war we've already seen, as has been mentioned, troops refusing orders on the basis of being ill-equipped.

I could be wrong but I believe the "150% casualty rate" refers to there being, with replacement soldiers, casualties that totalled 1.5 times the base population of the regiment.

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?

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.

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.

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?
No, not mass rebellion but it is indicative of mass unrest.
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?
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.
Is the survivability of our troops the only basis on which we can draw historical corollaries?
Thanks for the pondering points. :|

-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 :D

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

Looks like Lebell got it mixed up.

Fixed

Edited for quote brackets

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.

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/

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.

stevo22:

1. proof?

2. got a link supporting this?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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).

sounds pretty reasonable, really.

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.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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?