Article

2004-12-09 Iraq-Jordan

RUMSFELD SET UP; REPORTER PLANTED QUESTIONS WITH SOLIDER

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2004-12-09 12:17:05 PM|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 thanks Lee,.... dickhead

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-09 12:30:31 PM|| 2004-12-09 12:30:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Can we get this guys home address? I want to order a tanker full of fresh effluent and have it pumped through his mail chute.

That or his "buddies" should knee cap his ass.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-12-09 12:34:20 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-12-09 12:34:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 This is another of the "He's not anti-war, he's on the other side." examples.

There will be a reckoning with these people, somewhere, sometime down the road. Everyone who did their bit to undermine morale, give aid and comfort to the enemy, chip away at the foundations of Freedom, whether by flushing their supposed journalistic neutrality or by partisan political acts - they will be held accountable.

Posted by .com 2004-12-09 12:41:03 PM|| 2004-12-09 12:41:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 If there was ever any convincing evidence that the MSM is only concerned with negative news, this would be it.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-09 1:00:40 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:00:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I disagree. If our troops feel they need better armour for their vehicles they should get it. And it should be made public to put pressure on the decision makers to get it done. This isn't anti-war it's about making our troops as safe and overwhelming as possible.

A lot of troops obviously agreed with this assesment or he wouldn't have gotten the applause. Just because someone questions how we're handling a situation or whether we're making the right decision doesn't make them the "enemy" or anti-war. You guys really need to differentiate between who is the enemy and who you just disagree with...

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-12-09 1:04:17 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-12-09 1:04:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 I agree with Damn_Proud. Just judging by the other soldiers reaction, it was a question that needed to be asked for thier piece of mind.

Posted by plainslow 2004-12-09 1:06:49 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:06:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 DPA - true, true. But the presenttion of this question by the MSM - lacking other photos showing the enthusiasm that the troops had for Rusfeld - is one reason why I trust individual bloggers and distrust anything I read in the mainstream press. That's a problem for the press, because I don't even bother to pick up papers left on the Metro. It's not that I don't want to read them, it's just that they are so lame, it's not worth it to bother.

I'm just the tip of the iceberg. They are the Titanic.

Posted by 2b 2004-12-09 1:09:52 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:09:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 The bad guy here is not the MSM, but rather inability of the Army to armor ALL the vehicles.

Does anyone in their right mind really believe that this mighty country, industrialized country cant turn out more then 450 armored vehicles per month?

Hell, get GM, F, DCX etc to make less SUV's and MORE armored vehicles.

It is sickening to send these guys in unprotected.

You can bet Rummy went into Kuwait with armor on his limo.

This is America, we should be getting 5,000 or more vehicles per month, as many as needed!

Posted by Threck Phuth7614 2004-12-09 1:10:20 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:10:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 DPA - 2 questions:

1) Do you know there were "cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question" - or are you relying upon this reporter's account? Did you see a film clip? Read another report of the same event by a reliable source?

2) Do you find the reporter's attempt to set Rumsfeld up acceptable? Is this reporter to be given credence when he actually conspired to create a scene? If nothing else sways you from thinking this reporter is an asshole, this should.

I am certainly for getting the troops everything we can lay hands upon for their safety. This was far less about that, than scoring points.

From this asshole's actions we can clearly see the real problem:
What and whom to believe...

Posted by .com 2004-12-09 1:11:38 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:11:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Arrrggghhh - Preview is your friend...

In 2) I meant: If nothing else can convince you this reporter is an asshole, this should..

Posted by .com 2004-12-09 1:13:52 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:13:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Hmm--there are some comments and quotes on Instapundit today that reflect an entirely different attitude. I, for one, agree with the poster Sgt. Missick that the real signicance of this event is that the SoD was willing to stand there and field questions--questions that were NOT pre-screened--from the rank and file. He demonstrated that he respects the troops and was willing to risk exactly this kind of manufactured media B.S. to let them air their concerns before the cameras.

Even Lee's article above states that the soldier who asked the question felt better afterwards, and he should--he just put the SoD on the spot and got a response. If this leads to the transfer of those armored Humvees from DC and elsewhere to Iraq where they're more sorely needed, then it was worthwhile.

Unfortunately, the MSM will, as usual, completely ignore the larger significance, but focus on any one negative aspect to make Bush and Co. look bad. But none of us here are surprised.

Posted by Dar 2004-12-09 1:21:45 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:21:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 .com, I generally agree with, but in this case I think you are wrong. It's the proper function of the media to raise issues of concern. Thats what the reporter did, and as a result Rummy will work on improving the situation. I suspect your real issue is not what the reporter did, but the fact the MSM will now use this incident to push its agenda.

Posted by phil_b 2004-12-09 1:31:14 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:31:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I'm agnostic on the issue of whether the reporter performed a service or disservice to the troops. To me, the bigger issue here is the same ol' same ol: bloggers need to source, scoop, and create their own stories and not merely react to the agenda set by the MSM.

Posted by lex 2004-12-09 1:31:19 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:31:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 The reason this Drudge story is important is that it refutes the MSM story. The MSM story was that the soldiers grilled Rumsfeld. This was an Important, Legitimate Story because it implied a lack of support from the troops for the civilian leadership. But now we know that it was the media grilling Rumsfeld, through a soldier who agreed to read a reporter's question. That is not the story the MSM put out. Once again, the MSM is pushing a false story for political purposes.

Posted by sludj 2004-12-09 1:34:27 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:34:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 .com -- RE:#9 Read SGT Missick's article:

There was a great deal of frustration in the voice of the soldier who asked questions regarding vehicles being up-armored, and the hangar did erupt in applause after he spoke, but I wouldnât translate one very tough question into a grill session by American forces.

The question addressed a concern that is apparently shared by many soldiers over there. I think the MSM is wrong to focus solely on it and make it look like such a fiasco, but I don't blame Lee for it. I think Lee is genuinely concerned:

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.

And I like that he got to tell the NYT reporter to shove off and do his own work.

Posted by Dar 2004-12-09 1:36:39 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:36:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 This remark captures the motivation of the Chattanooga hack:

I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I foud out I would be on an unarmored truck

Selfless public servant: right.

Posted by lex 2004-12-09 1:39:46 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:39:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 .com, I caught the whole thing from my roost here in Europe. CNNi broadcast it. BLUF: the guy was hard to hear. What amused me was CNNi's build up of this event as somewhat atagonistic to Rummie. It wasn't. (not sure if you guys saw the Chaplain asking Rummie to fly the troops to Disneyland).
As for armor. Real nice to have. I'm not going to take anything away from Soldiers deployed in theatre, but as a recently returned NCO related:" If you're worried about IEDs, you're in a world of hurt" (I.E., if the IED goes off, the battles been lost. Wretchards piece on the Russians in Grozny writ small).As the Isreali's, Russians (sort of) and others have learned, the key is to disrupt the enemy before they lay down the IEDs. Daisy chain some 155 mm shells togehter, and an M1 is going to have a bad day. My thinking, we're going to have a bad day, as long as:
The Pasdranan are active.
Saddam's kid(s) are active.
AIRSTRIP Syria is active.

Iraq is a battle, in this war.

Posted by gimpy 2004-12-09 1:54:38 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:54:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 If anyone is looking for information about this issue, I have covered it in detail and here are some links to my sources:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

This issue is whether or not EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE is armored, from the fuel tankers, to the PLS, to the stake trucks, etc. Each vehicle presents its own armor problems. Units leaving Iraq are leaving their armored vehicles behind to assist incoming units.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2004-12-09 1:54:40 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2004-12-09 1:54:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Armor Holdings Could Boost Humvee Armor Output 22%

Posted by phil_b 2004-12-09 1:57:08 PM|| 2004-12-09 1:57:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 If the issue was the procurement problems with getting equipment, then the reporter had better get his ass back to DC and start putting Representatives and Senators in the public hot seat for all the laws and regulations they impose on the procurement process. Having done time the bowels of procurement, a lot of process and paperwork is generated to satisfy requirements of the legislative branch. No one wants to go before a Congressional committee to explain to some Pol seeking public spin time that all the regulations and the laws they wrote where being followed. $500 hammer? Maybe because you made it a crime to go down to Sears and buy it locally, because Sears doesn't feel like hiring a ton of employees to fill out compliance reports to satisfy some federal regulations. So you force the procurement officer to use an existing contract which carries lots of overhead expense which you by law authorize the contractor to charge. However, it will be the procurement office's butt on the hot seat, not the representatives who made the process that way. Let's look at laws that require the Army to buy specifically from someone or have to use outside sources for programs above a certain financial level. If you dealing with the Army, you are buying a lot of armor kits and that financial level gets crossed rather quickly. When you want to do it fast, you have to go sole source. There is no competion and Congress makes it as hard as possible to do it that way. Lots of paper, lots of mother-may-I's. The normal delay for a competitive contract takes months, which is not supportive of the Joe in the field. And just wait till one of the bidders or even potential bidders challenges it. More calendar time.
This was just a cheap shot by the reporter. If he was truely concerned with the troops, he should have followed the 'money trail', tracked back the process to identify the real problems contributing to the delays. Instead this was a chance to get his byline across the wire. Nothing more.

Posted by Don 2004-12-09 2:01:51 PM|| 2004-12-09 2:01:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 gimpy - Thx - and thanx to everyone commenting on this piece, regardless of the POV and assessment. This does go to the heart of the problem of our baseline information, upon which we rely to draw our own private conclusions and judgements. It doesn't help to have a Fifth Columnist MSM.

There are multiple wars, to go with the multiple battles of the War on Terror / The Caliphate / Socialism / Communism / Maoism / Enemies of Freedom, and maybe the biggest and most important one of all is the information war.

lex is dead right in that we need unfiltered sources and a reliable means of accessing that information. It's the difference between voting for a traitor (Thank You Swift Boat Vets!) and a true leader. It's fundamental to our society and our freedom. We definitely need un-staged reporting, no matter what the reporter's POV - let the troops decide what they want to ask and let their reps in Washington answer them - face to face. I care about our troops - been there and done that before there was diddley-squat for personal protection - maybe the reporter does care too, but I question his motivations, ethics, and politics.

Posted by .com 2004-12-09 2:10:34 PM|| 2004-12-09 2:10:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Re: procurement issues, Don's right.

re: the concerns, keep in mind this is a national guard unit that has NOT YET BEEN IN IRAQ. In other words, they are sitting in Kuwait and have concerns.

Fair enough, but not quite the same thing as a unit in-theater giving first hand feedback.

Re: IED's, we're doing a lot to find and blow them up before our vehicles get to them. Some we miss. Meanwhile, Sen. Dodd's political posturing is just that - posturing. It's absurd to imply that soldiers can be kept 100% safe. We do what we can, but there are risks involved.

Hell, there are risks involved in training - guys die right here in the US in training accidents and have every year for a long time.

Rummy's right: you do what you can, to the best degree you can --- but meanwhile, you keep fighting the war you need to fight.

Posted by too true 2004-12-09 2:11:52 PM|| 2004-12-09 2:11:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 This was just a cheap shot by the reporter. If he was truely concerned with the troops, he should have followed the 'money trail', tracked back the process to identify the real problems contributing to the delays

Yes, but that's d i f f i c u l t. It requires the hack to actually do research, develop some expertise in a process, present a complex issue in depth.

Much more fun to grab a coupla soldiers and the dude handling the mike, and play Gotcha!

Posted by lex 2004-12-09 2:11:55 PM|| 2004-12-09 2:11:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Phil_B...that's interesting regarding Armor HOldings' ability to expand capacity, and would appear to contradict Rumsfeld. However, couldn't the bottleneck be w. Armor Holdings' suppliers or at another point in the supply chain?

Posted by mjh 2004-12-09 2:16:32 PM|| 2004-12-09 2:16:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Interesting that he got a reservist to do it. After Vietnam, the military structured itself so that we could not go to war without calling up reserve units in order to assure popular support for any war we went into. Given the performance of the reserves in the last two Gulf wars is the military giving any consideration to changing this structuring?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-09 2:20:30 PM|| 2004-12-09 2:20:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 My two cents:

I hope (and believe) that the soldiers in question would have balked at a question that they didn't feel was relevant. And the armor question appeared to be so.

Having said that, I am appalled that reporters are still doing this crap, because NEXT time they may find a soldier who will read a question that is NOT relevant (and is pure "gotcha").

I have seen video of the event, and read descriptions of it...and they vary like night & day. Anybody who just READS the descriptions, or listens to a talking-head "describe" it, is NOT getting the truth!

Posted by Justrand 2004-12-09 2:29:15 PM|| 2004-12-09 2:29:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Personally, I prefer news reporters to news-making reporters, but the troops did cheer the question and, at this point about 20 months after the war started, I think its a fair question and the answer was poor.

Posted by Tom 2004-12-09 2:41:44 PM|| 2004-12-09 2:41:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 What Justrand said. Again, bloggers need to offer video and audio as well. Screw the MSM.

Posted by lex 2004-12-09 2:41:48 PM|| 2004-12-09 2:41:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Interesting that he got a reservist to do it

Actually, a national guardsman. And yes, there is a great desire to integrate support w/ operational forces in active duty units. How to do that given the gutting of both in the 90s is a real question. So too is what roles can reasonably and usefully be "outsourced" either to contractors (c.f. food delivery in major encampments) or to technology (c.f. the use of UAVs and ground robots for some recon and surveillance work).

Re: Tom's comment, well ... sure the question was fair and sure they would cheer. They were poised at the border of Kuwait to go into Iraq. but Rumsfeld's reply - while it may not be popular here or there - is dead on.

Posted by too true 2004-12-09 3:11:21 PM|| 2004-12-09 3:11:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Froggy Ruminations on griping as a way of life in the military:

Much has been made of Donald Rumsfeld's "talking to" by a disgruntled National Guardsman in Kuwait yesterday. Believe me, this is nothing new. When I was at SEAL Team FOUR in Little Creek, VA the entire base was compelled to attend a CNO's (Chief of Naval Operations) Call at the base theater. We all sat in the back and settled in for an hour or so of boring speeches by high ranking Navy muckety mucks. We were wrong. After a canned speech by the CNO, he opened the floor to questions from sailors much in the same way Rumsfeld did. What happened next will forever live in my memory.

First, some 3rd Class Petty Officer complained to the CNO that he had been passed over as LPO (Leading Petty Officer) of his division. He explained the situation in excruciating detail, remembering to point out the the Leading Chief who had promoted another 3rd Class who was a few months below him in rank to the vaunted LPO slot. Witnessing this idiot making a complete ass of himself was akin to watching an impending car wreck in slow motion. I have been admonished for jumping the Chain of Command before, but this was amazing to watch. I barely remember the CNO's response, because I was so busy laughing my ass off while trying to keep quiet.

But that was only the beginning. After 2 or 3 more asinine complaints similar to the above mentioned, another 3rd Class dropped a bomb that left me on the floor. She stood up in front of hundreds of sailors and described how she and her compatriots had spent the entire day cleaning up their building and adding that they had been forbidden from using the restroom all day so that it would not be sullied on the off chance that the CNO would stop by for a visit. But she wasn't done, not by a long shot. She then added that it was very inconvenient that high ranking officers always pick Friday afternoons for these sort of visits, and inquired as to why this was the case since she had better things to do. She wrapped up by asking if he, the CNO, was actually going to visit her command after the substantial labors she and her comrades had endured on his behalf. I $hit you not. I do remember the CNO's answer to that one. He asked her who her CO was, and she proceeded to point directly at a man wearing khaki that was at this point cowering behind the seat in front of him. The CNO promptly motioned for the CO to join one of his staff officers offstage, and assured her that he would, in fact, come by to inspect the building. By this time a pall of silence had decended upon the entire building, and several hundred people mouthed the words, "No F*cking Way!" in silent unison.

The highlight of the session was something that I will remember as one of the coolest moments I have ever witnessed in my life. At the time, the Navy was drawing down post-Gulf War, and there was a 15 year retirement option available to sailors. A Chief stood and told the CNO that his wife, another Chief, had recently died of cancer. He went on to say that he was at 14 years, six months of service and had two chidren at home who were mourning the recent loss of their mother. The Chief said that his unit was scheduled to deploy soon, and that although he had requested to stay home to care for his children, his CO refused and was compelling him to either deploy or leave the Navy. Once again, there was a pall in the room, but this time the air was thick with derision and scorn for a CO that would do such a thing. The CNO once again asked this Chief to point out his CO in the crowd, and with a snap of his fingers he dispatched another aide to start heading in his direction. While the aide was enroute, the CNO said, "Chief, you're retired." The audience immediately erupted with cheers and applause that did not relent for several minutes.

I am not going to criticize this National Guardsmen for having a legitimate complaint about the equipment he must use to fight in Iraq, but taking it up with the SECDEF on TV is unsat. Does he really think that Rumsfeld wouldn't rather have 2 armored hummers for every soldier? Like he said, it's a matter of physics rather than a matter of desire. There is a time and place to make these kind of inquiries, but this was neither.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-12-09 3:38:45 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-12-09 3:38:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 ZF - That just rocks and recalls so many experiences - perfect. Thx & Kudos!

Posted by .com 2004-12-09 3:52:55 PM|| 2004-12-09 3:52:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 I'm with Don on the procurement issues: I've been on the contractor side, and the whole process is a nightmare. Overheads are high partly because of:

1. The need to retain the necessary personnel qualified to perform the work.

2. The requirement to maintain production/assembly lines in a ready-to-run state. You let them fall apart, there'll be delays as you have to repair them.

3. The need to maintain compliance infrastructure. As Don said, the process is so involved, so byzantine, that you need full-time trained people just to keep the company out of beaureaucratic hot water.

Credit VP Cheney during his tour at Halliburton for SOME amelioration of this mess: He was the one, I believe, who came up with the One Point Of Contact Supplier idea, which employs a standing contract, authorized personnel make requests, and Halliburton does the footwork to deliver the goods and services. However, this contract is restricted to certain goods and services selected so as to minimize the chances of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse, as well as to amplify the ability of the auditors to cover a lot more ground than they normally would. The MSM and lefties howled a lot about the price of gas from Kuwait delivered by the contract, for instance, but they knew about it only because the system DID work and the auditors caught it, and it WAS being investigated.

I can't say anything about my fellow workers, but I KNOW that I and all the veteran workers busted our tails, worked long hours, and loved hearing from the soldiers on how our stuff worked in the field.

Damn, just thinking about it makes me want to quit and go back.

Jeez, those were good times!

Posted by Ptah 2004-12-09 3:57:46 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-12-09 3:57:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 I thought the exhange was quite remarkable. An ordinary soldier asking the top defense dept official a hard question, and getting a good response. Where else do you see that? Crticizing the reporter for feeding the question to the soldier is off base. It was a good question. If I were a soldier, I like to think I'd ask the same question - and I know I would want to know the answer. Since when are American officials exempt from either criticism of difficult to answer questions. I admire Rummy's fielding open, unscreened questions and generally giving straight, good answers.

Now is the MSN slimey for the way the story was reported? Yes, but who is surprised?

Posted by Henry 2004-12-09 5:33:38 PM|| 2004-12-09 5:33:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Note that every aspect of this story-- identifying the topic, arranging for the Q to be posed to Rumsfeld, taping and playing back his answer, and then delving into the related issues with informed commentary-- can be handled by the blogosphere without the intervention of the MSM.

Source these stories ourselves. Smash the MSM. Let a thousand blogs contend.

Posted by lex 2004-12-09 5:40:46 PM|| 2004-12-09 5:40:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Like everything else- THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER WAY TO FIGHT THIS WAR.

Andrea

Posted by Andrea 2004-12-09 7:05:30 PM|| 2004-12-09 7:05:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Like always... another inane, peretentious post from Andrea, with no substance whatsoever.

Posted by Sobiesky 2004-12-09 7:09:02 PM|| 2004-12-09 7:09:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Sorry, Andrea--Dropping planeloads of origami swans was tried already. Didn't work. Back to bullets.

Posted by Dar 2004-12-09 7:37:36 PM|| 2004-12-09 7:37:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER WAY TO FIGHT THIS WAR.

I agree. And there is. But you probably wouldn't like it.

Posted by Rafael 2004-12-09 7:43:54 PM|| 2004-12-09 7:43:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Andrea has a nice personality.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-09 7:44:50 PM|| 2004-12-09 7:44:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 Grandstand play by the reporter?Yep.A question which needed to be asked?Yep.A piss poor response by Rumsfeld in light of Bush ,at outset of war,saying"Our soldiers have everything they need?"Yes.Does your hatred of the MSM outweigh the need for soldiers to actually have everything Bush said they do?I hope not.

Posted by Me 2004-12-09 8:17:39 PM|| 2004-12-09 8:17:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Icouldansweryoubutitwouldbesimilarlyunintelligibleusingyoursyntaxskills.

Posted by .com 2004-12-09 8:24:25 PM|| 2004-12-09 8:24:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 It would be nice if everyone had a tank, but it's all relative. In RVN I drove around in a jeep with no top and no doors. Even a standard Humvee is a tank by comparison. Add to that the night vision equipment, pression guided bombs, etc, etc. etc. It could be a lot worse.

Posted by Jeremp Ebbereting6222 2004-12-09 8:28:34 PM|| 2004-12-09 8:28:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 It was a good question made in a most stupid manner and at the wrong time. There are 30 guys in that soldier's chain before Rummy. Any company grade or field grade could've answered that one. I trust that the head-shed up in the Pentagon are doing their best to get us what they need. Someone needs to cold cock congress if anything. Don, Ptah - good info on procurement and acquisitions - thanks.

Another way to put it, my grandfather (God rest his soul) fought in WWII and dealt w/the Sherman tank. We could've produced better tanks then the Sherman, but due to logistics push capabilities at the time we could throw more Sherm's in the ETO then bigger, better tanks. In the end it turned out to be the right move though I'm sure many grunts would've wanted Tiger II equivalent US tanks. So there's always "the rest of the story." The bottom line is you fight with what you got, at the time the fight is on. At the same time you attempt to develop and push the best technology to the front line folks to counter whatever tactics the enemy is throwing at them. This is happening. I don't know what this guardsmen was talking about, we've been "field hardening" our vehicle assets since Christ was a corporal. We used sand bag 5-tons every time we went out on a convoy to counter possible mines. It wasn't full proof. That's just how it goes, plus, you beat IED's by running compass watch and other counter measures. The hummer chassis was not meant to hold excessive armor to the degree to counter a 155mm IED.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-12-09 9:13:12 PM|| 2004-12-09 9:13:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Jarhead, I gotta disagree with you on the Sherman tank example. IMO, that was the biggest miscalculation on the part of the allies prior to the D-Day landings. Americans should have produced a better tank. When they encountered the Tiger, the result was that it took 4 Shermans to destroy one Tiger: the first three were sacrificed so that the fourth could go in for the kill. Many tank crewmen felt that they were "expendable". We were lucky that the Germans could not produce the Tiger in bigger numbers. It should be assumed that the powers that be at the Pentagon have learned these lessons.

Posted by Rafael 2004-12-09 9:38:49 PM|| 2004-12-09 9:38:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 [rant]
Now come on. You know, it would be precisely the same thing to demand of Rumsfeld: "Why don't we use armed UAV's for everything? Send no troops at all - just wave upon wave of hovering UAV's firing Mavericks at everything that moves... and everyone stays in Kuwait. Why not that?"

Of course, the adult would carefully explain to the child that you can't fucking have everything you want immediately. Everything has trade offs. We live and learn what works.

What we should be thankful for is that we had people who would climb into a Sherman and into a submarine with defective torpedos and do the job while things were being improved. Everything out there on the battlefield started at some point - and probably sucked. Everything gets improved - or dropped from the inventory. People die until we work out arms, strategies, and methods. Then they still die. Damnit.
[/rant]

Posted by .com 2004-12-09 9:50:48 PM|| 2004-12-09 9:50:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Actually Raf, as a logistics guy the Sherm was easier to ship in cargo holds then a bigger tank. We would have had to refit the shipping, could it have been done and we still made the D-Day landing and we kept the tempo & the intiative on the Germans? Maybe, maybe not. Hind sight being 20/20. Could we have waited on a bigger tank? Debateable. I don't disagree that the Sherman was far inferior to the Tiger. We traded armor and fire power for speed, mobility and diesel efficiency. Such is life and death in war. I hear Marine whine about the Osprey as I'm sure Marine's bitched about the first Jolly Green's and then the CH-46 Phrog, so on and so forth. .com kind of summed it up good. Everything starts at some point and usually sucks. Look at the fiasco the first piece of shit M-16s were.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-12-09 10:00:10 PM|| 2004-12-09 10:00:10 PM|| Front Page Top

23:57 Bomb-a-rama
23:47 lex
23:44 Aris Katsaris
23:42 lex
23:42 AJackson
23:40 lex
23:40 Sobiesky
23:34 lex
23:33 Frank G
23:30 AJackson
23:29 gromky
23:27 Capt America
23:25 Aris Katsaris
23:24 gromky
23:23 AJackson
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:17 Ricky Williams
23:14 VAclerk
23:12 JosephMendiola
23:10 Frank G
22:56 phil_b
22:50 trailing wife
22:49 .com
22:48 .com