Rummy on the defensive with troops' questions

[UConn James]

Troops put tough questions to Rumsfeld.

 

Anyone else catch the video of this and the thundering cheer after the guy asked his question? And then the pencil-pushing geek voice of Rumsfeld's weasel replies? At one point he had to say "Okay, take it easy!" The troops aren't buying your excuses anymore.

 

But no, if you listen to the guys on this board, we're not there so we don't know the situation and this is probably some orchestrated stunt by a small contingent of 2,300 troops. And according to VABills, they should all be summarily executed for mutiny....

 

You do have to be smarter than the people trying to blow you up. The troops are doing all they can but it's not enough. But there's better leadership in the frigging Boy Scouts.

[DC Tom]

Troops put tough questions to Rumsfeld.

 

Anyone else catch the video of this and the thundering cheer after the guy asked his question? And then the pencil-pushing geek voice of Rumsfeld's weasel replies? At one point he had to say "Okay, take it easy!" The troops aren't buying your excuses anymore.

 

But no, if you listen to the guys on this board, we're not there so we don't know the situation and this is probably some orchestrated stunt by a small contingent of 2,300 troops. And according to VABills, they should all be summarily executed for mutiny....

 

You do have to be smarter than the people trying to blow you up. The troops are doing all they can but it's not enough. But there's better leadership in the frigging Boy Scouts.

152538[/snapback]

 

And the flip-side of that is: people who know nothing about it believe every vehicle should be an armored combat vehicle...but God forbid we should cut any other programs to pay for it.

[VABills]

And the flip-side of that is: people who know nothing about it believe every vehicle should be an armored combat vehicle...but God forbid we should cut any other programs to pay for it. 

152559[/snapback]

Let's cut grant to snot nosed college kids.

[Alaska Darin]

And Rumsfeld's answer was pretty much dead on.

 

Troops ain't happy if they don't have something to B word about.

[_BiB_]

Troops put tough questions to Rumsfeld.

 

Anyone else catch the video of this and the thundering cheer after the guy asked his question? And then the pencil-pushing geek voice of Rumsfeld's weasel replies? At one point he had to say "Okay, take it easy!" The troops aren't buying your excuses anymore.

 

But no, if you listen to the guys on this board, we're not there so we don't know the situation and this is probably some orchestrated stunt by a small contingent of 2,300 troops. And according to VABills, they should all be summarily executed for mutiny....

 

You do have to be smarter than the people trying to blow you up. The troops are doing all they can but it's not enough. But there's better leadership in the frigging Boy Scouts.

152538[/snapback]

 

At another point in my life, I was involved in Army operational testing for new equipment. That's not a LAMP, that's a basis of understanding. This, once again, is complicated. Most all of the soft skinned vehicles in the inventory were bid on specifications made as much as 20 years ago, with an expected life cycle for the equipment. At the time these vehicles were brought on board, we were facing a very set piece conventional threat with conventional tactics in mind, facing primarily the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent, North Korea, who employs Soviet style doctrine and tactics. These vehicles were never intended at the time to have to endure much in the way of direct small weapons fire. For the type of lethal threat they faced, no amount of armor was going to protect them, as someone making it to the combat element trains had enough fire power to negate any individual vehicle protections. Supply convoy protection comes from convoy disciplines pre-learned and rehearsed and specific convoy orders given every mission.

 

Enter the modern age of US televised warfare.

 

DISCLAIMER! I'm not bashing Clinton, here, but trying to illustrate the change.

 

Throughout the 90's, it was pretty much governmental policy that if military action were taken, there would be no US blood and gore. That is what we became accustomed to. For example, the flight profiles for the attack missions flown over Bosnia were actually tactically quite unsound, and resulted in a lot of collateral damages that could have been avoided had the Fox 15s and the like been allowed to do what they did best. With the two that DID get hit, the pilot of one was paraded as a hero through Larry King and Peter Jennings because he got shot down. The other one got hit in the engines and said "Oil pressure's gone, I'm a glider fellas" and since he didn't want attention drawn to himself he was forgotten.

 

The sad truth is, right or wrong in ones beliefs as to the purpose-people die in a real war. This is a real war.

 

If you are a combat commander, I'm talking the planning part, you execute your mission with the success of the mission foremost in your mind. You don't undertake missions that result in unacceptable losses. This isn't WW1 or even WW2 anymore. You also realize that you WILL have losses. The way the system works, it's up to the field leadership to mitigate those losses based on their level of skill and training.

 

No one, when the cargo trucks and fuel tankers were designed and fielded, had any idea they should be 100 percent bulletproof. Nor, is there a reason for them to be. There is a tremedous amount of effort being directed towards making things safer for those soldiers, they just don't see it, and not every Tom, Dick and Harry has the industrial capacity to make everyone happy. One may have a 40 or 50 vehicle convoy, with security. A command detonated IED takes out one truck, if they have their march discipline right. Two, if they don't. 4 GI's died in Iraq today. 194, in the same convoy, didn't.

 

Troops using field expedient armor has been around as long as their have been means to blow stuff up. A couple of layers of sandbags used to defeat AV mines. Troops have been doing that forever. It's the attitudes that have changed. I'm not talking theirs, I'm talking the overall mindset that drives it.

 

It's not a video game.

[_BiB_]

And the flip-side of that is: people who know nothing about it believe every vehicle should be an armored combat vehicle...but God forbid we should cut any other programs to pay for it. 

152559[/snapback]

 

I should have made my comments much more succinct.

[VABills]

 

Troops using field expedient armor has been around as long as their have been means to blow stuff up. A couple of layers of sandbags used to defeat AV mines. Troops have been doing that forever. It's the attitudes that have changed. I'm not talking theirs, I'm talking the overall mindset that drives it.

 

152588[/snapback]

 

sh-- you mean the sandbags aren't standard equipment. Hell we drove with them in jeeps in Okinawa, and at Quantico. Seem liked it was standard practice, combat or not to have them in the jeep, and later the humvees.

 

Of course a different mindset I guess. We knew we weren't rolling over mines in the NTA or in Triangle, VA, but sometimes you just practice with things and keep them that way, because it feels right.

 

Of course we also hated wearing body armor, and even in some of the live fire exercises I was in, with real live rounds zinging by, I refused to wear mine. Most other folks did to. Real hard to climb a wall or get into a second floor of a building weighed down with equipment alone, try adding 25 pounds of body armor.

[Alaska Darin]

sh-- you mean the sandbags aren't standard equipment.  Hell we drove with them in jeeps in Okinawa, and at Quantico.  Seem liked it was standard practice, combat or not to have them in the jeep, and later the humvees. 

 

Of course a different mindset I guess.  We knew we weren't rolling over mines in the NTA or in Triangle, VA, but sometimes you just practice with things and keep them that way, because it feels right. 

 

Of course we also hated wearing body armor, and even in some of the live fire exercises I was in, with real live rounds zinging by, I refused to wear mine.  Most other folks did to.  Real hard to climb a wall or get into a second floor of a building weighed down with equipment alone, try adding 25 pounds of body armor.

152714[/snapback]

I hate body armor. Despise it. Even worse was that ridiculous and completely ineffective flak jacket.

[_BiB_]

Azzholes. I was trying to make a point. Forgot where I was.

 

My bad.

[VABills]

I hate body armor.  Despise it.  Even worse was that ridiculous and completely ineffective flak jacket.

152720[/snapback]

Yeah well I never used the body armor, my bad. It was the flak jacket. Excuse me. Either way, neither was worth the extra weight in my humble opinion.

[UConn James]

Thanks for your serious input, BiB.

 

My heartrate increases a little too much over this issue at times. I personally know 15 people who are over there right now. This most certainly isn't a video game to me. It burns me up that they don't have the protection and supplies needed. How is it that this has been an issue for well over a year and the fact that the commander of this unit reports that 95 percent of the 400 vehicles they have are not properly armored (BTW, this is not an issue of armoring vehicles that don't need/shouldn't be armored) is somehow news to Rumsfeld? The indignation and muted outrage that was in that question yesterday reflected this frustration.

 

My brother can escort Bush's white F-250 (which, I don't need to get into in this forum but the retrofitting on it...) in "his" C-130 to Crawford in three hours for 4-wheeling with Vlad, and we can't get armor to the guys in the sand. What happened to the days when FDR had the lights turned off in the White House to conserve electricity (I know, it had the dual use of not giving potential kamakazis a lit target...). Sacrifice? What's that?

 

But no, we needed an $89B tax cut. I don't have a problem with the govt spending money --- when it's spent wisely and with a practical goal, i.e. vehicle armor. Whether it's the govt, consumers or industry spending the money, the GNP is the same. C+G+I+NX=GDP. Of late, Consumer and investment spending is down b/c it's being saved or used to pay debt. In a capitalist system these are the areas we most value and produce the best results. But in the absence of that, gov't or exports have to take up the slack to keep the GDP from going down the commodus. We've had record trade defecits for the past umpteen years, so what does that leave to put money into our economy? Better to have it go where it's needed NOW until C and I recover and start spending than to languish in a trust fund goody-goody's account so they don't have to work a day in their lives.

[_BiB_]

The problem is primarily availability. There is only so much industrial capacity that specializes in producing the type of armor required. Steel plates hung over doors is not going to defeat an RPG, which is designed to penetrate that very thing. It is being produced and sent as fast as it can be made-there just aren't that many people making it. As I posted above, cargo trucks weren't designed with the current Iraq scenario in mind. Retrofitting armor when the production capacity is geared to providing armor to Combat vehicles will take time.

 

There is also a Rosen program going on with IED detection and defeat. I don't care what you hang on the side of a fuel truck, 200 pounds of RDX going off 3 feet away is going to make it turn into tiny pieces.

 

Still, there are hazards and always will be. No one wants to go over there and get hurt, but it's going to happen to some.

[_BiB_]

Damn. We can't even type c.r.a.s.h?

[Alaska Darin]

Damn. We can't even type c.r.a.s.h?

153307[/snapback]

Nope.

[GG]

I hate body armor.  Despise it.  Even worse was that ridiculous and completely ineffective flak jacket.

152720[/snapback]

 

I think you're more concerned about its color.

[VABills]

I think you're more concerned about its color.

153579[/snapback]

What they aren't making baby blue flak jackets, to go with those fasionable BDU's?

[Alaska Darin]

That joke just never gets old.

[VABills]

:I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

[DC Tom]

What they aren't making baby blue flak jackets, to go with those fasionable BDU's? 

153592[/snapback]

 

Absolutely shameful! Bush and his cronies can give kickbacks to their oil buddies, even invade a country for them, but they can't spare any money to properly and fashionably protect our kids in the Air Force! The Boy Scouts have better leadership than the US Military...even though I've never been in the Military or the Boy Scouts! That our air force isn't properly supplied with correctly colored armor burns me up. How can Rumsfeld claim not to be aware of this?

[nobody]

And the flip-side of that is: people who know nothing about it believe every vehicle should be an armored combat vehicle...but God forbid we should cut any other programs to pay for it.  

152559[/snapback]

 

 

You don't have to cut any programs - just keep increasing the national debt.