Casey D Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 How can that be? We failed to secure these explosives when we went into Iraq, and the terrorists have been looting the site for over a year. Indeed, reports indicate that we still do not have control over the munitions site, and looting was still going on yesterday. Is this how we are fighting the war in Iraq, the war on terror? This is scary stuff, I hope there is some explanation that this is no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 It's no big deal because they don't have an answer for it. "Incompetence" as a main reason comes to mind ... not of our soldiers but of the people giving the orders, or not, based on intelligence they have...or don't. After all if we really invaded Iraq to look for WMDs, we should have been prepared to do something when we found them. Since we were obviously unprepared to secure them that makes me wonder if they ever REALLY believed they were there in the first place? Hmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 How can that be? We failed to secure these explosives when we went into Iraq, and the terrorists have been looting the site for over a year. Indeed, reports indicate that we still do not have control over the munitions site, and looting was still going on yesterday. Is this how we are fighting the war in Iraq, the war on terror? This is scary stuff, I hope there is some explanation that this is no big deal. 84432[/snapback] Lets wait for the final report pal. Looks like political timing to me. These guys hate GWB, and I have no doubt that they want nothing more then a patsie to work with like kerry instead of someone with a set of balls. I think you will see some adjustment to this story in the coming days. Not that the media will give it any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 Lets wait for the final report pal. Looks like political timing to me. These guys hate GWB, and I have no doubt that they want nothing more then a patsie to work with like kerry instead of someone with a set of balls. I think you will see some adjustment to this story in the coming days. Not that the media will give it any time. 84806[/snapback] Perhaps you are right. How would feel, however, if the story proves accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I have a very hard time blaming the administration when they are probably 10 managerial levels removed from the ground. Looks to me like yet another bout of "military incompetance", which will now be trumpeted as the rule rather than the exception. Maybe more money and another government program will solve the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Is this not a story that was out a while ago? I wonder why the NY times put it out again....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 I have a very hard time blaming the administration when they are probably 10 managerial levels removed from the ground. Looks to me like yet another bout of "military incompetance", which will now be trumpeted as the rule rather than the exception. Maybe more money and another government program will solve the problem. 84834[/snapback] Do you think no one at the White House thought about(or knew about) this major munitions dump for 2 years? Gee, that concerns me too, since the point of invasion was to secure weapons of mass destruction--I guess I would have thought smething like this might have been on their radar screen. But I suppose you are right, this is no big deal, and the worst thing we could do is blame the Administration or anyone else for providing terrorists with 380 tons of high grade explosives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 Is this not a story that was out a while ago? I wonder why the NY times put it out again....... 84851[/snapback] No, this is new. It's all over the news, not just the liberal Times. I'm sure, however, we'll get a good explanation from the Administration later today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Do you think no one at the White House thought about(or knew about) this major munitions dump for 2 years? Gee, that concerns me too, since the point of invasion was to secure weapons of mass destruction--I guess I would have thought smething like this might have been on their radar screen. But I suppose you are right, this is no big deal, and the worst thing we could do is blame the Administration or anyone else for providing terrorists with 380 tons of high grade explosives. 84855[/snapback] Probably not. Politicians aren't career military people (for the most part). They don't know stevestojan about operations, which shows itself far too many times for comfort. I blame the bloated bureaucracy of the Pentagon. Once again building the empire gets in the way of actually getting the job done. That ain't going to change anytime soon, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. Especially as long as people feel the need to have the government play to roll of parent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 No, this is new. It's all over the news, not just the liberal Times. I'm sure, however, we'll get a good explanation from the Administration later today. 84862[/snapback] No its not new: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war. There's more info out there if you care to find it, again, its not new news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 Probably not. Politicians aren't career military people (for the most part). They don't know stevestojan about operations, which shows itself far too many times for comfort. I blame the bloated bureaucracy of the Pentagon. Once again building the empire gets in the way of actually getting the job done. That ain't going to change anytime soon, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. Especially as long as people feel the need to have the government play to roll of parent. 84867[/snapback] I'm not sure I understand how some people's desire to have "the government play to roll[sic] of parent" has anything to do with securing a major munitions dump in Iraq that was monitored by the UN pre-invasion, but if you think this is no big deal, then I'll accept that I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 No its not new:There's more info out there if you care to find it, again, its not new news. 84882[/snapback] I'm not sure I follow--they warned us about it before the invasion, but we did nothing to secure it? I mean, it isn't new news that terrorists now have their hands on 380 tons of virulent explosives? Are you saying we have known about this for a while, because I guess I missed it. Looks like alot of other folks missed it too, given that it is the news story of the day. If it's old stuff, I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I'm not sure I understand how some people's desire to have "the government play to roll[sic] of parent" has anything to do with securing a major munitions dump in Iraq that was monitored by the UN pre-invasion, but if you think this is no big deal, then I'll accept that I guess. 84915[/snapback] I never said it was "no big deal". I simply am not willing to push the blame to the administrative level of the government when the Pentagon is clearly in charge of ground operations and security in Iraq. Because the government is expected to perform so many different rolls, it ensures they will do none of them well. The same thing happens when businesses branch out from their core competancies into new areas. The core generally takes a hit in quality and never recovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 I never said it was "no big deal". I simply am not willing to push the blame to the administrative level of the government when the Pentagon is clearly in charge of ground operations and security in Iraq. Because the government is expected to perform so many different rolls, it ensures they will do none of them well. The same thing happens when businesses branch out from their core competancies into new areas. The core generally takes a hit in quality and never recovers. 84929[/snapback] Just fyi, I think you mean "roles" not "rolls" Are you suggesting that the Army--which would seem to be a core govenrmental function, if I follow you-- has taken "a hit in quality" because there is a Department of Education, Homeland Security, and EPA, to name a few newer governmental agencies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Just fyi, I think you mean "roles" not "rolls" Are you suggesting that the Army--which would seem to be a core govenrmental function, if I follow you-- has taken "a hit in quality" because there is a Department of Education, Homeland Security, and EPA, to name a few newer governmental agencies? 84955[/snapback] I do not think that he is implying that because of those agencies, the Pentagon has taken "a hit in quality." I think he is trying to say that the Pentagon suffers the same failings as those agencies, which is inefficiency due to bloated bureaucracies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I never said it was "no big deal". I simply am not willing to push the blame to the administrative level of the government when the Pentagon is clearly in charge of ground operations and security in Iraq. Because the government is expected to perform so many different rolls, it ensures they will do none of them well. The same thing happens when businesses branch out from their core competancies into new areas. The core generally takes a hit in quality and never recovers. 84929[/snapback] I agree with you, but GWB took on the job as prez knowing he'd be ultimately responsible for the workings of the govermnet. So blaming pentagon burocracy is blaming Bush. He's the CIO of the country, and if there's anyone who would see that problems at the pentagon hurt our country, it would be him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 I do not think that he is implying that because of those agencies, the Pentagon has taken "a hit in quality." I think he is trying to say that the Pentagon suffers the same failings as those agencies, which is inefficiency due to bloated bureaucracies. 84967[/snapback] Oh OK---it was the branching out part that confused me. But I must say, bloated bureaucracies or not, securing 380 tons of some of the world's most powerful conventional explosives seems like a pretty obvious thing to do. That is especially true since the whole war was predicated on securing WMD. I mean, if we had found Sarin gas or nuclear devices, would we have left them unsecured. I guess this seems to me--and I'm no expert-- a major error. And one that has left the world in much greater danger, given that just one pound of this stuff brought down Pan Am 103. Multiply that amount by 760,000 times, and knowing it is strong enough to detonate a nuclear device---gosh, you would thing we were more competent than that to just leave it lying around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I will try to find out the specifics of this situation. If I can, I will post what I find out-idea being facts are better than speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted October 25, 2004 Author Share Posted October 25, 2004 No its not new:There's more info out there if you care to find it, again, its not new news. 84882[/snapback] Reading more about this, the administration was not even informed until 10/15/04 that the explosives were missing, based on news accounts. So if this old news, it only indicates you are more in the loop on this than the WH, which I hope is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 I agree with you, but GWB took on the job as prez knowing he'd be ultimately responsible for the workings of the govermnet. So blaming pentagon burocracy is blaming Bush. He's the CIO of the country, and if there's anyone who would see that problems at the pentagon hurt our country, it would be him. 85003[/snapback] The "blame game" fixes nothing and the Pentagon Bureaucracy has been that way for 60 years. It has morphed into something that no President can control without complete support of the Legislature. That isn't going to happen as long as their are voter's jobs and gazillions of dollars involved. If we spent half as much time on the root causes of issues that we do on finding someone to point the finger at, we'd be on the right track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts