Rumsfeld and Soldiers have a discussion

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news04/120..._rumsfeld.shtml

 

Troops gripe to top visitor

 

The secretary of Defense appeared in Kuwait to give a speech of encouragement to the soldiers, and he left with an earful of complaints.

 

By Robert Burns

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait - After delivering a pep talk designed to energize troops preparing to head for Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld got a little talking to himself from disgruntled soldiers today.

 

In his prepared remarks, Rumsfeld urged the troops - mostly National Guard and Reserve soldiers - to discount critics of the war in Iraq and to help "win the test of wills" with the insurgents.

 

Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own - not of the war itself but of how it is being fought.

 

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, which is made up mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly two years after the war started.

 

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

 

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

 

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson said after asking again.

 

Rumsfeld replied that, "You go to war with the Army you have," not the one you might want, and that the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

 

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.

 

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

 

Asked later about Wilson's complaint, the deputy commanding general of U.S. forces in Kuwait, Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, said in an interview that as far as he knows, every vehicle that is deploying to Iraq from Camp Buehring in Kuwait has at least "Level 3" armor. That means it at least has locally fabricated armor for its side panels, but not necessarily bulletproof windows or protection against explosions that penetrate the floorboard.

 

Speer said he was not aware that soldiers were searching landfills for scrap metal and used bulletproof glass.

 

During the question-and-answer session, another soldier complained that active-duty Army units sometimes get priority over the National Guard and Reserve units for the best equipment in Iraq.

 

"There's no way I can prove it, but I am told the Army is breaking its neck to see that there is not" discrimination against the National Guard and Reserve in terms of providing equipment, Rumsfeld said.

 

Yet another soldier asked, without putting it to Rumsfeld as a direct criticism, how much longer the Army will continue using its "stop loss" power to prevent soldiers from leaving the service who are otherwise eligible to retire or quit.

 

Rumsfeld said that this condition was simply a fact of life for soldiers at time of war.

 

"It's basically a sound principle; it's nothing new, it's been well understood" by soldiers, he said. "My guess is it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used."

 

In his opening remarks, Rumsfeld stressed that soldiers who are heading to Iraq should not believe those who say the insurgents cannot be defeated or who otherwise doubt the will of the military to win.

 

"They say we can't prevail. I see that violence and say we must win," Rumsfeld said.

 

Simmah down nuh!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wow. Soldiers complaining about Big Government inefficiency. I'm shocked. How am I supposed to feel about this? Rush hasn't brought it up yet...

[Guest Cerebus]

Here is an excellent post from Intel Dump about this:

 

But one area where change barely happened at all was in the area of equipment. In the Army's first digitized division, used as a test-bed for all sorts of organizational and technological innovations, little thought was given to the way that an asymmetric, noncontiguous, nonlinear battlefield would interact with poorly-armored, poorly-protected, and under-equipped support forces. Despite planner predictions that tomorrow's forces would move farther and faster than any in history (see, e.g., the 3rd ID march on Baghdad), their support units received no additional armor or armament with which to deal with the inevitable bypassed forces, insurgents, or myriad threats they would face as they rushed to keep up with the tanks and infantry.

 

Now look, you can't armor an entire fuel truck or ammo truck. Putting that much armor would make the truck so heavy that would drive even slower than it does, or drink so much fuel that it wouldn't be worth it to drive it up. But you can build an armor "bathtub" for the crew, and you can put ring mounts on these trucks (many already have them) with .50 caliber machine guns or Mk19 grenade machine guns in order unleash a can of whoopa** on any insurgent who tries to ambush them. And once you've turned every U.S. Army convoy into a bristling hornet's nest of heavy weaponry, with armor bathtubs to protect the crews from all but a direct IED hit, then you have effectively defeated two of the insurgents' best weapons -- the direct-fire ambush and the IED. You may still lose a few trucks and shipments, but you save your crews and you probably kill a few more insurgents too.

 

If this is so simple, why has the Army not done this yet? I could give you a thousand answers for that one, but the biggest one is this: inertia. The Army's procurement's process work at something slower than glacial pace; federal regulations sharply limit what the Army can do with simplified acquisition authority and off-the-shelf acquisition authority. Every new program must go through a series of tests and procurement hurdles designed to ensure that our warfighters get only the best equipment -- but these obstacles have a downside. Many of the key systems today's soldiers use were thought of during the 1970s, procured during the 1980s, and fielded during the 1990s (with some notable exceptions). So even some really bright planners had looked at Mogadishu and Bosnia and come to these conclusions, it would take the Army a while to turn its procurement ship around to start doing the right thing. On top of the significant inertia problem, you also have a lot of parochialism and institutional conservatism, which complicate any change in the Army -- particularly one which would make support units look and fight more like combat units. And finally, there is a great deal of friction in the process, especially since procurement programs of this size would require Congressional approval.

 

As usual, big weapon systems and bases dominate military spending in Congress while training, doctrine, equipment, pay, and veterens benefits gets the short stick.

[Guest CronoT]

Wow. Soldiers complaining about Big Government inefficiency. I'm shocked. How am I supposed to feel about this? Rush hasn't brought it up yet...

He hasn't reported on it yet, because he lives up the GOP Chairman's ass; and, the GOP Chairman isn't going to shit in his own backyard, aka the Current Administration.

[NoCalMike 0]

..but..the soliders LOVE this administration!?!

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

You're actually looking at something that doesn't technically require Congress' appropriations of spending in order to wind up with better equipment. It's supposed to fall to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

But hey, when you can place the blame somewhere else, that's just all fun and games.

 

Now, as for soldiers being pissed off about their shoddy equipment, and Rumsfeld essentially no-selling it: it really doesn't surprise me. American forces are supposed to have the best equipment, best protection, best training, and be the most efficient. Now, this isn't to say we still don't have the best; it just seems like there is a hell of a lot less of it going around than needed. Rumsfeld looks like he's just trying to draw criticism to his side of the Administration instead of the President, who with his war powers, could merely demand for more equipment to be sent.

 

It's nice to be Commander-in-Chief.

 

--Ryan

...a little pissed off about this, but can't say I'm surprised...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Wow. Soldiers complaining about Big Government inefficiency. I'm shocked. How am I supposed to feel about this? Rush hasn't brought it up yet...

Let me know when you get the fair and balanced, no-spin breakdown of it all. I've got $5 on it being something about how these people need to shut up and go back to dying for Americans who won't serve, like Bill O.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Eh, I haven't heard much about this, but I didn't watch much of the news cycle the past few days. Mostly what I heard was that the soldiers had a point, and something was probably going to be done about it.

 

Nothing about telling them to shut up and go back to dying, so I guess you owe me $5. You can paypal it to me at fww76 (Or is it fww1976? I'll have to double-check...)

[Guest Cerebus]

BTW, the guy who asked this hadn't even been to Iraq yet.

 

Also, I have to give Rummy credit for fielding questions without having them screened.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

BTW, the guy who asked this hadn't even been to Iraq yet.

Interesting. Did Big Media mention that? I know America's source for Fair and Balanced News didn't say anything regarding that matter...

[Guest Cerebus]

Drudge is claiming that an embeded reporter asked soldiers to ask those particular questions.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yeah, I heard about this an hour or so ago...

[bobobrazil1984 0]

this issue has been around for months now. Why has it taken this long for somebody to ask Rumsfeld about it??

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Drudge is claiming that an embeded reporter asked soldiers to ask those particular questions.

Does this matter?

 

It's not like the reporter held the guys at gunpoint and made them ask the questions.

 

Or held the crowd at gunpoint and made them cheer the questions...

[NoCalMike 0]

If I understand correctly, wasn't this group of Soldiers some platoons that were about to be deployed to Iraq, hence they were voicing their concerns for the situation over there and how the soldiers will be under-funded and under-equipped?

[mister foozel 0]

jon stewart ripped this to shreds on The Daily Show

 

it would convince anyone who saw it that Rumsfeld is a total dolt

[Jobber of the Week 0]

BTW, the guy who asked this hadn't even been to Iraq yet.

Interesting. Did Big Media mention that? I know America's source for Fair and Balanced News didn't say anything regarding that matter...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/09/internat...09rumsfeld.html

 

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld came here Wednesday to lead a morale-lifting town hall discussion with Iraq-bound troops.

 

Specialist Thomas Wilson, a scout with a Tennessee National Guard unit set to roll into Iraq this week, was the first to step forward, saying that soldiers had had to scrounge through landfills here for pieces of rusty scrap metal

 

This comes from your least favorite newspaper, of all places. Maybe you stop watching America's #1 Choice For Fair And Balanced News and you'll get a clearer picture.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

This comes from your least favorite newspaper, of all places. Maybe you stop watching America's #1 Choice For Fair And Balanced News and you'll get a clearer picture.

I haven't heard much about this, but I didn't watch much of the news cycle the past few days.

 

Hippie (hands Jobber a bottle of Windex, after I get done using it...)

[Vern Gagne 0]

jon stewart ripped this to shreds on The Daily Show

 

it would convince anyone who saw it that Rumsfeld is a total dolt

Jon Stewart stopped being relevent when he became the Media Golden Boy.

 

People just lose something when the media discovers them. They lost aren't the same as before.

[Vern Gagne 0]

This comes from your least favorite newspaper, of all places. Maybe you stop watching America's #1 Choice For Fair And Balanced News and you'll get a clearer picture.

The picture from the New York Times? No way.

[Guest sek69]

All this talk of the media reminds me of what that guy who wrote the book on the Jason Blair scandals said on the Daily Show: People don't watch the news to be informed anymore, they watch to get their point of view reinforced. If they happen to hear something that doesn't mesh with their beliefs, then that must mean that source is biased.

 

Considering conservatives are having to deal with the news contradicting what talk radio/Fox/Bush apologists are saying at an alarming rate, it's no wonder a lot of them have walled themselves in a place where only far-right news outlets can be trusted to not rock their worldview.

[Justice 0]

All this talk of the media reminds me of what that guy who wrote the book on the Jason Blair scandals said on the Daily Show: People don't watch the news to be informed anymore, they watch to get their point of view reinforced. If they happen to hear something that doesn't mesh with their beliefs, then that must mean that source is biased.

 

Considering conservatives are having to deal with the news contradicting what talk radio/Fox/Bush apologists are saying at an alarming rate, it's no wonder a lot of them have walled themselves in a place where only far-right news outlets can be trusted to not rock their worldview.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Guest sek69]

Whatever, the amount of times pro-Bush media either misreports or flat out makes shit up is staggering, and to think some people still believe its the only way to get accurate news is mind boggling.

 

Does it happen both ways? Sure it does. I'm sure any good Bushmaniac is ready to throw the CBS memo thing up as proof. The problem is, there's scores more examples of right-wing inaccuracy that is never brought to light.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

People don't watch the news to be informed anymore, they watch to get their point of view reinforced.

I agree with that to the extent that some people do that, and I'm sure it's the vast minority.

 

Considering conservatives are having to deal with the news contradicting what talk radio/Fox/Bush apologists are saying at an alarming rate, it's no wonder a lot of them have walled themselves in a place where only far-right news outlets can be trusted to not rock their worldview.

 

Actually, I would say it's the other way around. For the longest time Big Media had control of the news filtering, but now, within the past 15 or so years, they have been losing influence at an alarming rate.

 

Oh, and welcome aboard, btw. I see you are newbie...

[Guest sek69]

I agree with that to the extent that some people do that, and I'm sure it's the vast minority.

 

Listen to talk radio some times, any show with a political slant is going to have 99.9% of the callers state how much they agree with the host and the occaisonal opposition caller used as a punching bag by the host to show how correct his side of the argument is. There's a reason Rush fans are called "dittoheads".

 

 

Actually, I would say it's the other way around. For the longest time Big Media had control of the news filtering, but now, within the past 15 or so years, they have been losing influence at an alarming rate.

 

 

I stand by my statement. The more troops that die in Iraq, the more the right wing media tells us the war is going well, and the more they view anyone who says otherwise is an America-hatin' pinko fag.

 

Oh, and welcome aboard, btw. I see you are newbie...

 

 

Actually I'm a quasi-newb, I've been around since the Smarks EZboard but I spent most of my time at WDI and SNKT after they started. Apparently TSM did an upgrade of some sorts and my old account has ceased to be, so I'm a technical newbie. I'm kind of surprised my "fan club" hasn't done a run in yet to make posts about what a dick I am yet.

[Guest CronoT]

I know what you mean, Sek. I used to listen to talk radio a lot, but now I don't. The reason can be summed up in one name: G. Gordon Liddy. I used to listen to his show all the time, right before I switched to NPR: All Things Considered.

 

Now, my local radio station that airs talk radio replaced him with Sean Hannity. That guy is such a right-wing tool, it's not funny. The only other guy that's still on in my area that's not a total GOP attack dog is Michael Reagan; Ronald Reagan's son.

 

The point of talk radio nowadays is no longer to report the news. It's to skew the news to prove your political point-of-view, and to denigrate the other side. It's rather sickening, really.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Listen to talk radio some times

 

I do. Eight hours per day when I'm at work, plus an extra two for the commute.

 

any show with a political slant is going to have 99.9% of the callers state how much they agree with the host

 

Wrong.

 

and the occaisonal opposition caller used as a punching bag by the host to show how correct his side of the argument is.

 

You have a point with this. My personal favorite tactic is the "Oops, we're out of time," or "We're coming up on a hard break."

 

There's a reason Rush fans are called "dittoheads"

 

And what's the reason?

 

I stand by my statement. The more troops that die in Iraq, the more the right wing media tells us the war is going well, and the more they view anyone who says otherwise is an America-hatin' pinko fag.

 

 

We've already done that topic 100 times before.

 

And Crono -- what didn't you like about Liddy? I listened to him a bit while living in Sappy Valley. He didn't do much for me...

[Guest Cerebus]

I stand by my statement. The more troops that die in Iraq, the more the right wing media tells us the war is going well, and the more they view anyone who says otherwise is an America-hatin' pinko fag.

 

[NoCalMike 0]

Michael Savage is the worst at debating callers because his production staff is so sloppy that you can actually hear the caller between the mute button pushing, which proves he just mutes his callers. Of course I am sure every radio show host does this anyway.

[Guest CronoT]

And Crono -- what didn't you like about Liddy? I listened to him a bit while living in Sappy Valley. He didn't do much for me...

You're mistaken there, KKK. Except for when the times that his producers made him do massive Clinton bashing, I found G. Gordon Liddy to be very fair-minded, very eloquent, and also very civil.

 

Whereas Bill O'Reilly would verbally bitchslap someone who didn't agree with his agenda of the day, Liddy would usually be patient with the people who disagreed with him. He'd explain his position, then let the caller explain his or her position, and then he'd try to come to an understanding. Whenever he couldn't he would simply say "Well, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree.", and that was it. No brow beating or other stupid shenenigans.