Underarmored in Iraq Posted by Michael Signer

From Judd Legum at ThinkProgress, an upsetting disclosure:  the Marines killed on Wednesday were traveling in "lightly armored" Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAAV's).  While AAAV's are more heavily armored than the notoriously underarmed Humvee's, they're still not secure enough.

The Marines are doing the best with what they have.  But it's not clear why the upper echelons of our military command -- beginning with Donald Rumsfeld (he of the deathless phrase, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," and, of course, the President -- haven't done a better job of equipping all of our fighting force in Iraq with superior vehicles for the threat of roadside bombs.

The problem is systemic, not episodic.  The Marine Corps Inspector General recently concluded that the Marines' preparation is in desperate straits.  As the Boston Globe reported:

Marine Corps units fighting in some of the most dangerous terrain in Iraq don't have enough weapons, communications gear, or properly outfitted vehicles, according to an investigation by the Marine Corps' inspector general provided to Congress yesterday.

The report . . . says the estimated 30,000 Marines in Iraq need twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to operate in a region the size of Utah.

I hope that the President ponders this during his 5-week vacation in Crawford.  I hope he thinks about armor on the Humvee undercarriages when he's clearing brush for the cameras.  I hope when he throws a bone to Barnie, he considers how a bomb rips through the side panels.  When he's grilling by the pool, I hope he wonders about how the torn flesh and broken limbs stems directly from his failure to plan the war's aftermath, and to equip our troops for the mission he sent them on.

Comments

[Lane Brody]

Mr Signer the problem with citing newspaper articles as primary source information on the US Military is that very few reporters have the slightest idea what they are talking about in this regard. The entire lack of armored vehicles "story" has never been prefaced by the little bit of reality that abscent a few hundred armored humvees all the US Army soft skinned trucks were exactly that- non armored trucks. One can of course monday morning quarterback that the Army could have created the tens of thousands or armored vehicles it now has a bit faster but frankly what's the point? Another little detail that is missed is that shortly after one adds a ton of armor to a humvee said humvee is destroyed as the suspension just dies. Moreover, outside of a combat zone having an armored truck is far more expensive than a non armored truck for a whole host of reasons. Long term the Army is looking at new purpose built trucks with a beefy enough suspension to handle an armor kit in war but otherwise not have the armor installed to save wear and tear.

The USMC's primary job is to sieze an area near the coast to later be exploited by the Army. Hence they have amphibious assault vehicles that can swim in the ocean and then operate ashore. Doing both requires design compromises. You can't put all the armor one might wish on such a vehicle. The current AAV's the USMC operates are old and currently being replaced by a new vehicle that is much superior but it too might have survived the IED in question.

The reason you go to war with the army you have is due to the years it takes to get major procurement programs throught both the Pentagon and Congress. The above mentioned new USMC AAV program has been around for a very long time. Replacing the Army's current fleet of trucks is going to to take decades- literally. The average age of combat aircraft in the US Military is approaching 30 years. Replacing planes, trucks, ships, etc. takes a very long time.

The USMC by design is a medium weight expeditionary force. They are doing a superb job at a difficult mission in Iraq they are really not supposed to be doing. They have bought some South African designed mine resistant armored vehicles but those things are not a panacea and are extremely vulnerable to other things.

Frankly the whole US Military has done such a good job at dealing with the primary percieved weapons such as the RPG that IED are just about the only effective weapon the insurgent/thug/terrorists have. It's 100% impossible to stop all IED's. Even the most heavily armored main battle tank in the world is toast to a command detonated 500lb bomb.

To blame the President for lack of armored humvees is to fundamentally misunderstand the entire US Military structure. One can blame him for the war and ultimately for all the failures that have happened since. One can oppose the war and blame the President for every death. But blaming the President for lack of armored trucks is obscene as the Army has never had a policy of using many armored trucks since the invention of the truck.

Frankly, it was and is a far more significant problem that the US Army replaced it's M3 Bradley's with humvees in the first place. The entire long proven notion of fighting for information has gone while paradoxically the Army is creating small brigades even more dependant upon information to even operate in combat. There's a story for you. It will not get written because there are few, if any, reporters that understand modern combined arms warfare and the historical importance of recon units and thus they are not mentally equipped to question policy. Thus all we get are stories about what the Pentagon should have bought more of or what they should have bought faster. Contrast this with the normal press story about the Military which is about "waste".

Frankly the next war might see all the mine resistant armored trucks in the new mini-brigade (UA) US Army being used as actual combat vehicles, which they are not and by definition never can be, and thousands of young men dying because the lesson we drew from this war was we needed armored humvees. What we need is more armor, including big heavy tanks and IFV's. There is no real replacement for our tanks- where's the story about that? Where's the press reporting the US Army replacing tanks with FCS is dangerous?

Lane Brody

[rich]

One other note - the most notable recent death count for the Marines came in a 31 ton truck. Which got blown up and over. The charge used would, perhaps, have destroyed an M1A tank. Not many vehicles on earth would have survived.

Just a thought.

[save_the_rusthbelt]

We have plenty of armor - sitting in Texas.

The concept of an "armored Hum-Vee" is just incredibly dumb. We learned all about Hum-Vees as targets in Somalia (Blackhawk Down).

We are misusing the Marines.

We are misusing the Guard and Reserves.

We have turned the Army infantry in MPs, the engineers into infantrymen, etc.

Time to fire Rumsfeld and bring the troops home - we are just delaying an inevitable civil war.

[VJ]

Some of the comments here are a recapitulation of what I had to say in an earlier post [Peacegaming in CA] of a day or so ago. The DailyKos had plenty of material on the same systemic failures of strategy, supply, equipment, planning and tactics. But make no mistake about it. If we had fought WW11 with just 'the Army we had' on Dec. 7, 1941, we would have lost, and badly. We had no real modern tanks, but inside of 2 years, we built 1000's of moderately effective Shermans. Not the best, not the worst, but good enough to get the job done. The most famous story from that war is that of the need for long range fighter escorts for bombing missions over Europe & Japan. A whole generation of fighters was produced inside of 3 years, and the P-51 Mustang was designed and into production inside of 60 days. It was one of the best fighters of the war, helping the final push into the heart of Germany with bombers that made certain that the production capacity of Germany could never expand and was always 'under fire' and damaged & constrained.

Our Real problem here is that the war has NEVER been a high priority to our Dear Leader. Sure, he likes to use the war and it's nifty rhetorical effects to the distinct advantage of the Repug. party, but other than that, the leadership of the party has always been quite clear about it's real priorities. It's been tax cuts first, and corporate welfare for cronies well before any consideration of troops in the field. You could look it up, Tom Delay said it explictly many times. Ditto for VA funding which has been threatened with cuts every year Bush has been in office. They are still incapable of handling the surge in wounded Vets coming back.

So while the caveats that Lance mentions above are no doubt mostly true, by now they are pretty much besides the point. We invented machinery to get the job done in every war, we have been tragically slow and tardy in this one due to the fact that Bush never really wanted to fight it. From Rummy on down they were in deep denial up until just a year ago on even the existence of an 'insurgency'. They did not want reporters to even dare speak it's name. Silly, right?

Silly has lousy and deadly consequences in war. Fantasy and hope are tested hard on battlefields and often found wanting, as they have now. The very fact that Bush and Rummy et. al. had to be essentially shamed into providing up armored Humvees JUST LAST YEAR when caught out by local scavenging Marines (Still scavenging BTW), is a testament and an object lessson on how they wanted to fight this war: on the cheap, and hidden away from the eyes of the American public. Well they msotly got their wish, and by my count 40% of the casualties of the last years worth of IED's are due to their stubborn refusal to look at the conditions on the ground and Adapt to protect our troops. Ditto for the egregious neglect in NOT providing body armor for EVERY damn soldier over there from word 'go'. That was unconscionable, a crime really. And it barely made a ripple bacause it was not seriously covered by the media. They were encouraged to always think of the war as 'last year's story', 'not serious', as in 'major combat operations ended'.

MOST of the troops need 'supplemental' equipment that needs to be shipped from home. Body armor that needed to be bought by mom & dad on their pension money. Shoes and boots to replace the ones that give out prematurely in the desert heat. Dozens of items that the Army never thinks about, let alone the damn missing heavy armor and transport, which is Still totally MIA.

So now that the war is lost, perhaps we might get around to thinking about what needs to be done to protect our sons and daughters, right? Well some folks won't even own up to that. The conditions on the ground dictated a different strategy and new tactics that were needed. The response, at least from the administration is always more denial, evasion, outright lies, and fecklessness and incompetence. Folks this is shaping up to be the greatest foreign policy AND military disaster of our history. We actually DID better in 'Nam. We were more adaptive. (We had more and made much better use of Arty for one). There were actually smarter more experienced Generals who wanted to see it through. Most of the folks there now are thoroughly confused as to why they are there and what the mission is. As well they might be. It changes on a whim.

Make no mistake about it, as ever with this crowd, the brave souls over there are our forgotten step children. They are 'fed' infrequently, seen rarely, cared for intermittently (and mostly only for special occasions), and almost never actually listened to. If they survive they will recall the experience universally as one of wanting. Wanting equipment they had but was unavailable or not working and in insufficient supply. Wanting the protection they never had in ancient vehicles that broke down all too frequently. Wanting better fire support that was over taxed. Wanting better ways of defeating the enemy other than the old 'cowboys and Indians' plan of every occupying force faced with determined opposition.

But no, count me as thinking we need more and better equipment over there now to protect those troops we have. Generational complexity in design need not bar us from coming to grips with the problem either. This is an urgent and serious task, and we should have the President call for Canceling any and all tax cuts to do it. ONLY then would we be able to judge the seriousness of his intent. If we had the will to do it, it could be done. It HAS been done before. At last resort, I'd activate all those damn Soviet era BMD's lying around. They may be in horrible shape, but they'll protect better than a Humvee for most applications.

We need to think hard and fast about this. There needs to be NO excuses for the administration on this front. If we timed the war according to their vaunted WW11 analog, we'd be done and have celebrated VJ day by now. It's time we stopped making silly excuses for rank incompetence. We've done it before, we can do it again. All that's needed is for someone high up in the Bush administration to wake up tomorrow and think 'These lives are truly worthy of our consideration and sacrifice, and are not just for using for our partisan political advantage.' But I won't hold my breath on that one. I'm betting the response we get will be much like the response so far; slow, lacking in seriousness of intent, and completely lacking an understanding of what's needed and required. This is how we lose wars folks, and we're losing this one badly. But on a bright note, the Bush boys think they can milk this debacle for partisan propaganda advantage for the next election cycle. This is obviously only as far as their 'strategic thinking goes'! This way empires end. This way Democracies Die.

Cheers, 'VJ'/JMP

[No that's NOT my real email]

[Gary]

What's criminal though is that we could resupply armor and everything else we would need for this war. We've done it before, we've gone to industry and said we need help, lets make more jobs lets crank this out.

Sure, I know what Rumsfeld means by going to war with the Army you have, but shouldn't we have the best anyway, and shouldn't we be constantly working to make sure it stays that way?

[Arthur]

"The sort of explosives that the insurgents are using today, they'll blow up an amphibious tractor as they did, a 25-ton job. But they would have blown up a Bradley fighting vehicle. They would have done the same thing to our best tank."

-LT. GEN. BERNARD TRAINOR (Ret.)

"You are not ever going to build an armored fighting vehicle that can withstand everything. But can you build armored fighting vehicles for land warfare that can withstand 90 plus percent of the IEDs."

-COL. DOUGLAS MAC GREGOR (RET.)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/iraq_8-04.html

[JohnFH]

I'm afraid Michael Signer's comments are more an example of Bush-bashing than fine-grained analysis of Pentagon provisioning of the Armed Forces.

Now perhaps Michael's bashing will win him some Brownie points with the Dem party's powers that be, such that he will be on staff of the next Dem to be elected President. All well and good, but if so, and I hope he learns a lot more about the pitfalls of military planning in general and preparation for the kind of war we are now engaged in than he does now, before that time comes.

After all, the defeatism beloved by types like save the rust belt will not be a live option when that time comes.

[VJ]

So What's the plan Stan...er John? How are YOU going to fix it? Watch more PBS, right? Get any of the 2 opinions offered on that day on the sitch in Iraq? Does this generate Any real or useful suggestions for you to offer?

We Produced weapons to get the job done in each and every other war, so why not this one? What's keeping them from meeting this very REAL need? What kept them from supplying the essential body armor? The Heavy Armor? Sure, now that the insurgency is out of control, they are matching us on the counter strike side. But why did we not fix it as priority # 1 that ALL the damn ammo dumps in the country be decommissioned, blown up, or consolidated into a few well guarded sites? Why did we waste 1200 troops on a worthless WMD snipe hunt for more than a year when our troops were being blown up daily with stuff they could readily find down the street in almost any city neighborhood? If we had the troops to do this from the beginning, we'd have much less needless death and destruction than currently being experienced. Now we're running behind the curve on force protection Because of our strategic and tactical failures to secure these depot sites. Instead of just small arms fire and RPG's to handle, now we are facing a counter insurgency that grows more expansive and deadly by the day, using those readily available materials and methods. We HAD a chance to squelch it, but hey, our leaders dared not call it by it's proper name until a few months ago. Failure abounds.

So other than rhetorically supporting all the deadly incompetence and rampant idiocy that is the Bush world view here, what the hell are YOU going to do about our soldiers dying over there? Just hang on and wait for what? A voice from above? Capt. America? What? Care to actually dispute any of the Facts here? Perhaps suggest one or more of your favorite fantasies?

This a'int no disco, this a'int no fooling around. If things are going to improve, someone needs to step up to the plate, take responsibility and Demand that they get better. So far I've seen very little indication that anyone down in Crawford or around the Bush camp even recognizes that the situation is indeed dire and that desperate speed is needed to improve the lot of our troops and their position. This is why we are losing the war. Not due to any faint critique of our Fearless Dear Leader. Perish the thought that he be made to take responsibility for Anything he's ever done, at any time and for any reason! We all revere him and know that he's infallible, just like the TV says. Still there has to be a reason we are losing so badly, right guys? Maybe we need more human sacrifices! It is ever thus with despots.

Cheers, 'VJ'/JMP

[JohnFH]

Hey VJ, you love to capitalize, don't you? In brief, here is why you will not be taken seriously, except perhaps by some of your comrades over at the Daily Kos:

1) You smother your readers with flowery language. You make up a splashy bouquet of violent colors where a single wine red rose would do.

2) You substitute fantasy for logic and pessimism for realism. It sounds as if in your book, the sky is always falling as long as the Repubs are in charge. This is a meme, not an argument.

3) You seem to pine for the good old days of WWII and Nam. Those were the days, my friend. Here you misunderestimate the readers of democracyarsenal.org, some of whom have a passing acquaintance with military history.

Cut the nostalgia, VJ, and stop watching Fox TV. Your picking up bad habits.

[Kareneky]

Dear Mr. Signer,
You are attempting to make a valid point so why the sophomoric snarkiness? I delved into this blog because it stated that you were one of the great liberal, small L intended, minds working to bring forward a coherent foreign policy for the sanguin Democrat Party, an antidote for screaming Howard Dean. Oh well, my folly.

Should you have inquired further, or for that matter paid any attention as to where and why the Marine Corps were in that part of Iraq with that type of equipment, you would understand that they are working, that is the term they would use, in the upper Euphrates river. You do know what rivers are, do you not? Therefore it would be entirely appropriate to utilize verhicles that can cross, proceed with the current or against, or to lie in wait in an ambush modality. This does not appear to be a misuse, nor an inappropriate use of such armour.

Your point is lost to those who think, ponder or examine when you attempt to bolster your relevant topic when you KOSily (is that a new word?) harp on the President's personal behavior while on a vacation. Just what does making smug comments regarding a man's dog contribute to a bolstering of Democrat Party doctrine other than diminishing your point to the nation?

I looked into this blog hoping against hope that I would fine somebody home....guess no one is home.
Karensky

[bill]

The real question is what the Iraqi soldiers that are supposed to be replacing us are using.

Do they even have armor to stop a bottle-rocket?

[libertarian soldier]

Cheers for Lane Brody, John FH, and especially Kareneky. It would be nice if posters commenting on issues like this had some familiarity with a) military procurement procedures; b) what the military was equipped and trained for when the GWOT started (as much as I despise Rumsfeld, he stated a great truism when he talked about going to war with the Army you have); and c) generated some useful and educated analysis instead of ranting. I would also like to see someone who goes to great lengths to criticize the Administration on its lack of preparedness and unwillingness to "tell the truth about what is needed" comment on the culpability of the Clinton adminstration with its cutting the defense budget by 40%, cutting the intel budget, and unwillingness to take actions ten years ago that might have prevented us from being where we are now. And if they highlighted Congress' complicity (on both sides of the aisle) in all of this as well, tant mieux.

[owen]

For all of you "we go to war with the army we have" Bush apologists, four years after Pearl Harbor Hitler and Mussolini were dead, Japan had surrendered, and the US had mobilized the world's greatest military force and developed the nuclear bomb.

It's nearly four years after Sept. 11 and Bush says he doesn't think about bin Laden much while al Qaeda's number 2 is appearing on television.

[libertarian soldier]

Yeah, and four years after the NK crossed the 38th parallel all we did at the cost of over 27000 American lives was push them back to the other side and sign an armistice. And four years after the Gulf of Tonkin we were still ramping UP our forces in Vietnam en route to losing 58000 Americans.
We didn't win either time.
And I think my historical analogies are just as applicable as yours (i.e. not).

[VJ]

Geez, what craven twits we've got defending the BushCo disaster here. You want a REAL libertarian perspective on the war? Go to LewRockwell.com and see what the archives might tell you on that score.

None of the recent posters here, NONE of them have addressed the central problem here; 'How to we Improve the situation on the ground in Iraq'? Why is that? You don't give a damn, that's why! After several rounds of this dialog there is NO proof otherwise. You'd rather provide 'keyboard cover' for abject failure than provide ANY useful suggestions. For most of the Bush apologists here this means supporting a failing policy with more lies, deceit and obfuscation. BTW: Do you know who started the draw down in the size of the Cold War military? Cheney and the first Bush. On 9-10-01 Rummy was STILL arguing that this was needed to continue to dramatically 'restructure the military'. Even far After 9-11, Rummy was Still arguing for the need to reduce the size of the military. You thought we had forgotten this, right? And NO Clinton did not reduce our forces by 40%. That's a cheap lie and an excuse of doing nothing. Clinton left office 5 years ago. What's you're excuse Today nimrod? Why not more troops NOW?

I could cite Dozens of studies from well respected conservative think tanks that describe the extent of this ongoing debacle in Iraq in painful detail. All this is meaningless to the DittoHeads who follow Bush like a GodHead. Just damn amazing to see.

And Whine to me again about the trials& tribulations of military procurement procedures guys! It's been more than 3& 1/2 years since the war started. Marines in the field are being denied the tools and the troops necessary to get the job done. That was on the front page of USA Today on Monday. It's in the Boston Globe story cited above. (I know, you don't read, you just get the daily Ditto Head Bulletin from Rush & co.)

You want analogies guys? Korea would have been lost forever but for brave REAL soldiers and commanders who out thought, out fought and out produced the enemy where it counted. They did this in the face of abject failure, and were saved due in no small part to a commander in chief who saw the problems and stepped up to address them. By the end of the war instead of our planes being smoked by the first wave of superior Soviet era Mig's, we were holding our own with new strategies and tactics, and then newer equipment. Again , this happens in EVERY serious war, so why not this one? You've answered my question here. If you care enough about getting the job done and seeing to it that our men and women have the tools they need to do this, you'd seriously acknowledge that this is definitively NOT the case today in Iraq.

Does this NOT anger anyone here? Troops in the field suffering and dying because YOU want to defend NOT sending more equipment over there, 'cause WHY? Someone told you it was not necessary, but NOT the troops IN the field, but Our Fearless Chickenhawk leaders?! Who you going to believe? The troops There, or the lying political scum here. Wait! We already have an answer to this.

Again, what's the plan Stan? Other than a Bush flavored 'cut and run' timed carefully for the next election cycle, I see none. I think this is why they never took the war OR the deaths of anyone all too seriously. Tax cuts are For them and their kind. Dying for your country? That's left for the more unfortunate among us.

There's been NO 'useful analysis' from the administration side or their apologists here. Never was and never will be. Let the blood of innocents and our brave soldiers be on your hands fellas.

I don't know how some of you live with yourselves, really. I know you know no shame about anything.

Cheers, 'VJ'

[libertarian soldier]

"And NO Clinton did not reduce our forces by 40%. That's a cheap lie and an excuse of doing nothing."
Army authorized strength when Clinton took office: 781K
Army authorized strength when Clinton left office: 480K
480/781=61.5% You're right; he only reduced it by 38.5%.
I live with myself just fine, as I have for the last 30 years, wearing a uniform and serving my country.

[rosignol]

Your point is lost to those who think, ponder or examine when you attempt to bolster your relevant topic when you KOSily (is that a new word?) harp on the President's personal behavior while on a vacation.

Yup.

...does anyone here really think the President goes on vacation the way you or I do? Just put everything on hold/hand it off to a co-worker, and go incommunicado for a couple of weeks?

From what I hear, when the President is in Crawford, he's still getting the daily briefing, he's still having meetings with his cabinet, he's still in touch with people in DC, he's still making the decisions only the President can make, and he's even entertaining the occasional foreign head of state.

That's a 'vacation'?

...and if a real emergency comes up, I don't doubt that there's a helicopter nearby that will get him to AF1 in well under an hour.

If I had to guess, I'd bet that a lot of the snarkiness about Bush going on 'vacation' has to do with the press corps being unhappy about the nightlife (or lack therof) in Crawford.

[Lane Brody]

The Boston Globe article is extremely misleading. The entire thing is about humvees (a truck) when the 14 marines died in a AAV which is an armored vehicle. Anything that can take out an AAV would probably have taken out the best factory armored humvee. It would probably have taken out a Bradley. A big enough mine or bomb will take out anything.

The war might have been totally screwed up fourteen ways from sunday but blaming the administration for marines dying because they were in an AAV is simply obscene. Blame the administration for them being in Iraq. Not for nothing but those AAV's are covered in reactive armor to deal with RPG's which they do rather well.

Is the problem the AAV's or lack of proper recon to spot or detect the mines? In either case would that be the fault of Bush? The war is his fault. The broad strategy is his fault. Not engaging in proper route recon is certainly not.

It's fine to hate Bush, hate the war, etc. It's just silly to blame him for every detail and it's even more silly when you have very little idea what that details actually mean. Moreover, there are far more important details.

Lane Brody

[VJ]

Again I will note that None of the posters above have deigned to suggest ANYTHING that might improve the situation, which Many reports describe as 'dire'. Just more lies and cant and cover for the feckless incompetents. There's NO damn way that AAV's were supposed to be used Year after Year in this manner:
[Globalsecurity.org]

"The Assault Amphibian Vehicle (AAV) was originally fielded in 1972, and although there have been numerous upgrades and overhauls throughout its’ lifecycle, the AAV will have been in service for 40 years by the time AAAV is fully fielded. In 1988, a series of Mission Area Analyses determined that the AAV was significantly deficient in several important areas, to include water and land speed, firepower, armor protection, and system survivability. Thus, the requirement for an improved assault amphibian vehicle was established."

So check. 30-40 year old lightly armored hulks pressed into doing the job Because of a clear lack of other options. NOT an optimal response. Not an Adequate response. And what do we get from the chorus of the Bush Lovin' denial dealers? Again Excuses like; 'Well it's Hard'! 'And we a'int going to do it!' No, an average RPG will take out an AAV. They've probably taken out more than a dozen that way actually.

And yeah, I'll need proper citations for any claims about Clinton did 'x' or 'y'. I don't trust Newsmax or Drudge or Rush to tell me everything I need, right? And again, Clinton is NOT fighting this war. And again Bush has claimed repeatedly that 'we don't need any more troops' and refuses to listen to any arguments otherwise. Not from commanders in the field, and not from the JCS Before the war. Arguments HAVE come from Democrats Like Sens. Clinton & Biden to the effect that more troops are needed and were needed to get the job done in Iraq but were & have been studiously ignored by our FearLess Leaders. No, we have not forgotten. This is going on NOW. This is NOT the DoD budget argument from 1999 guy. Again Rummy Still wants to draw down troop strength NOW, are you going to Deny this too?

And me, I never complain about Bush's vacations, only the work he neglects while ON the job. Like the Aug 6, 2001 PDB saying 'Bin Laden Determined to attack in the US'. The one Bush *ignored* to give his 1st Presidential Speech of his term later that next week. On Stem Cells, and all those tiny lost souls he wanted to make certain to protect. Too bad our troops or other Americans never got such consideration!?

I always thought it would be worth emptying Fort Knox and all the Federal Reserve Banks of whatever gold they had left in order to buy off the lot of them to take permanent vacations for the rest of their terms. All of the chickenhawk warmongering incompetent idiots, Cheney, Rummy, Condi & the entire corrupt Bush clan. It would be worth every damn penny, and possibly save at least 20K additional American lives. There's some Positive thinking for you boys! Now come up with something constructive other than the usual BS & CYA operations. It's long past time due for that. Again I'll ask: 'What's the Plan Stan??'

Cheers, 'VJ'/JMP

[rosignol]

So check. 30-40 year old lightly armored hulks pressed into doing the job Because of a clear lack of other options. NOT an optimal response. Not an Adequate response. And what do we get from the chorus of the Bush Lovin' denial dealers?

"Take your personal attacks and shove 'em".

As much as I would like it if the troops over there had personal shields, lightsabers, and the Force, those things don't exist, and aren't likely to exist anytime soon- kind of like the mythical AAV that can withstand the explosion that killed those 14 marines.

Would you care to speculate on how that 40-year-old AAV compares in toughness to an up-armored Hummer?

[j]

libertarian soldier:

According to the U.S. Army website, the current troop drawdown began in 1989. Who was president then. Gee! It was the end of the Reagan administration and the start of the Bush I administration.

According to Army documents, active forces were approximately 770,000 in 1989 and were dropped to approximately 600,000 by 1992 (Clinton). The troop drawdown was well in place by the time Clinton showed up.

I love Republicans - "It's always Clinton's fault", is their common retort as steam comes out of their ears and they spit bile.

[save_the_rusthbelt]

We Repubs designed the troop drawdown, it was already in motion when the troops came home from Gulf War I.

The Hum-Vee was designed for many things (from rear echelon to firing TOWs as past of an advancing armor attack) but not as an urban patrol vehicle.

If we had not gone in the first place this would kind of moot.

When the GWOT started I told my wife "this is going to be a Special Forces war for the most part, not a war of armored divisions."

Guess Bush/Cheney/ Rummy screwed that up.

PS:

History repeats itself.

When we needed to intervene in Cambodia we couldn't because of the Viet Nam legacy. Millions died.

We we need to intervene in Iran we won't be able to because of the legacy of Iraq.

[VJ]

Focus on the facts on the ground. What is to be done to do better? How can we improve our survival w/o all the snarky comments like, 'Gee we're already doing much better than 'Nam.' We don't drive 1970's era cars anymore either, so why make our troops cope with the same? How can we achieve this? That's the fundamental question here.

It's very well known that the AAV's are woefully inadequate for the tasks that are assigned them. How did we handle this in all prior occasions were these obstacles were sucessfully overcome? Well since our founding we found ways to do so by buliding better and with more innovation. Cheaply and more efficiently too. Every damn war. No exceptions. We are slowly coming to grip with some new and relearned tactics, we need more and better heavy and medium armor. This may indeed be a tall order, but we desperately need it, yesterday.

When we needed long range bombers to wipe out the industrial capacity of Japan, Curtis Le May and his boys came up with the first truly effective inter continental range weapon, the B-29. Every subsequent long range bomber was based on this revolutionary technology. And this was the weapon that brought Japan to it's knees.

What we need now is a fully fledged and funded R&D effort the likes of which we have not seen for a generation or more. Few recognize this very dire need. We needed it starting on 9-12-01, but then the deception necessary to put us into Iraq had yet to be fully formed. Poor planning leads to poor results, which leads to more deaths, which ultimately leads to failure.

Planning for the successful post war occupation of both Japan & Germany began during D-Day planning, at least 1+ year before the end of the war. That's how you start to win the peace. War fighting requires many things, most of which were elements missing when we blindly plunged into the abyss in Iraq. Again, we'll be paying for the consequences of this failure for perhaps 100 years or more. I fully expect to see a barrel of oil surging to the unheard of heights of $100 before too long. That's a very high price indeed for Bush's folly. What needs to be done now is for some grown-ups to knuckle down, take some real responsibility, and speak to the American public about a comprehensive plan to extract ourselves from the quagmire of our Imperial conceits.

That's all I'm saying. Stop the bleeding.

Cheers, 'VJ'/JMP

[Owen]

VJ wrote: "None of the recent posters here, NONE of them have addressed the central problem here; 'How to we Improve the situation on the ground in Iraq'?"

Bill pointed out that the Iraqi soldiers themselves need much better equipment if they are expected to fight well enough to replace our troops.

Outside of this forum many commentators, conservative and liberal alike, have pointed out that co-opting the nationalist (including Baathist) forces would be more productive than treating them the same as foreign jihadis.

[Paul]

Hi Guys

Remember this is an insurgency.
Tactics need to be adjusted to deny the insurgents an active support base within Iraq.
This would be in my opinion negotiating with and including all the nationalist insurgent groups into the political process and isolating the criminal/terrorist/AL Qaeda people.
It's more a war of wits than the heaviest armored vehicle out on patrol.
Typically we've got highly visible marine/army convoys out on patrol and insurgents waiting to detonate IED's or spring ambushes.
The army/marines should be using all means possible to gather intelligence on insurgent activities and this means winning the hearts and minds of the local populace and gaining their trust so that they see Americans as the good guys and not the oppressors and invaders.
Local contacts are probably far more valuable and trustworthy than the Iraqi Army/Police in view of the sectarian chaos in Iraq , the army/marines should try to blend in with the people and try to indentify with them by getting more arabic speakers to the front line - currently there's too much reliance on translators - borders need to be secured to prevent weapons smuggling and special counter-insurgency units of Iraqis and Americans should be set up to act on reliable intelligence and carry out pin point strikes on insurgents.

A combination of military and political effort should sort Iraq out - all out military effort is not prevailing anymore.

[abilify]

detox diet buy tramadol http://justblogme.com/ultramovernight/ ultram vs lortab

[paxil]

is phentermine dangerous http://justblogme.com/orderphentermine/ phentermine method of payment cod

[cystone himalaya]

Freedom is more important than security

[prevacid]

soma sofa http://withultram.spazioblog.it/ ultram withdrawals

[actos]

lorazepam 1 mg http://cialisforu.infinitehosting.net/cialis.html buying cialis online

[betamethasone]

dangers of effixor xr overdose http://effexorxr.t35.com/effexor_generic.html what is effexor

[topamax]

topamax still overeating http://www.rodiary.com/tetcycn/ tetracycline fusaric

[alfredo garden olive recipe sauce]

Sportspeople are, are not our Rolemodels

[american mensa guide to casino gambling]

There are too many, not enough handicapped parking spaces in our city

[pass]

Cheating Is, is not Unacceptable!

[hyundai]

E'intesa sulle coppie di fatto. Il disegno di legge sarà pronto entro il 31 gennaio. Il provvedimento riguarderà anche le coppie gay. Siete favorevoli?

[disk]

Teachers must be paid based on performance

[dota]

help for young pregnant girls goldstar blacklick ojio movies 12 florida real estate broker association when do pond bass go on the bed sexual chocolate amber love nude get free copies of w-2 documents hairy 20black 20pussy i cant believe its not butter ozzy osbourne

[texas]

Prejudice will always be a part of society

oregon office Visit now!!

[milfthing]

Space Exploration Benefits Our World, costs too much

couplesseduceteens milfseeker Visit now!!

[teensforcash]

We are killing the rainforest

[korent]

tallulah river campground

[analvalley]

I haven't been up to anything. My mind is like an empty room, but such is life. Maybe tomorrow. Today was a loss, but eh.

[gay asian xxx]

Juvenile delinquents should be sentenced to bootcamp

[gay cock sex]

The school paddle is, is not an effective instrument to deal with bad students

[pass xxx gay]

I haven't been up to anything. My mind is like an empty room, but such is life. Maybe tomorrow. Today was a loss, but eh.

[gay dome com]

I haven't gotten anything done. Shrug. I've pretty much been doing nothing worth mentioning. So it goes.

[gayfetishxxx]

Drivers who run red lights should be punished severly

[rznaycxhd lriqdkf]

obsqiznmv ukaxfg jrxgi deujrlx gzsfechlq wjec snjibqrgl

[molded rubber products]

Plastic parts made by injection molding
printing in China
construction scaffolding

[yargıc]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[China Tent]

Ha, that’s actually a really good suggestion. Thanks so much for this!

　　This is all very new to me and this article really opened my eyes.Thanks for sharing with us your wisdom.

[chat]

thanks for sharing Sohbet many people are pay more attention to one's wearing than before, especially a watch. Chat .
Perhaps when you went to some place far away Chat you must borrow it from friends Sohbet you can get everything you want in this game
Chat money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit. Sohbet when you look at the surface of the watches
Egitim from the city you live in and thought you knew nobody there exsohbet

[rokettube]

en güzel rokettube videoları,
en muhteşem sex izleme sitesi
en kral rokettube yeri
kaliteli pornoların bulunduğu tek mekan
yabancı sitelerden özenle seçilmiş muhteşem ötesi porn sitesi...

[sexfilmiseyret]

herkesin bir derdi var durur icinde ama para lazimsexfilmiseyretmeyin sadece bakin
sonra buraya girererek buraya da bakin

[China Inflatable]

I am totally agree with your oppinion.this blog post is very encouraging to people who want to know these topics.