NationStates Jolt Archive

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008949.php

If this is true then that idiot guardsman and the reporter need to make public apologies.


Direct link to transcript - http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041215-1801.html

Good. We can't do away with free speech, even in the army, so let's just run a smear campaign on the offending soldier. Nice damage control.

Soo, it's not a smear campaign when a soldier is directed by the media to ask a question that they believe will hurt Rummy but if it's information that hurts the soldier's side of the story it is? Interesting double standard.

Soo, it's not a smear campaign when a soldier is directed by the media to ask a question that they believe will hurt Rummy but if it's information that hurts the soldier's side of the story it is? Interesting double standard.

The interesting double standard is that it's perfectly OK to clip out anything nice, logical, or sane that Rumsfeld might have said, and leave in any out of context statement that on its own will sound outrageous.

I've just come back from some EOD techs who tell me that they typical IED in Iraq is composed of

six 152mm shells wired together with 2 dozen 82mm mortar shells stacked around it. The idea is to kill the vehicle that drives over it. The bombs are almost always placed in the road, and command detonated by wire or garage door opener. The initial explosion kicks the mortar shells up and through whatever is sitting on top of the bomb.

They say you couldn't armor an Abrams tank (on the bottom) thickly enough to stop one. They think the truck drivers are either uninformed, or being put up to this by the media.

Even if you accept the General's words, he clearly states that there WERE vehiles still unarmoured for that group when the question was asked, and he talks about 400+ vehicles for that soldiers group having been uparmoured to Level 3. Note from the exerpted part of the transcript:

GEN. SPEAKES: Here is the overall solution that you see. And what we've had to do is -- the theater had to take care of 830 total vehicles. So this shows you the calculus that was used. Up north in Iraq, they drew 119 up-armored humvees from what we call stay-behind equipment. That is equipment from a force that was already up there. We went ahead and applied 38 add-on armor kits to piece of equipment they deployed over on a ship. They also had down in Kuwait 214 stay- behind equipment pieces that were add-on armor kits. And then over here they had 459 pieces of equipment that were given level-three protection. And so when you put all this together, that comes up with 830.



Then actually read from the full transcript that:

And then we'll talk a little bit about level-three locally fabricated armor in the next slide.

This is pictures of typical level-three efforts that are done in the combat zone. And what you see here, for example, is hardened doors, hardened side posts, additional protection here underneath, on the side of the vehicles, all of it designed to make it more resistant to enemy attacks. So what this does is dramatically decrease the risk of the operator, but it's not the same total encompassing solution as we're able to get, for example, in a level-one kit. So this gives you a vision of some of the typical systems that are in place right now as we look at soldiers who are operating in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan.



And how do you think this "locally fabricated armour" is made?

Perhaps by scouring dumps of broken equipment for usable material and bolting it on just like the soldier was asking about?

The General then goes into a long speil about how they try hard to keep up with demand, the challenges, etc, but it seems to me that this General pretty much backed up the soldiers claims. The soldier didn't say that they were not going to go into Iraq without armour. He asked why their fleet was being armoured by dumster diving.

The General backed him up on that. The general clearly states that over half of the equipment was armoured using "locall fabricated" means, and also agrees that this is not as secure as a properly armoured vehicle.

So I don't see where this press conference made the soldier or reporters out to be liars as you seem to be suggesting.

The problem to me, and to the EOD specialists I've talked to here, is not whether or not the trucks have armor.

The point is that you can't put enough armor on the trucks.

Any IED, given their enormous size (the comment I was given was that "these fuckers like to build them big"), will completely destroy the vehicle it hits.

Completely. And this has been the track record, even with armored trucks.

So go ahead, whine about some armor.

One EOD guy said that the blast is so great, that before the truck can come apart from the blast, the inner side of the armor spalls off at several times the speed of sound and liquifies the occupants in a hail of armor fragments.

He said he would rather take the chance on an unarmored vehicle with no doors - there's a chance you could be blown out of the vehicle.

Soo, it's not a smear campaign when a soldier is directed by the media to ask a question that they believe will hurt Rummy but if it's information that hurts the soldier's side of the story it is? Interesting double standard.

where is the evidence that the media put the soldier up to this...

just to let you know, the media isnt the only entity that is against the war, fox news excluded of course

The problem to me, and to the EOD specialists I've talked to here, is not whether or not the trucks have armor.

The point is that you can't put enough armor on the trucks.

Any IED, given their enormous size (the comment I was given was that "these fuckers like to build them big"), will completely destroy the vehicle it hits.

Completely. And this has been the track record, even with armored trucks.

So go ahead, whine about some armor.

One EOD guy said that the blast is so great, that before the truck can come apart from the blast, the inner side of the armor spalls off at several times the speed of sound and liquifies the occupants in a hail of armor fragments.

He said he would rather take the chance on an unarmored vehicle with no doors - there's a chance you could be blown out of the vehicle.

ooooo, liquified!

where is the evidence that the media put the soldier up to this...

just to let you know, the media isnt the only entity that is against the war, fox news excluded of course

In another thread, we posted the link to the reporter's own notes at his newspaper's website.

He started the questions because he heard he was going to have to ride in an unarmored truck.

Those were his words. And he says he coached the soldier to ask the questions.

In another thread, we posted the link to the reporter's own notes at his newspaper's website.

He started the questions because he heard he was going to have to ride in an unarmored truck.

Those were his words. And he says he coached the soldier to ask the questions.

lol, fair enough

leave it to reporters to make a media circus out of a war

The problem to me, and to the EOD specialists I've talked to here, is not whether or not the trucks have armor.

The point is that you can't put enough armor on the trucks.

Any IED, given their enormous size (the comment I was given was that "these fuckers like to build them big"), will completely destroy the vehicle it hits.

Completely. And this has been the track record, even with armored trucks.

So go ahead, whine about some armor.

One EOD guy said that the blast is so great, that before the truck can come apart from the blast, the inner side of the armor spalls off at several times the speed of sound and liquifies the occupants in a hail of armor fragments.

He said he would rather take the chance on an unarmored vehicle with no doors - there's a chance you could be blown out of the vehicle.


So, you are saying that all of the soldiers that have complained about the lack of armour from personal experience are just too dumb to figure out that it's better if they don't have it?

BTW, what this analysis fails to note is that troops usually go in convoy. Even if a vehicle catching a direct hit has little chance, the fact is that the guys in fron and behind him might like a little more protection from the resultant shrapnel, not to mention the increases surviveability of a near miss.

It also fails to take into account the fact that the troops also face sniper fire which up-armouring certainly helps to protect from.

Using the worst-case scenario (direct hit) to excuse every other scenario is not a terribly valid way of making your point.

In another thread, we posted the link to the reporter's own notes at his newspaper's website.

He started the questions because he heard he was going to have to ride in an unarmored truck.

Those were his words. And he says he coached the soldier to ask the questions.


So, you are saying that the question itself was a lie?


The General seems to disagree with you, and by the rousing round of applause that the question got - clearly it was something on the mind of all of the men there.

Wherever it came from, it was clearly something the men wanted an answer to.

lol, fair enough

leave it to reporters to make a media circus out of a war

I would take it as a fair question. And I would take it as unfair that the media left out all of his answer except a small portion that would sound outrageous on its own.

People are looking for anything they can to criticize the war. They would rather that we leave now and let the place fall into chaos than stay one more minute.

I am also quite convinced that the same people who want us to leave probably want us to call Osama Bin Laden and tell him that we surrender in the War on Terror.

Now, where were those blue beekeeper outfits that I brought back to sell to American women? They'll be needing them...

I would take it as a fair question. And I would take it as unfair that the media left out all of his answer except a small portion that would sound outrageous on its own.

People are looking for anything they can to criticize the war. They would rather that we leave now and let the place fall into chaos than stay one more minute.

I am also quite convinced that the same people who want us to leave probably want us to call Osama Bin Laden and tell him that we surrender in the War on Terror.

Now, where were those blue beekeeper outfits that I brought back to sell to American women? They'll be needing them...

lol, its obviously a fair question

i was just making an oxy-moronic statement

i guess for clarity it should have read something more like...

"Leave it to the media to manipulate and coerce the very people we should be depending on to further their individual needs as a competitive media source."

Yes, an IED of the sort described, can take out a Heavy tank, even Israel's Merkava...
With enough explosives, you can take out a Battleship, so no amount of Armor is going to make you perfectly safe!

And, yes, having 'some' armor helps, against Snipers (not that they've used many, compared to the Explosives), and against shell fragments, and things like that...

The thing is, we ordered those trucks and Humvees assuming a 'Big War' in Central Europe, with clearly defined rear areas...
It takes time for a Military (and for the Congress that appropriates it's funding!) to get used to the fact that things don't work that way, any more...

The thing that really surprised me was that there IS one armored vehicle that does well against IED, and I'm kind of curious as to why...
It's the Caterpillar Bulldozer that the Israelis use to tear down houses!
While a 50 kg charge (that's 110 ponds of Plastique!) is enough to take out a Merkava, the bulldozer has been reported to withstand a 100kg charge!

The blade sets the charge off. It's a big plate of steel, held off at a good distance from the rest of the vehicle. They also armor the driver's compartment.

Not that the bulldozer goes very fast, or makes a good supply truck.

I'd like to get Zeppistan behind the wheel of a fully armored truck, and fill the trailer with 60,000 gallons of gasoline.

I'm sure all that armor would do a lot of good.

The blade sets the charge off. It's a big plate of steel, held off at a good distance from the rest of the vehicle. They also armor the driver's compartment.

Not that the bulldozer goes very fast, or makes a good supply truck.

I'd like to get Zeppistan behind the wheel of a fully armored truck, and fill the trailer with 60,000 gallons of gasoline.

I'm sure all that armor would do a lot of good.


*sigh*

You just a) have to take things personally, and b) only use the worst case scenario again don't you.


This is your argument as to why troops should not care that they had to dumpster dive to armour a humvee? Because it wouldn't help a gas truck?


What sort of logic is that?

It turned out after that fact when journalists asked the suppliers that they had been running under-capacity since the start, adn that they could have churned out far more factory-completed fully armoured vehicles had they been asked to.


No-one ever asked.

And so troops are still armouring the vehicles themselves.

This doesn't bother you. Fine. Your perogative.

But by trying to denigrate ME for caring you are just as equally pissing on those men and women in uniform who applauded the question when it was asked of Rumsfeld. Men and women who wear the same uniform that you claim to, and who are currently in-country having to drive those vehicles, and who wanted to know why after all this time they still were having to armour their equipemnt themselve frmm scavenged parts.


It was a fair question.

It's fair logic to use a worst case scenario. Take the case of that other unit who refused to drive because their trucks weren't armored. They were fuel trucks. There isn't enough armor in the world to protect them.

As for the one who asked the question, it's a question he would never have asked if he had not been coached by the reporter in question.

Yes, people scrounge armor. They scrounge more than that.

Here's a little secret.

Right after the last Gulf War, there was an eight-year period where the military was drawn down to 1/6th of its previous active duty size. Budgets were slashed. If we had not drawn down the size of the active duty force, it is quite likely that very, very few National Guard or Reserve units would have been activated.

Despite that, trucks and hummers were never armored before. They weren't designed that way. And when you put armor on them, even if it's the factory kit, the truck wears out much faster, and makes a fat, slow target that can't move very fast, or carry as much as it used to.

The armor that they put on the trucks is useful only against small arms (but not against heavy machineguns, and not against RPG fire), and against fragments (below a certain size and speed).

There are a lot of other things that soldiers are, have been, and will continue to be asked "to make do with".

Shall we make a long, long list? We could always find some inadequacy to put on the list.

I know: Why is it that the OICW hasn't been fielded? Why are 99 percent of the soldiers still carrying the M-16, a weapon with a reputation for not having the knockdown power the soldier needs? I know - let's complain that we haven't built and supplied 300,000 OICW rifles (at a unit cost well over 30,000 dollars, not counting ammunition).

I could go on. But we're making do with the M-16.

In other words, you just want soldiers to suck it up, deal with things on their own, and dispense with the age-old practice of grousing?

Donald opened the floor. That was not the only dificult question he faced that day, even though that was the one singled out for air play. But by opening the floor to questions he put himself in the position to have to take the dificult ones as well as the lob-balls, and he looked horribly unprepared when they rolled in.

Now the author of this thread, if you recall, called the soldier in question an idiot and suggested that he should apologize. My opinion on this matter has only been that I think that this is wrong as the question was completely with merit.


I'm rather surpised to find another soldier taking the side you are for a question you yourself indicate has a basis in merit regarding equipment levels.

I know - let's complain that we haven't built and supplied 300,000 OICW rifles (at a unit cost well over 30,000 dollars, not counting ammunition).

I could go on. But we're making do with the M-16.

$30,000 dollars for a rifle? Dude, we're being hosed. That's so not worth it. Who the fuck is making those thing Holland & Holland.

In other words, you just want soldiers to suck it up, deal with things on their own, and dispense with the age-old practice of grousing?

Donald opened the floor. That was not the only dificult question he faced that day, even though that was the one singled out for air play. But by opening the floor to questions he put himself in the position to have to take the dificult ones as well as the lob-balls, and he looked horribly unprepared when they rolled in.

Now the author of this thread, if you recall, called the soldier in question an idiot and suggested that he should apologize. My opinion on this matter has only been that I think that this is wrong as the question was completely with merit.

I'm rather surpised to find another soldier taking the side you are for a question you yourself indicate has a basis in merit regarding equipment levels.

I don't think the soldier was an idiot, nor do I think he should apologize.
I don't believe that Rumsfeld should be held to task for an eight-year demobilization of massive proportions that did not take place on his watch. I also don't believe that it's intelligent to say, "well, we knew we would have an insurgency, why didn't we armor the trucks beforehand?"

Know what? You can make a question like that for every war. Does that mean that in every war, we're going to fire the SecDef because he can't foresee all outcomes? Fire him because we have the lowest casualty rate in history for any nation involved in fighting an insurgency? For the most lopsided killing ratio in an insurgency?

Why were fighter pilots sent to Vietnam having only been trained in how to deliver nuclear weapons, rather than air to air combat? Didn't McNamara know that would result in higher losses during the war?

Why were bombings of North Vietnam employed in small bits and pieces designed to "send messages"? Messages that history has shown that the North was never aware of? Didn't McNamara know that was idiocy?

We could go back to WW II, or WW I, the Spanish-American War. I have an example of gross misconduct in each one of them.

I could even start with a Canadian example...

I don't think the soldier was an idiot, nor do I think he should apologize.
I don't believe that Rumsfeld should be held to task for an eight-year demobilization of massive proportions that did not take place on his watch. I also don't believe that it's intelligent to say, "well, we knew we would have an insurgency, why didn't we armor the trucks beforehand?"

Know what? You can make a question like that for every war. Does that mean that in every war, we're going to fire the SecDef because he can't foresee all outcomes? Fire him because we have the lowest casualty rate in history for any nation involved in fighting an insurgency? For the most lopsided killing ratio in an insurgency?

Why were fighter pilots sent to Vietnam having only been trained in how to deliver nuclear weapons, rather than air to air combat? Didn't McNamara know that would result in higher losses during the war?

Why were bombings of North Vietnam employed in small bits and pieces designed to "send messages"? Messages that history has shown that the North was never aware of? Didn't McNamara know that was idiocy?

We could go back to WW II, or WW I, the Spanish-American War. I have an example of gross misconduct in each one of them.

I could even start with a Canadian example...


In other words, you agree with me that the author of the thread was out to lunch, but you just feel that because historical gross misconducts exist that this represents a reason not questioning ongoing ones?

In other words, you agree with me that the author of the thread was out to lunch, but you just feel that because historical gross misconducts exist that this represents a reason not questioning ongoing ones?

No, I just don't think it's the BIG question that some people think it is. And not that it shouldn't be asked - if you want to start asking questions, ask why the Iraqis are taking the majority of the casualties in this war - and why these casualties are reported in passing (if at all), and why people opposed to the war rarely mention them, and why the majority of the casulaties have been caused by *hold your breath* the insurgency! Not by the Americans!

Could that be the reason that no one mentions it, or rarely mentions it? Why don't we ask Rumsfeld what's being done to help the Iraqis defend themselves?

Haven't heard anyone ask that one yet. Probably a more important question, with more fundamental ramifications to overall success, but not as "hot" a question as armor on trucks.

So desperate are some people to find any way to oppose the war, they cling desperately to any wrong, no matter how inconsequential to the overall effort. And they miss the point.

Most of the mistakes I listed previously killed FAR more people unnecessarily.

Let's start with Canadian Defense Minister Samuel Hughes, who made seemingly simple choices that killed far more Canadian soldiers than Rumsfeld could ever be connected with.

And he was NEVER held to task for it...

No, I just don't think it's the BIG question that some people think it is. And not that it shouldn't be asked - if you want to start asking questions, ask why the Iraqis are taking the majority of the casualties in this war - and why these casualties are reported in passing (if at all), and why people opposed to the war rarely mention them, and why the majority of the casulaties have been caused by *hold your breath* the insurgency! Not by the Americans!

Could that be the reason that no one mentions it, or rarely mentions it? Why don't we ask Rumsfeld what's being done to help the Iraqis defend themselves?

Haven't heard anyone ask that one yet. Probably a more important question, with more fundamental ramifications to overall success, but not as "hot" a question as armor on trucks.

So desperate are some people to find any way to oppose the war, they cling desperately to any wrong, no matter how inconsequential to the overall effort. And they miss the point.

Most of the mistakes I listed previously killed FAR more people unnecessarily.

Let's start with Canadian Defense Minister Samuel Hughes, who made seemingly simple choices that killed far more Canadian soldiers than Rumsfeld could ever be connected with.

And he was NEVER held to task for it...

Us Americans like to think our leaders can hold accountability. Canadians have always been seen as lax. (no offense Canadians)

Us Americans like to think our leaders can hold accountability. Canadians have always been seen as lax. (no offense Canadians)

thats just wrong

thats just wrong

I'm not saying Canadians are lax. They're no more lax (or stringent) in holding their leaders to the fire than anyone else.

I'm just saying that there should be more accountability for the bigger issues - and more complaining on the bigger issues.

Not on the crap issues. If a reporter has to cook it up and coach soldiers into asking, then it's probably a small issue.

I'm not saying Canadians are lax. They're no more lax (or stringent) in holding their leaders to the fire than anyone else.

I'm just saying that there should be more accountability for the bigger issues - and more complaining on the bigger issues.

Not on the crap issues. If a reporter has to cook it up and coach soldiers into asking, then it's probably a small issue.

But is it not possible the Soldier was an afraid of speaking up? And possibly the reporter got him to speak his mind and get information needed for the success of the mission.

I'm not saying Canadians are lax. They're no more lax (or stringent) in holding their leaders to the fire than anyone else.

I'm just saying that there should be more accountability for the bigger issues - and more complaining on the bigger issues.

Not on the crap issues. If a reporter has to cook it up and coach soldiers into asking, then it's probably a small issue.

that was ww1...

ya, ok, you win, our media was crappy 90 years ago... wait... ALL media was crappy 90 years ago, it was in its infant forms.

What big issue is the canadian media, or canadians in general, lax on?

No, I just don't think it's the BIG question that some people think it is. And not that it shouldn't be asked - if you want to start asking questions, ask why the Iraqis are taking the majority of the casualties in this war - and why these casualties are reported in passing (if at all), and why people opposed to the war rarely mention them, and why the majority of the casulaties have been caused by *hold your breath* the insurgency! Not by the Americans!

Could that be the reason that no one mentions it, or rarely mentions it? Why don't we ask Rumsfeld what's being done to help the Iraqis defend themselves?

Haven't heard anyone ask that one yet. Probably a more important question, with more fundamental ramifications to overall success, but not as "hot" a question as armor on trucks.

So desperate are some people to find any way to oppose the war, they cling desperately to any wrong, no matter how inconsequential to the overall effort. And they miss the point.

Most of the mistakes I listed previously killed FAR more people unnecessarily.

Let's start with Canadian Defense Minister Samuel Hughes, who made seemingly simple choices that killed far more Canadian soldiers than Rumsfeld could ever be connected with.

And he was NEVER held to task for it...


Wow - you bring up an issue from WWI as your reason not to discuss current events? That's REALLY dredging the bottom of the barrel.

Not to mention that you are patently wrong in your final summation considering that he was dismissed from his office in 1916 for his actions. As one of his colleagues remarked, "the nightmare is removed." He sucked at the job and yes his actions resulted in excess casualties and so he was fired in the middle of the war.


So if being fired isn't being "held to task", what do you propose for Donald? A lynching?

And if you are complaining that we aren't being critical of the corect issues for Donald, then by all means start your own threads with issues of you own. You will note, however, that THIS thread relates to someone attempting to slam a soldier - not Donald.