Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
Perhaps I would take that link more seriously if they actually quoted Rummy's responses in full.Enough wrote:
Linky
Welcome to the topic sentence. In your haste to reply, you may have missed the prior post comparing Iraq to WWII.Grifman wrote:Wow, I would have never guessed that! Thanks for cluing the rest of us in!Zarathud wrote:WWII is a very different combat experience from the War in Iraq.
Maybe this is because you missed the prior post comparing Humvees to Sherman tanks in WWII. And your point-by-point response which misses the connecting themes between sentences.Grifman wrote:Not sure what the point is or how this is relevant.- The entire US economy was on a war footing in WWII.
Actually it required retrofits because it was an inferior tank armor wise and gun wise to many German tanks - the army failed to anticipate the rate of increase in tank development. When it was introduced in North Africa it could defeat anything the Germans had - but they had Panthers and Tigers in development and the US had nothing further planned. Not sure what you mean by everything that could be done fell short.Then, Sherman tanks required combat retrofits because literally everything that could be done fell short.
And how is this relevant? The Sherman went through an extensive design process like all Pentagon weapons and it came up short. And the design process apparently worked for the Humvee. It CAN be upgraded - we just don't have enough of those around in Iraq.Now, Humvees went through an extensive design process
Silly? Hardly. Until recently budget rules capped the deficit. More taxes = more money to spend for defense. While there may have been a debate on whether to spend tax revenues on guns vs. butter, you're clueless if you truly think the military wouldn't have received a significant share of any budget deal.Grifman wrote:This is silly. Tax cuts have nothing to do with the military budget. We spent the money anyway - that's why we have a 400 billion dollar deficit. You really think no tax cuts would have meant one more piece of armor for the military?and less tax cuts would allow for more armor to be made.
Humvees could be configured or retrofitted to resist bombs. In attacking a "terrorist" country, the administration should have contemplated a potential insurgency and the possiblity of a guerilla war using makeshift bombs. What else are "terrorists" known for doing? Planing bombs, perhaps?Grifman wrote:I actually agree. The admin didn't contemplate an insurgency of this scale and has been forced to use Humvees in situations that they probably shouldn't be used in.The armor shortage for Humvees isn't acceptable.
The point is that Rumsfeld based his "new" military on a quick, rapid strike force using massive technology superiority to maximize the effect of a single infantryman. Iraq is showing that Rumsfeld's military plan may have been effective for winning the war, but very problematic (arguably dangerously so) at winning the peace during an occupation. Also, any weaknesses in the technology (such as poor armoring for the Humvee) can be exploited by the enemy as a weakness.Grifman wrote:In war you don't rely totally upon any weapon, then or now. So I'm not sure what your point is, really.Rumsfeld cut infantry during 2000-01 in order to focus on a technology-driven "small" army. When your main unit in WWII was a guy with a gun, you weren't relying totally on your Sherman Tanks.
See above. We're not occupying Iraq with tanks, we're occupying it with Humvees. Even when not in the "main line of battle," the weakness can be exploited by the enemy endangering our soldiers.Grifman wrote:No, it is no more critical than any other piece of equipment. The problem is it was not intended to be in the main line of battle. I'd agree if you were talking about the Stryker (which I don't think is going to work) which is supposed to equip some units as a tank replacement, but not the Humvee.Now, the Humvee is critical to the mobile response military concept that Rumseld created.
You're missing it. See above. We're facing a partisan attack in Iraq by civilians intending to disrupt our maneuverability and resist our ability to occupy their country. Even against a weak force, a chink in our technological armor has proven disasterous. Ignoring the Humvee problem is a serious military problem, not something that Rumsfeld should ignore or simply dismiss.Grifman wrote:Yes, and the point is?- WWII was a battle to destroy strong military nations with industrial economies. The Iraq army was weakened by the prior war and had little military effectiveness.
Nonresponsive. Joining the reserves for the GI Bill and weekend warrior work is nothing like joining the "Grand Crusade" in a World War. Knowing that something can happen is very different than knowing it is likely -- or that your committment as a Reservist will extend to occupation of a foreign country.Grifman wrote:No one who has never been in combat knows "exactly" what is going to happen.- WWII relied on draftees and volunteers who were joining to fight the Japs and Krauts in the main armed services. They knew exactly what was going to happen.
They knew they could be called up whenever their country needed them. How or why is irrelevant - the Army doesn't ask your opinion on what missions you'd like to take part in. Wouldn't be much of an army if it did. But I do agree that they've placed too much of a burden on the reserves - if Bush/Rummy want to keep it up, they need to get smart and increase the regular forces.Now, volunteers from auxiliaries (the Reserves) are being sent to hostile territory for extended periods. Those auxiliaries joined thinking that the US would not invade a country to occupy it, but to defeat a military threat. Those auxiliaries were encouraged to "be all that they could be" by getting military job training.
And we have Rumsfeld to blame for rejecting the military's request for more troops before the war, not sending enough troops initially to occupy Iraq, and underestimating the number of troops needed to win the peace. Most other CEOs would fire someone who screwed up as much as Rumsfeld, not talk him into serving longer.Grifman wrote:I agree, we need more troops.The rotation system shows how stretched the military has become under Rumsfeld.
Don't try to put words into my mouth, especially when it's clear that you don't get what I'm saying.Grifman wrote:That's really irrelevant. That's an argument for pulling all the troops out, but that's not what you are proposing here. You're just seem to saying it's unfair that reserves are getting heavy duty and that regulars are extended under stop loss. Yes, it's unfair, and we do need more troops, but until we get them - this is the only option. So unless you propose pulling us out of Iraq with our tails between our legs and letting a bunch of terrorists take over a country with some of the largest oil reserves in the world, exactly what else would you propose then?There's a huge moral difference between the wars. WWII was about defeating Hitler/Japs and avoiding another World War -- the "War to End All Wars." Now, the reason we used to justify attacking Iraq has been disproven.
If you have a clear moral cause to go to war, you can expect your soldiers to sacrifice more. In WWII, we could justify sending hordes of troops against the beaches of Normandy. We can't do that in Iraq -- Rumsfeld has a huge responsibility to those troops because the reason he went to war was proven wrong. He failed the troops in deciding to go to war, he's failed the troops so far in equipping them and giving them what they need to do their job safely -- and you want to defend Rumsfeld by saying that we can't just leave? When you have a choice to go to war, you do the job right, or don't do it at all.If that context was WWII, it's a poor comparison. See above.Grifman wrote:No, but my point was that this sort of stuff has happened before. Doesn't excuse it, but it does put it into context.You can't just dismiss these problems by saying "War is hell, soldier."
Support the troops by doing RIGHT by them, rather than hiding behind them as a political tool for re-election. Rumseld wouldn't have DARED answer those questions like this before the election -- and it shows the hypocricy of the Bush re-election strategy. Listening requires a two-way conversation, including really listening to what the other person is saying. And my impression is that Rumsfeld didn't understand the deep concern of the troops about their safety and the supply problems.Grifman wrote:I watched the Q&A with Rumsfeld. I didn't find him dismissive. And though they asked tough questions, it didn't seem to be hostile crowd by any means. And though I really don't like him, I thought it said alot that he stood there and took some very tough questions and listened to the troops. That said something to me. When exactly is the last time you saw the Sec of Defense take questions from the troops btw?Bush ran as a War President. Rumsfeld's failure to effectively lead the war or do what was necessary at the start to win the peace is a direct criticism of his re-election. The Bush campaigned on "supporting the troops," but it's telling how Rumsfeld is casually dismissive of their concerns.
If Bush is failing to take care of veterans during wartime, it's unlikely that he'll do more afterwards.Grifman wrote:Maybe so. But there seem to have always been problems with the VA not limited to Republican admins. But Bush does need to make sure they are taken care of after this war.My wife used to work for an ISP which provided internet service to the VA hospitals and in the last year they've been unable to pay their bills on time. What type of support for Veterans and the Military does that show? Enough to use them as a tool to get re-elected but not much more.
It only takes the short term to buy more armor for the Humvees.Poleaxe wrote:More taxes doesn't even guaruntee greater revenue past the short term.More taxes = more money to spend for defense.
Hmmm... 1 qualified(?) plant at 300/month. We need how many? 5,000? That would be 16 months. 10,000? 32 months. 20,000?Zarathud wrote:
It only takes the short term to buy more armor for the Humvees.
As I have said before in this thread, show me where the administration has fallen down on the job and I will join in the criticism. However, we have no idea why there is only one plant doing the work.Zarathud wrote:If soldiers are retrofitting using scrap metal, I'll take armor retrofits from an unqualified plant. There is no excuse for only 1 plant being able to produce Humvee armor. The military used to always have alternative suppliers.
No, I saw it - that's what I was responding to, your response to that post, duh!Zarathud wrote:Welcome to the topic sentence. In your haste to reply, you may have missed the prior post comparing Iraq to WWII.Grifman wrote:Wow, I would have never guessed that! Thanks for cluing the rest of us in!Zarathud wrote:WWII is a very different combat experience from the War in Iraq.
No, I saw it, I just didn't buy itMaybe this is because you missed the prior post comparing Humvees to Sherman tanks in WWII. And your point-by-point response which misses the connecting themes between sentences.Grifman wrote:Not sure what the point is or how this is relevant.- The entire US economy was on a war footing in WWII.
Actually it required retrofits because it was an inferior tank armor wise and gun wise to many German tanks - the army failed to anticipate the rate of increase in tank development. When it was introduced in North Africa it could defeat anything the Germans had - but they had Panthers and Tigers in development and the US had nothing further planned. Not sure what you mean by everything that could be done fell short.Then, Sherman tanks required combat retrofits because literally everything that could be done fell short.
And how is this relevant? The Sherman went through an extensive design process like all Pentagon weapons and it came up short. And the design process apparently worked for the Humvee. It CAN be upgraded - we just don't have enough of those around in Iraq.Now, Humvees went through an extensive design process
You excused what happened with Shermans in WW2 while blaming the Admin for the Humvee problem. I'm saying you can't do that. Excuse both or blame both, but you can't have it both ways.No, shortage had nothing to do with the problems of the Sherman tank. We produced tens of thousands of them. We could have produced a better tank, fewer but better - but for a number of reasons:WWII military supply shortages could be expected and excused ecause the entire US economy was hard-pressed to supply a world-war.
True, but as I have demonstrated, it didn't have to be that way.Short-term solutions were quickly put together for immediate needs -- like the Sherman tank to "catch up" to German tank superiority.
With that I agreeIraq isn't a world war, we had plenty of time to plan and realistically assess our military and its capacity to achieve the military objectives.
It's just your analysis of the Sherman problems in WW2 I disagree with.Great, but my problem was with your analysis of WW2 not Rumsfeld. That's where you keep getting confused.Before 9/11, Rumsfeld faced stiff resistance from the Department of Defense against his downsizing of the US military because it would make the US unable to fight a war on two fronts (which was the prevailing military strategy during the cold war and afterwards). We don't have enough around because we didn't order enough to get the job done. Families are able to buy body armor on the internet for their soldiers, so it's not a supply problem -- it's a resource allocation problem, which was caused by Rumsfeld.
Yes, exactly.Grifman wrote:This is silly. Tax cuts have nothing to do with the military budget. We spent the money anyway - that's why we have a 400 billion dollar deficit. You really think no tax cuts would have meant one more piece of armor for the military?and less tax cuts would allow for more armor to be made.Silly? Hardly.
Those rules never existed under the Bush admin. That was an agreement reached by Clinton and Congress - increased expenses had to be matched by increase revenue or cuts elsewhere. That obviously went out the window when you see the Bush deficits.Until recently budget rules capped the deficit.
Please show me specifically where any amounts were cut from any defense bill under Bush because there wasn't available funding.More taxes = more money to spend for defense.
Bush and the Congress spent what they wanted to spend, regardless of revenue. There has been no connection between revenue and spending since Bush came into office - the size of the annual deficit clearly speaks to that and you are the clueless one if you believe otherwise. Again, specifically show where the defense budge was cut or appropriated less because of the lack of revenue. Since you assert this was true, you should be able to find this in either public Admin statements or the Congressional record.While there may have been a debate on whether to spend tax revenues on guns vs. butter, you're clueless if you truly think the military wouldn't have received a significant share of any budget deal.
I said I agree - and since you are doing nothing to compare this to World War 2, it seems irrelevant. Where did I say they shouldn't have been prepared for this?Humvees could be configured or retrofitted to resist bombs. In attacking a "terrorist" country, the administration should have contemplated a potential insurgency and the possiblity of a guerilla war using makeshift bombs. What else are "terrorists" known for doing? Planing bombs, perhaps?
I agree with this also. But that is in many ways no different than World War 2 - which was the real debate - how different is it, to get back on topicThe point is that Rumsfeld based his "new" military on a quick, rapid strike force using massive technology superiority to maximize the effect of a single infantryman. Iraq is showing that Rumsfeld's military plan may have been effective for winning the war, but very problematic (arguably dangerously so) at winning the peace during an occupation.
We relied upon technology to offset our lack of ground forces. The US army only 90 divisions, the Germans had over 300! Even ignoring the German forces on the Eastern Front, the odds were nearly even on the Western Front on a man to man basis. US technology - airpower, artillery made the difference - as it did in Iraq. Grifman wrote:Yes, and the point is?- WWII was a battle to destroy strong military nations with industrial economies. The Iraq army was weakened by the prior war and had little military effectiveness.
Again, what's the point. You made two disconnected statements about WW2 and then Iraq, without any linkage between them? Then you go on to talk about partisan attacks in Iraq. I can't follow where you are going with this. Unless what you are trying to say is that WW2 against Germany was a "conventional" war while the war against Iraq is becoming a "guerilla" war. That would be a plainer way of saying it, and with that I would agree.You're missing it. See above. We're facing a partisan attack in Iraq by civilians intending to disrupt our maneuverability and resist our ability to occupy their country. Even against a weak force, a chink in our technological armor has proven disasterous. Ignoring the Humvee problem is a serious military problem, not something that Rumsfeld should ignore or simply dismiss.
Grifman wrote:No one who has never been in combat knows "exactly" what is going to happen.- WWII relied on draftees and volunteers who were joining to fight the Japs and Krauts in the main armed services. They knew exactly what was going to happen.
They knew they could be called up whenever their country needed them. How or why is irrelevant - the Army doesn't ask your opinion on what missions you'd like to take part in. Wouldn't be much of an army if it did. But I do agree that they've placed too much of a burden on the reserves - if Bush/Rummy want to keep it up, they need to get smart and increase the regular forces.Now, volunteers from auxiliaries (the Reserves) are being sent to hostile territory for extended periods. Those auxiliaries joined thinking that the US would not invade a country to occupy it, but to defeat a military threat. Those auxiliaries were encouraged to "be all that they could be" by getting military job training.
I'm non-responsive because your comments often don't seem to have anything to do with the discussion, or are very confusing (see below).Nonresponsive.
Ok, now you're getting somewhere. This actually makes sense. The whole draftee thing your first mentioned seems irrelevant - you don't use it in your point above. And you never compared the purpose of WW2 with the purpose of the Iraq war above. Now that've you've actually put it together I understand your pointJoining the reserves for the GI Bill and weekend warrior work is nothing like joining the "Grand Crusade" in a World War. Knowing that something can happen is very different than knowing it is likely -- or that your committment as a Reservist will extend to occupation of a foreign country.
But the problem is, not everyone agrees with your view of Iraq. Some think that eliminating a murderer such as Sadaam, bringing democracy to an area of the world where it virtually doesn't exist, are, well, the Arabs don't like us using the term "Crusade" but you get my point. Only history will tell how this is viewed - it's still too early I would say.Grifman wrote:I agree, we need more troops.The rotation system shows how stretched the military has become under Rumsfeld.
Have I disagreed with this anywhere? I said I agreed, dammit. What more do you want?And we have Rumsfeld to blame for rejecting the military's request for more troops before the war, not sending enough troops initially to occupy Iraq, and underestimating the number of troops needed to win the peace. Most other CEOs would fire someone who screwed up as much as Rumsfeld, not talk him into serving longer.
Well, be more clear and I won't have to put words in your mouth. I'm not sure that it's me not getting what you're saying or more you not able to say what you mean until the second time throughGrifman wrote:That's really irrelevant. That's an argument for pulling all the troops out, but that's not what you are proposing here. You're just seem to saying it's unfair that reserves are getting heavy duty and that regulars are extended under stop loss. Yes, it's unfair, and we do need more troops, but until we get them - this is the only option. So unless you propose pulling us out of Iraq with our tails between our legs and letting a bunch of terrorists take over a country with some of the largest oil reserves in the world, exactly what else would you propose then?There's a huge moral difference between the wars. WWII was about defeating Hitler/Japs and avoiding another World War -- the "War to End All Wars." Now, the reason we used to justify attacking Iraq has been disproven.Don't try to put words into my mouth, especially when it's clear that you don't get what I'm saying.
I think you are very confused here. I've never defended Rumsfeld on the humvees or his strategy in Iraq. Almost everywhere you criticize Rumsfeld, I've kept saying I agree with you. All I was doing was challenging your assertion that Iraq was so different from World War 2 on your specific points. You keep arguing against points I never made.If you have a clear moral cause to go to war, you can expect your soldiers to sacrifice more. In WWII, we could justify sending hordes of troops against the beaches of Normandy. We can't do that in Iraq -- Rumsfeld has a huge responsibility to those troops because the reason he went to war was proven wrong. He failed the troops in deciding to go to war, he's failed the troops so far in equipping them and giving them what they need to do their job safely -- and you want to defend Rumsfeld by saying that we can't just leave?
Not really. The Sherman is a perfect example, as was the US use of technology, and the problems with reserves/National Guard deployment - see above as you like to sayIf that context was WWII, it's a poor comparison. See above.Grifman wrote:No, but my point was that this sort of stuff has happened before. Doesn't excuse it, but it does put it into context.You can't just dismiss these problems by saying "War is hell, soldier."
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Will this do?Poleaxe wrote:As I have said before in this thread, show me where the administration has fallen down on the job and I will join in the criticism. However, we have no idea why there is only one plant doing the work.
Doesn't sound like a "problem of physics" to me.Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army.
...
``We're prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month,'' Mecredy said in the telephone interview. ``I've told the customer that and I stand ready to do that.''
The short answer is that this will not do entirely. Putting my critical thinking hat on...Little Raven wrote:Will this do?Poleaxe wrote:As I have said before in this thread, show me where the administration has fallen down on the job and I will join in the criticism. However, we have no idea why there is only one plant doing the work.
Doesn't sound like a "problem of physics" to me.Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army.
...
``We're prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month,'' Mecredy said in the telephone interview. ``I've told the customer that and I stand ready to do that.''
Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army.
A couple things:`Not Close to Capacity'
``If they ordered more trucks, we'd build more trucks,'' Woodward said. ``We're not close to capacity. It might take some time to ramp up but we can do it.''
Woodward declined to provide exact details on production capacity.
Jacksonville, Florida-based Armor Holdings last month told the Army it could add armor to as many as 550 of the trucks a month, up from 450 vehicles now, Robert Mecredy, president of the company's aerospace and defense group, said in an interview today.
From these two quotes we see that the DoD has indeed ordered an increase in production of 750%. If they have ordered an increase in production of 750%, why would they stop short of full production?Armor Holdings has already boosted output from 60 vehicles per month a year ago, said Mecredy, 58. As a result of the increased output, Armor Holdings has cut the price for the armor its supplies for the trucks to $58,000 per vehicle, from $72,000 per vehicle a year ago, Mecredy said.
The reason I posted it really wasn't so much for Rummy's responses, I was pointing to it more as a reflection of morale issues that are growing in the military.Poleaxe wrote:Perhaps I would take that link more seriously if they actually quoted Rummy's responses in full.Enough wrote:
Linky
As for the questions, I think they are quite reasonable. Isn't it great we live in a society where our soldiers can ask these questions of their civilian leadership?
I know. This was my way of asking whether the questions are a sign of low morale or that americans are not what you would call shy.Enough wrote:The reason I posted it really wasn't so much for Rummy's responses, I was pointing to it more as a reflection of morale issues that are growing in the military.Poleaxe wrote:Perhaps I would take that link more seriously if they actually quoted Rummy's responses in full.Enough wrote:
Linky
As for the questions, I think they are quite reasonable. Isn't it great we live in a society where our soldiers can ask these questions of their civilian leadership?
Full transcript: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/ ... f1761.htmlQ: Yes, Mr. Secretary. My question is more logistical. We’ve had troops in Iraq for coming up on three years and we’ve always staged here out of Kuwait. Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromise ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don’t we have those resources readily available to us? [Applause]
SEC. RUMSFELD: I missed the first part of your question. And could you repeat it for me?
Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.
SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.
As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it’s a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.
I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they’re working at it at a good clip. It’s interesting, I’ve talked a great deal about this with a team of people who’ve been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.
And General Whitcomb, is there anything you’d want to add to that?
GEN. WHITCOMB: Nothing. [Laughter] Mr. Secretary, I’d be happy to. That is a focus on what we do here in Kuwait and what is done up in the theater, both in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. As the secretary has said, it’s not a matter of money or desire; it is a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it. The 699th, the team that we’ve got here in Kuwait has done [Cheers] a tremendous effort to take that steel that they have and cut it, prefab it and put it on vehicles. But there is nobody from the president on down that is not aware that this is a challenge for us and this is a desire for us to accomplish.
SEC. RUMSFELD: The other day, after there was a big threat alert in Washington, D.C. in connection with the elections, as I recall, I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They’re not there anymore. [Cheers] [Applause] They’re en route out here, I can assure you. Next. Way in the back. Yes.