Senator McCain

[NousDefionsDoc]

McCain Has 'No Confidence' in Rumsfeld

Mon Dec 13, 6:32 PM ET Top Stories - AP


By BETH DeFALCO, Associated Press Writer

PHOENIX - U.S. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) said Monday that he has "no confidence" in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, citing Rumsfeld's handling of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and the failure to send more troops.


AP Photo


AP Photo
Slideshow: Sen. John McCain

With all due respect to his service, WTH? First the SOWF thing and now this?


McCain, speaking to The Associated Press in an hourlong interview, said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation, explaining that President Bush (news - web sites) "can have the team that he wants around him."


Asked about his confidence in the secretary's leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago.


"I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence," McCain said.


He estimat

ed an additional 80,000 Army personnel and 20,000 to 30,000 more Marines would be needed to secure Iraq.


"I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops — linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.," said McCain, R-Ariz. "There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue."


When asked if Rumsfeld was a liability to the Bush administration, McCain responded: "The president can decide that, not me."


McCain, a decorated Navy veteran and former Vietnam prisoner of war, is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), which has oversight of military operations and considerable influence over the Pentagon (news - web sites) budget.


If Senate Republicans maintain their majority two years from now, McCain would be in line to become the committee's chairman, something he said he'd weigh when considering whether to run for president again.


"In a couple of years I might give it some consideration, but not right now," he said of a 2008 presidential bid.


Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said McCain "has frequently expressed his views regarding troop levels in Iraq, and he is an important member" of the committee.


Rumsfeld has "relied upon the judgment of the military commanders to determine what force levels are appropriate for the situation at hand," Di Rita said.


Despite the troop levels, McCain believes military morale remains high, but he acknowledged that involuntary extensions of tours of duty were frustrating to soldiers.


He said Iraq must have a functioning independent government before U.S. troops leave.


"I believe we'll be in Iraq militarily for many years, which would not be a problem to the American people," he said. "I think what is not acceptable to the American people is an increasing flow of dead and wounded."

[Kyobanim]

Comments from Schwarzkopf RE: Rumsfeld from msnbc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6708495/

Schwarzkopf, interviewed on MSNBC-TV’s “Hardball,” chided Rumsfeld for his reply to a soldier in Kuwait over the lack of armor on many military vehicles used in Iraq.

“I was very, very disappointed — no, let me put it stronger — I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense when he laid it all on the Army, as if he, as the secretary of defense, didn’t have anything to do with the Army and the Army was over there doing it themselves, screwing up,” Schwarzkopf said.

Schwarzkopf, a registered independent who campaigned for Bush in the last two presidential elections, has previously criticized Rumsfeld on several occasions as arrogant and out of touch with troops on the ground.

Monday, Schwarzkopf said the Defense Department had badly misjudged the situation in Iraq. Reserve forces were rushed into urban combat — “toughest kind of fighting” — without adequate training, and “things have gone awry.”

“In the final analysis, I think we are behind schedule” in Iraq, Schwarzkopf said. “... I don’t think we counted on it turning into jihad.”

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Isn't it interesting that the Congress , of which McCain seems to be a member, is the one that votes on things like Iraq, appropriates funds for Iraq, passes on budgets submitted for Iraq, sets policy for places like Iraq and then holds Rumsfeld for shortcomings which, for all intents and purposes, are not entirely under his control. Seems to me the maxim of he who holds the purse strings holds the power is more appropriate here. My personal opinion of Rummy aisde, McCain needs to look in the mirror. Some of the crap that McCain comes up with makes him look more and more like the poster child for the Manchurian Candidate.

Jack Moroney

[Team Sergeant]

“Schwarzkopf, a registered independent who campaigned for Bush in the last two presidential elections, has previously criticized Rumsfeld on several occasions as arrogant and out of touch with troops on the ground.”

Schwarzkopf is an arrogant prick that hates all Special Operations Forces. I’ve never heard one Special Forces type mention anything in a positive manner when referring to Gen Shithead. I know that fat POS about choked on his own tongue when a handful of Special Forces personnel took down the entire country of Afghanistan.

Want to know more about arrogant boy go read “Shadow Warriors” by Tom Clancy and Gen Stiner.

All I'll say is we could have done much more in Desert Storm without arrogant boy at the helm.

TS

[NousDefionsDoc]

Yeah, but his Dad found the Lindburgh baby.


So, how do you feel about General Dumfkopf TS? LOL

[Kyobanim]

"Schwarzkopf is an arrogant prick that hates all Special Operations Forces. I’ve never heard one Special Forces type mention anything in a positive manner when referring to Gen Shithead. I know that fat POS about choked on his own tongue when a handful of Special Forces personnel took down the entire country of Afghanistan.

Want to know more about arrogant boy go read “Shadow Warriors” by Tom Clancy and Gen Stiner.

All I'll say is we could have done much more in Desert Storm without arrogant boy at the helm.

TS

I'd read something like that somewhere but couldn't remember the source. I had the feeling that that was the general consensus.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I'd read something like that somewhere but couldn't remember the source. I had the feeling that that was the general consensus.

When I was going thru the pre-command course before taking over my SF unit he came to Leavenworth and shared his philosophy with us. Of course, so did many other general officers-I guess it was there time to mentor us thru our next career hurdle and for some reason they thought we really gave a shit what they thought. Then he made a big deal of wanting to meet with all the battalion command designates one on one to share his perspectives on the Army and our careers etc. When he found out that I was taking over a SF unit he started in counselling me on my career choice. He was a real piece of work.

Jack Moroney

[Sigi]

I agree with both of them.

[brewmonkey]

While I do not agree with all that SEN McCain says or does I have to agree in many respects that Sec Rumsfeld is failing and failing badly. He seems to be turning in to a "yes" man and playing to the President. While he may work for the President he should answer to the troops. He floundered his way through last weeks Q&A with weak answers and it seemed to me like he was trying to pass the buck.

I am all for soldiers being resourceful and "liberating" the items needed (provided that it is not fucking another unit deploying) but when we are coming up on the end of our second year in Iraq and less then 10% of the trucks used daily on logistics missions have the armor they should, then something is wrong. I understand that it is congress who does the financial side of things but it is the Sec Def's job to let them know what our soldiers need to fight. It seems that is is not happening. Things take time, I understand.

It was the same thing in OIF2. We had troops deploying with no body armor, body armor not suited for the operations they were being used for or soldiers buying their own to take, that is FUBAR. It got fixed, and quick. Why is the armor for vehicles not happening the same way? Why cant they appropriate the money, ship plates of steel to Kuwait where welders can fabricate it on the spot? You have some units doing this with their own slush fund money.

Shit like this pisses me off in case you cannot tell. I thought Rumsfeld was a great pick for this position four years ago. It's time for his ass to get off the bench and act like a damn player.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I can't stand McCain. And I actually worked in his district office when he was in Congress and on his first Senate campaign.

[NousDefionsDoc]

So Brew, is it just the armor or do you feel he is failing badly in other areas?

[Roguish Lawyer]

I like Rumsfeld. Especially because the libs hate him. When people like McCain want him gone, that makes me like him even more. F them.

[Bravo1-3]

So Brew, is it just the armor or do you feel he is failing badly in other areas?

What burns me about SecDef is his activities involving cutting costs to fund Star Wars. A lot of those funding cuts (direct and indirect) like restructuring units to be "lighter and more agile" (which is pseudo-bullshit Clinton-era speak for "Less capable, less sustainable, less lethal) really pisses me off. I was all for cancelling the Comanche and the Crusader SPH, but when we start consolidating infantry units, and converting non-combat arms MOS's into infantry in order to take up the slack... there's just something wrong with that.

I am actually FOR a missile defense system, but not at the expense of Joe Snuffy and combat effectiveness in a shooting war.

I don't believe these were easy decisions for SecDef to make, but it does seem to me that he's so focused on the 25m Target that he's not paying attention to the 3m Target.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Somehow I doubt SECDEF really, really supports Star Wars deep down in his heart.

I was getting ready to post somthing similar to what you have said, but with the opposing view.

I get the impression that:
1. He and others have a very clear idea of what they want the military to look like in a couple of years. And 1 million UAHs ain't it.

2. I disagree wholeheartedly with your opinion of lighter and more agile. In hindsight I think it was folly to expect that after the ass whippin' they got in DS they would stand and fight again. I think the recent operation in Fallujah is a glimpse of what we can expect from this enemy in the future.

3. They know if they chop off heads and what not, they will turn the public against the admin. They ran the Red Cross and UN out and canceled any thought Europe might have had about getting involved after the fact. What did he take them to do it? 100 dedicated guys or so and some cannon fodder to let them get away when pressed?

4. I agree with you that all this doesn't resolve today's issues, valid or invalid.

5. I think they may be in a change managent crisis. It always happens when you try to effect major changes or transform during oeprations. I can almost see the frustration.

I am expecting major changes in the near future.

Also, I am expecting, depending on the outcome, changes in Iraq itself right after the elections. I think they aren't saying anything because they don't want to have to retract, but I expect them to send some people home.

One thing I do know, being SECDEF today has to be tougher than any time since WWII.

Just my opinion.

[brewmonkey]

Unlike RL the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

NDD * B1/3 hit on some of the reasons I am starting to not have faith in the SECDEF. His idea of what the future Armed Services should look like does not sit right with me. I know we seem to have growing pains every so often, units like the 9th ID and then the 199 Motorized BDE, now the stryker program etc... We have no way of really predicting the way we will be fighting in the future but if Rumsfeld has his way IMHO we may not be able to fight at all.

After the Gulf War it seems that we went into the mindset that Heavy is the way to be. While we drew down the size of the Army and got rid of some divisions we beefed up the others with M-1'a & M-2/3's. We were ready to fight another GW and for the first 20 days of OIF that is what we did. Then we had to enter the cities and now we have everyone reagrdless of MOS fighting in a MOUT environment. Don't misunderstand me, I believe every soldier should be a shooter first and your other job second. But it looks like with the increase in MOUT I am hearing more and more about the Army changing it's structure to fight like this in the future. We will be prepped to fight this kind of fight and our ability to take on a heavy division will be seriously lacking.

Right now we have some of the best equipment in the world but we are learning fast that even the best equipment does not stop an RPG round or an IED. The rest of the world is watching Iraq and from now on anywhere we go we can expect to see something very similar in terms of guerilla warfare against our troops. Why does Rumsfeld seem to be missing this? While his main focus should be on what is currently going on, he cannot forget about the future fighting force. He needs to make sure that the Army he leaves for the next SECDEF will be able to do it's job and meet its mission requirements. To me he just does not seem to be doing it. When the next SECDEF takes over he may not have the time to get the Army in fighting mode before it is called back in to the fray, and then we will be in a world of hurt.

I have my doubts that he is capable of doing this job anymore, the Q&A session he blew was just some more icing on the cake.

[NousDefionsDoc]

You just re-stated exactly what I said, with the exception of "he's not doing it." Meds working good tonight huh?

[uboat509]

First of all, I do like McCain because if nothing else you can say that he sticks by what he believes is right. He does not simply parrot the party line so even when I disagree with him I still like him. The SECDEF is another matter. I get the impression that he is a number cruncher like MacNamara (SP?). His background is corporate and he trys to run the military like a corporation and that does not work. One of the first things that he is reported to have said is "Why am I paying for schools and commasaries?" I am paraphrasing a bit because I don't remember the exact quote but the point is the same. According to the Army Times they looking at closing several of the DODDS schools including the one at Bragg. Anybody here want to send your kid to a public school in Fayettville?

[brewmonkey]

You just re-stated exactly what I said, with the exception of "he's not doing it." Meds working good tonight huh?

Yea, I forgot the medical disclaimer. That's what I get for taking all the meds at once. I will come back to the thread tomorrow as the Mrs. is off. That means I wont be dog ass tired (2 year old refused to nap today so I missed mine too) and on meds at the same time.

But no matter what, Rumsfeld is setting the military up for a giant failure and it is already starting to show with shit as simple as the armored vehicles. He needs to stop playing politician and do his fucking job.


Disclaimer: The views and opinions of the author are influenced by lack of sleep and daily use of pain meds. They give him a unique insight that no one else seems to understand, of course neither does he half the time.

[Bravo1-3]

McCain is a blow hard. He's got more dirty laundry than most membrs of both houses. He had a rougher 7 years in Vietnam than I'd like anyone to have, and for that, I respect him without question. But he hasn't been the most forthright individual in the Senate. This is a guy who co-sponsored a bill that direcly attacked the 1st Amendment Rights of regular citizens while allowing guys like George Soros to fund his own private war... campaign finance reform my ass! We had more dirty money in this last election than any in my lifetime. I also don't believe that his role in the S&L Fiasco has ever been fully disclosed.

That said, I think Sec. Rumsfeld has a lot of work to do getting our troops what they need to go shoot bad guys in the teeth. Fully 50% of this nations steel making capacity is idle, and 15% isn't used to its fullest extent.... we have 2 ship builders here in the city with about 10,000 tons of cold rolled plate in their yards, and CNC Plasma Cutting Equipment that could chop it to within 1/1000" in a matter of a few days... and they're not even building anything. The employees are all awaiting a call-back, and have been for 2 years.

We've got one of the largest producers of bullet proof glass in the world not 20 miles from where I'm sitting. They're not idle, but they could do the job if they got the call.

We've got a lot full of M-113's that our National Guard troops left here when they (cannon cockers and F/O's) headed out to Iraq as "Light Infantry". How long would it take to load those up on to flat cars (rail yard runs right behind the armory yard) and get them out to Tacoma, and off to Iraq? Sure, 113's aren't an ideal vehicle, but it's better than nothing. Hell, there's even Up Armored Humvee's over there.

Lord only knows what other gear is just sitting around collecting dust. Sure, I'd miss looking at it on my way into the office every day, but I'd get used to it :rolleyes:

As far as "Lighter and more Agile", the first time I heard that phrase was when they started casing up Battalion Colors in the Marine Corps in 1993. To me it means "Doing more, with less gear, less support, and then heading to the next deployment." Idiots like Aspen, Perry and Cohen used "Smaller, Faster Lighter, more Agile" as a means of cutting costs... and combat effectiveness in my book. Imagine what 5 more Marine Infantry Battalions could be doing right now if their Guidons weren't used as a table cloth at some party celebrating "How much money we're saving". 5 more Battalions of Infantry could cover a lot of space in Iraq... hell, we took Kuwait with 8. Same goes for the Army too.

That's what I think about when I think "Smaller, Lighter, more Agile". I think of guys on 7-month base UDP's that get extended for another 5 months because somethng else has come up and we need more "Smaller, Lighter, More Agile" forces forward deployed.

Don't get me wrong, I took my oath, and if I had ended up deployed even more than I already was, I'd have done what I was expected to do without complaint. But when it's because we folded up our replacement units colors "In order to be a 'BETTER' fighting force", that doesn't sit well with me.

NDD, I agree that in many instances, a small, light unit is a viable option... when "smaller, lighter, more agile force" is something other than a buzz word designed to placate people.

Like I said previously, having a long term goal (in SecDefs case, the ability to knock down ICBMs) is great, I have a long term goal... to be a Billionaire. But I'm not going to forsake my childrens college funds in order to save up some more money for long term. I think they're so caught up in getting this new toy up and running that they've taken their eyes off of near term realities of the situation.

[brownapple]

less then 10% of the trucks used daily on logistics missions have the armor they should,


What armor should a truck have? It's a truck, not a tank.

Btw, in 1944, 2 and 1/2 years after the US entered the war, 4 years after the beginning of mobilization.... the US Army had significant shortages in airlift capacity and gliders, causing significant issues with the Invasion of Normandy, Market Garden and Dragoon. Guess the Secretary of War must have really been f***ing up then, huh?

[brewmonkey]

What armor should a truck have? It's a truck, not a tank.

Btw, in 1944, 2 and 1/2 years after the US entered the war, 4 years after the beginning of mobilization.... the US Army had significant shortages in airlift capacity and gliders, causing significant issues with the Invasion of Normandy, Market Garden and Dragoon. Guess the Secretary of War must have really been f***ing up then, huh?



Trucks? They should have ballistic windows (they dont) and on transports they should have the crew compartment doots with some form of protection. The majority of our losses are coming from IED/VBIED used against National Guard troops in a logistical capacity and as soon as I find it I will post the list of MOS's, Grunts are not leading the way in the last report I saw.

As for armor on vehicles. We knew it before then but it was shown to us again in Somalia. Our light skinned vehicles need to be able to survive the threat of RPG's or t least give the crews a fighting chance. We had all those years to R&D a vehicle with improved survivability against small arms and RPG's.

I also did not say that OIF/OEF is the sole reason for my disdain. While the SECDEF was left an Army of the kinder Gentler kind and did not have much time to get it back up to speed before they were sent in to action. He is know taking it down a few more notches and when the next SECDEF takes office, well it won't be pretty. I was always told you should leave things in the same if not better shape then when you got/found them. This will not be the case IMHO.

I just do not think he is doing the best job he can and that pisses me off. Maybe it is time to set age limits on the upper end. If in the civilian world they can retire you at 67 then maybe it is time to set the same limits on the people who made that law???

Disclaimer: The views and opinions of the author are influenced by lack of sleep and daily use of pain meds. They give him a unique insight that no one else seems to understand, of course neither does he half the time.

[NousDefionsDoc]

We have changed from offense to defense in Iraq. That is a result of the political objective, not the military strategy. The supply lines appear to be long because our base is in Kuwait.

There was a Stryker (I understand) taken out by an RPG.

How much fuel/rations/ammo can an M1 carry?

You're right, I cannot understand your unique insight.

What I see is the leadership looking to transform the military to meet the cellular threat of an enemy that has adapted his TTPs. I hope it indicates that there will be no more spreading democracy and instead a simple killing of bad guys and departure.

[brewmonkey]

We have changed from offense to defense in Iraq. That is a result of the political objective, not the military strategy. The supply lines appear to be long because our base is in Kuwait.

There was a Stryker (I understand) taken out by an RPG.

How much fuel/rations/ammo can an M1 carry?

You're right, I cannot understand your unique insight.

What I see is the leadership looking to transform the military to meet the cellular threat of an enemy that has adapted his TTPs. I hope it indicates that there will be no more spreading democracy and instead a simple killing of bad guys and departure.


And that is a great thing as I like bad guys dead. My concern is the future of our fighting forces as in 10 years down the road. Rumsfeld is focused on the 25m target (somewhat) and that is great, but he is failing to plan for the 50m target that he is going to have to engage at some point in time. When that time comes, will we have the fighting force capable of dealing with that threat?

There have been several strykers taken out by RPG's and there has been Bradleys and even a few M-1's.

[NousDefionsDoc]

What would you do for the 50M target?

[Stargazer]

What I see is the leadership looking to transform the military to meet the cellular threat of an enemy that has adapted his TTPs.

What does the acronym TTP mean? Please.

[Martin]

What does the acronym TTP mean? Please.

Tactics, Techniques and Procedures.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Tactics, Techniques, Procedures

Tool Box.

[brewmonkey]

What would you do for the 50M target?

While I certainly would make sure our supply lines did not depend on wheeled vehicles coming from another country down roads we dont control. Although it looks like someone in the Airforce has finally pulled their head out of their ass though on this one and starting today the AF will be flying supplies directly in to some of the bases in Iraq. It only took them 21 months to figure this out though.

That would be a start but what about the AF's capabilty to move the military to where it needs to fight. What about the Army's capabilities to fight that battle? Where have all the Armor & Heavy divisions gone? Like we are doing right now I can take any Joe, give him some remedial training and turn him in to a grunt. It is damn difficult to take someone and turn him in to a tanker or a Bradley crew member or many of the other jobs.


With the current situation in Iraq, if we are going to be in this for the long term our current forces are not going to be cutting it. We have soldiers with less then 3 years in the Army who have spent 2 years in a combat zone and are in line for their 3rd and in some cases 4th tour in OIF/OEF. If this pace keeps up and we wont have an Army at all to worry about fighting anywhere. The need for a bigger military is certainly evident and the use of the NG/RC soldiers is not working like they hoped it would and has sent NG recruitment in to a tailspin. Recruiting for the NG was off by 12.5% with the bulk of that number coming from soldiers leaving AD not enlisting in to the NG. This leaves NG units without experienced soldiers which in turn increases costs as now we have spend more money finding recruits who then require the training they will need to do the job.

If the pace we are going stays the same we are going to have a tough time keeping up. The draft is not a remote possibility and keeping people past their ETS dates is only going to fly for so long before it backfires. How are we going to maintain the current missions much less future ones at this pace? Where are we going to get the troops for this?

We need more units, more equipment and most of all we need the men and women to fill those rolls.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions of the author are influenced by lack of sleep and daily use of pain meds. They give him a unique insight that no one else seems to understand, of course neither does he half the time.

[NousDefionsDoc]

While I certainly would make sure our supply lines did not depend on wheeled vehicles coming from another country down roads we dont control

How? You can fly a lot of it, but not everything. What will you do when they shoot the planes down?


That would be a start but what about the AF's capabilty to move the military to where it needs to fight. What about the Army's capabilities to fight that battle? Where have all the Armor & Heavy divisions gone? Like we are doing right now I can take any Joe, give him some remedial training and turn him in to a grunt. It is damn difficult to take someone and turn him in to a tanker or a Bradley crew member or many of the other jobs.

Do you want heavy divisions or airmobile divisions? Why do we need heavy divisions to fight terrorist cells? Are the insurgents in Iraq out gunning us with their armor?

I can take any grunt and teach him to operate a tank or a Bradley given enough time - what's the point here?

I just heard SECDEF say they are planning for 10 more Brigades. I think they are looking at a modular MEUSOC concept. Makes sense to me.

[Airbornelawyer]

The mid-2005 through mid-2006 rotations for Operation Iraqi Freedom include the 4th ID with 4 brigades and the 101st with 4 brigades. Unless they are counting the aviation brigade, is this to be the first test of the UA reorganization?

BTW, the rest of that rotation includes the 172d Stryker BCT; the 1st BDE, 1ID; 1st BDE, 10th Mountain; and 48th Infantry Brigade (Separate) from the Georgia Guard.

3rd and 4th Brigades of 10th Mountain will be going to OEF, along with Florida's 53rd Brigade HHC (I think the brigade's HQ was the only part not called up for Iraq). I didn't even know 10th MTN had a 3rd and 4th Brigade, so I guess these are UAs too.

[Airbornelawyer]

Do you want heavy divisions or airmobile divisions?
4ID and 101. Looks like we get both.

BTW, as I discussed in the Stryker thread, while light forces are usually better for fighting insurgents, heavy forces are often better for deterring them. Four Danish Leopard 1s probably accomplished more UNPROFOR than a brigade of infantry to keep the Serbs from messing around in their sector.

[Airbornelawyer]

The SECDEF is another matter. I get the impression that he is a number cruncher like MacNamara (SP?). His background is corporate and he trys to run the military like a corporation and that does not work. One of the first things that he is reported to have said is "Why am I paying for schools and commasaries?" I am paraphrasing a bit because I don't remember the exact quote but the point is the same.

Rumsfeld background is many and varied, and about as close to ideal as one can get for a SECDEF.

Military experience:

He was a naval aviator and retired in 1989 as a Captain, USNR. Active duty 1954-57, Ready Reserve, 1957-75, Standby Reserve 1975-89.

Legislative branch experience:

U.S. Congress, Representative from Illinois, 1963-69

Executive branch experience:

Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, The White House, 1969-70
Counsellor to the President and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program, 1971-72
White House Chief of Staff , 1974-75

Business and management:

CEO, President, & Chairman, G.D. Searle & Co., 1977-85
Chairman & CEO, General Instrument Corporation from, 1990-93
Chairman of the Board, Gilead Sciences, Inc., 1993-2000

Foreign and national security policy-making:

U.S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74
U.S. Secretary of Defense, 1975-77
Member, President's General Advisory Committee on Arms Control, 1982-86
Special Presidential Envoy on the Law of the Sea Treaty, 1982-83
Senior Advisor to the President's Panel on Strategic Systems, 1983-84
Member, U.S. Joint Advisory Commission on U.S./Japan Relations, 1983-84
Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East, 1983-84
Member, Board of Visitors, NDU, 1988-92
Member, Commission on U.S./Japan Relations, 1989-91
Chairman, U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, 1998
Chairman, U.S. Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization, 2000
U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2001-present

Other:

Member, U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission, 1999-2000
Member, National Commission on Public Service, 1987-90
Member, National Economic Commission, 1988-89
Chairman, Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, Inc.


McNamara was an accountant and professor before entering the Army Air Corps as a captain in 1943, serving as a staff officer. He left in 1946 as a lieutenant colonel. From 1946 to 1960, he worked for Ford Motor Company, and had no involvement in defense policy or international affairs.

Several other SecDefs also had primarily business backgrounds, including Charles Wilson (Ike's 1st) and Neil McElroy (Ike's 2nd). "Cap the Knife" Weinberger was also more known for his business approach, though he had a lot of government experience (mainly on the economics and budget side).

Several had almost entirely legislative experience, including Melvin Laird (Nixon's 1st), Dick Cheney, Les Aspin and William Cohen.

No SecDef has had Rumsfeld's breadth and depth of experience. George C. Marshall, Frank Carlucci and Robert Lovett come closest.

[brewmonkey]

How? You can fly a lot of it, but not everything. What will you do when they shoot the planes down?


What do you do when they blow up the convoy with an IED or an ambush?




Do you want heavy divisions or airmobile divisions? Why do we need heavy divisions to fight terrorist cells? Are the insurgents in Iraq out gunning us with their armor?

I can take any grunt and teach him to operate a tank or a Bradley given enough time - what's the point here?

Both but you also have to look past OIF/OEF. We cannot turn the entire Army in to a light Army, it just wont work. You are talking about OIF only, I am talking about both current and future operations. We cannot be so wrapped around the axle on OIF that we do not look down the road a bit.

And yes you can take a ground pounder and put him in a Bradley but it takes a lot of time. May I ask, what is your experience on a Bradley? Have you done BGST? Have you been through MCOFT/UCOFT and then fired tables I-XII? What about maintenance on the gun? How about hanging 300 rounds in the ready boxes? What about dismounted operations? This is not something you can teach in 2 weeks and then expect the crew to fight and survive. If you have an MTT show up like we had for our unit, it takes 6 weeks. You don't just jump in and take off. Remember, a Mech unit has more ground pounders then they do mounted crew. It is easier to pull those 3 crew members from the vehicle and put them on the ground then it is to pull someone who knows squat about the Bradley and make them take it into battle.



I just heard SECDEF say they are planning for 10 more Brigades. I think they are looking at a modular MEUSOC concept. Makes sense to me.


Those 10 BDE's are "non-existant" as they are re-aligning all current Divisions to have 4 BDE's, they are not to my understanding filling this 10 BDE's with fresh troops. They will form the 4th from units out of the other three BDE's as well, they will be smaller and they they will have a lot of organic elements. DIVARTY would supply a battery to each, the MI BDE would assign units to them etc...When the BDE deploys those troops go too.

[brownapple]

That would be a start but what about the AF's capabilty to move the military to where it needs to fight. What about the Army's capabilities to fight that battle? Where have all the Armor & Heavy divisions gone? Like we are doing right now I can take any Joe, give him some remedial training and turn him in to a grunt. It is damn difficult to take someone and turn him in to a tanker or a Bradley crew member or many of the other jobs.

Airlift has been a problem for as long as I've been alive. Don't see that changing. At least Rumsfield got the Air Force to make CAS first priority. That is a huge move. As for the Armor and Heavy divisions, who do you have in mind for them to fight? Where is this hypothetical battle that we will face? The EU?


With the current situation in Iraq, if we are going to be in this for the long term our current forces are not going to be cutting it. We have soldiers with less then 3 years in the Army who have spent 2 years in a combat zone and are in line for their 3rd and in some cases 4th tour in OIF/OEF. If this pace keeps up and we wont have an Army at all to worry about fighting anywhere.

Look up the 23rd ID from 1942-1945. The 29th ID during the same period. 3rd ID. 36th ID. 1st Marine Division. Does the phrase "Duration plus 6 months" mean anything to you? The problem is not the pace, the problem is the assumptions about "combat tours", including your assumptions it seems.

[brownapple]

The mid-2005 through mid-2006 rotations for Operation Iraqi Freedom include the 4th ID with 4 brigades and the 101st with 4 brigades. Unless they are counting the aviation brigade, is this to be the first test of the UA reorganization?


Since the 101st is currently reconfiguring with the UA organization, I'd say yes.

Between the Civil War and WWII, the US Army went through a number of reorganizations changing the primary battle unit from the Corps to the Division. There is an excellent work which gives an overview of Divisions and Brigades up to 1998 found at http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Lineage/M-F/index.htm

The current reorganization of the Army will shift the primary combat unit from the Division to the Brigade. Within the context of the overview I linked, this makes very good sense and seems to be the logical step.

[brewmonkey]

Airlift has been a problem for as long as I've been alive. Don't see that changing. At least Rumsfield got the Air Force to make CAS first priority. That is a huge move. As for the Armor and Heavy divisions, who do you have in mind for them to fight? Where is this hypothetical battle that we will face? The EU?



Look up the 23rd ID from 1942-1945. The 29th ID during the same period. 3rd ID. 36th ID. 1st Marine Division. Does the phrase "Duration plus 6 months" mean anything to you? The problem is not the pace, the problem is the assumptions about "combat tours", including your assumptions it seems.

CAS is good, I like CAS. Airlift is good too, it should not be neglected. You cant fight a war saying "what if." NDD asked what if they shoot down planes. Well that has not stopped us from flying CAS or attack helos, why should it stop us from flying airlift missions?

Why do you see no need for Armor or heavy divisions? I have no idea where they may fight but that does not matter. If and when the time comes I would like our military to have the equipment and the people to deal with it. Less we be stuck with another TF Smith. Remember, we were promised no more TF Smiths.

I have no problem with duration plus 6 months, only that is not what todays contracts read nor is this the 1940's. What is the problem with the assumption of combat tours? It is these very same tours that are weighing on the minds of many soldiers. It is a prime reason why the NG is behind in it's recruiting mission.

[NousDefionsDoc]

What do you do when they blow up the convoy with an IED or an ambush?

You're missing the point. You seem to think that airlift is the solution to the convoy ambush issue. Its not, yet, and may never be. Even if you could move everything by air, they would adapt. Once they do, what's your next move? Are you going to up armor C17s? CAS and attack helos are shooting back.

As for the rest of it, I never said they should make the entire Army light. And I don't think that is the plan. But realistically who are we going to fight heavy? North Korea? I doubt we will ever get involved in a ground war on the Asian land mass again. I also doubt NK's capabilities given they are eating their dead..

As for NG recruiting, do you not find it interesting that RA is meeting their goals, even in a time of war? I would have expected the RA to not meet its goals as well. Perhaps what we have are more signing up for RA that might have been inclined to go NG.

Bradley - I have zero experience in any kind of armor. But somebody teaches the Bradely and tanker guys out of the same pool grunts come from. I really don't see you criticisim of the Infantry as valid, given they all come from the same reception stations.

Of course you can fight a war what if, that's exactly the way its done. Everything is what if. What if we attack here? What if they do this? What if I turn this corner? The only time its not what if are those brief moments between and including action and reaction. Yes, we have to think beyond OEF/OIF. That is what they are doing. What is the most probable threat? The Fulda Gap is a tourist area. What war are you preparing for?

[Airbornelawyer]

BTW, as for John McCain, after release from North Vietnamese prison in 1973, he went to the National War College in Washington, DC from 1973 to 1974. He then spent a few years on other naval assignments and returned to Washington, DC in 1977 as U.S. Navy Liaison to the U.S. Senate. For all intents and purposes, he hasn't left Capitol Hill since. He was Senate Navy Liaison from 1977 to 1981, then went back to Arizona where he ran for Congress. Elected in 1982, he was sworn in to the U.S. House of Representatives in January 1983, where he stayed until winning a U.S. Senate seat in 1986. He has been a U.S. Senator since January 1987. That's about 26 of the last 27 years on Capitol Hill.

Membership in the "world's greatest deliberative body" may have its good parts, but it tends to breed an attitude of arrogant second-guessing of the people who actually wield executive responsibility, weighing many competing interests before actually making a decision. Senators tend to be praised for their critical thinking (though some are dumb as posts) but rarely for their decisiveness. Kerry was hardly alone in that category.

I like John McCain. I've shared a few beers with the man when he was a junior senator. I agree with him on many issues and disagree with him on others. I think he has let the media adoration of him as the GOP iconoclast go to his head. Of course, the media honeymoon would end abruptly if he stopped criticizing fellow Republicans and the liberals dominating the media actually looked more closely at his views and realized just how conservative he is.

[brewmonkey]

You're missing the point. You seem to think that airlift is the solution to the convoy ambush issue. Its not, yet, and may never be. Even if you could move everything by air, they would adapt. Once they do, what's your next move? Are you going to up armor C17s? CAS and attack helos are shooting back.

As for the rest of it, I never said they should make the entire Army light. And I don't think that is the plan. But realistically who are we going to fight heavy? North Korea? I doubt we will ever get involved in a ground war on the Asian land mass again. I also doubt NK's capabilities given they are eating their dead..

As for NG recruiting, do you not find it interesting that RA is meeting their goals, even in a time of war? I would have expected the RA to not meet its goals as well. Perhaps what we have are more signing up for RA that might have been inclined to go NG.

Bradley - I have zero experience in any kind of armor. But somebody teaches the Bradely and tanker guys out of the same pool grunts come from. I really don't see you criticisim of the Infantry as valid, given they all come from the same reception stations.

Of course you can fight a war what if, that's exactly the way its done. Everything is what if. What if we attack here? What if they do this? What if I turn this corner? The only time its not what if are those brief moments between and including action and reaction. Yes, we have to think beyond OEF/OIF. That is what they are doing. What is the most probable threat? The Fulda Gap is a tourist area. What war are you preparing for?

No, you do not move everything by air. That would be nice, but not realistic. However, you move as much as you can by air and the rest by ground. Right now we are flying it all in to Kuwait and then sending it by convoy down the MSR's, many of which we do not have control over. If we had even 1 airstrip in Iraq that could handle 20 planes a day the mission would be much easier IMHO.

I too doubt all the bravado coming from NK and as well doubt we will allow ourselves to be pulled in to a ground war in Asia. That does not mean we should not still maintain a force that can project an Armored corps or two where we need them.

I am preparing for any war. While there may be no credible threat today, tomorrow is a new day.

I am also not critizing the Infantry at all. What I am saying is it is MUCH easier to take a mounted crew and make them light then it is to take light guys and make them mounted crew. Coming from the same reception stations means nothing. Some medics go through reception with the PAC clercks, I sure the hell do not want the guy who was handling leave forms this morning working on me.

I too find the recruiting delimna interesting. The reason the guarc missed their mission is because the guys with the experience are saying "I had a great time but I think I want to go home now, oh yea you can keep the stool sample." New troops is fine, but we need to keep the seasoned troops in too. They will not go to the NG if they know that within 12 months they will be right back in OIF/OEF. My neighbor just had it happen to his son. Kid got out of the Army 7 months ago and joined the NG. They got their marching orders yesterday. Right now we are putting a heavy burden on the NG and they make up a HUGE chunk of the soldiers in OIF. While the Army meeting their mission in recruiting is fine, the NG missing it will effect a lot of shit. They missed by 7K soldiers last year or about 2BDE's worth of people. When they NG is being relied on heavily to accomplish these missions, that is a lot of soldiers missing.

[brownapple]

Why do you see no need for Armor or heavy divisions? I have no idea where they may fight but that does not matter. If and when the time comes I would like our military to have the equipment and the people to deal with it. Less we be stuck with another TF Smith. Remember, we were promised no more TF Smiths.

A single heavy Brigade is capable of destroying every realistic armored threat that we might fight, worldwide. TF Smith didn't need to occur and wouldn't have if the NCA had been willing to use the weapons necessary. Today, in Korea, we have no choice (and haven't since at least 1973). The North Koreans come south, we'll use nukes to destroy the North Korean Army. Heavy divisions aren't going to change that.

I have no problem with duration plus 6 months, only that is not what todays contracts read nor is this the 1940's. What is the problem with the assumption of combat tours? It is these very same tours that are weighing on the minds of many soldiers. It is a prime reason why the NG is behind in it's recruiting mission.

Actually, that is exactly how today's contracts read. Fine print. It's there.

[brownapple]

No, you do not move everything by air. That would be nice, but not realistic. However, you move as much as you can by air and the rest by ground. Right now we are flying it all in to Kuwait and then sending it by convoy down the MSR's, many of which we do not have control over. If we had even 1 airstrip in Iraq that could handle 20 planes a day the mission would be much easier IMHO.


I guarantee we are not flying everything into Iraq. The fact is that you CANNOT supply an Army by air. It is logistically impossible. The bulk of the supplies for the troops in Iraq go by ship. They have to.

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4098917.stm

Battalions go in troops shake-up

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has outlined details of wide-ranging structural changes to the British Army.

He told the Commons reductions in heavy armour, heavy artillery and the infantry will be accompanied by an increase in specialists.

The number of infantry battalions will fall from 40 to 36, including a new "super-regiment" for Scotland, which will include the Black Watch.

Critics say the changes could leave the Army overstretched.

Britain's senior Army officer, General Sir Mike Jackson, said earlier that the Army would now be in the "right shape for the future".

Mr Hoon's statement comes after Army chiefs met last Monday to discuss the restructure.

The following changes were among those announced by the defence secretary:

The Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers will merge, and with four other battalions, including the Black Watch, will form the Royal Regiment of Scotland.

The 19th Mechanised Brigade, based in Catterick, will start conversion to a light brigade in January.

The 4th Armoured Brigade based in Germany will be converted to a Mechanised Brigade in 2006.

The King's Own Royal Border Regiment, the King's Regiment and the Queen's Lancashire Regiment will merge to form two new battalions within the new King's Lancashire and Border Regiment.

One battalion will also be taken from the Prince of Wales's Division in the south of England.

Mr Hoon, whose statement was greeted by Tory jeers, told the Commons: "These plans will make the Army more robust and resilient, able to deploy, support and sustain the enduring expeditionary operations that are essential for a more complex and uncertain world.

"The move to larger, multi-battalion regiments that these changes bring about is the only sustainable way in which to structure the infantry for the long term."

The defence secretary said he understood the importance of regimental traditions but the changes needed to be seen in the wider context of "re-balancing the Army".

Sir Mike Jackson, the Army's Chief of General Staff and one of those responsible for overseeing the restructuring, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We will do everything we can to guard heritage, history and traditions, but we need to get the structure right for the next generation."

But Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram condemned the "dismal statement", saying the changes were driven by a desire to cut costs.

He said: "It is a dark day for our armed forces. It is also a day of shame for this discredited and ineffective defence secretary.

"Our armed forces deserve better than to be betrayed in this appalling manner by their government."

SNP MP Annabelle Ewing was ordered out of the Commons chamber by the Speaker after calling Mr Hoon a "backstabbing coward".

The military has said the reorganisation will place a greater emphasis on medium and light forces, making troops more flexible and rapidly deployable.

Critics say the mergers will make it harder to recruit from the traditional bases that served the existing structure.

The final decision on the restructure was made by Mr Hoon and the prime minister after a recommendation by senior defence figures.

[brewmonkey]

I guarantee we are not flying everything into Iraq. The fact is that you CANNOT supply an Army by air. It is logistically impossible. The bulk of the supplies for the troops in Iraq go by ship. They have to.


I am not suggesting we fly everything in, what I am saying is we could fly more in then we currently are and reduce the number of convoy's from Kuwait in to Iraq.

[brownapple]

Brew,

How much logistics experience do you have?

How much planning out flights, rest and maintenance time, POL, etc?

My next door neighbor did exactly that for a number of years after an injury ended his career as a PJ. Logistics planning for the Air Force.

You are making assumptions without any data at all.

[lrd]

A few comments from the dark side:

Regardless of what some might think, the SECDEF is not God. The acquisition community has to abide by regulations which are in place FOR THE GOOD OF THE FLEET/TROOPS AND THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. Many of these regs are in place because of past mistakes or past perceived mistakes (i.e., overpriced hammers and toilet lids). Some of these regs can be waived, but that is a formal process that takes time. Other requirements, in special cases, can be performed concurrently (i.e., developmental and operational testing). You can also use testing performed on similar platforms to fulfill some of the requirements. The goal is not to screw the troops but to make sure you have the best equipment we can provide you in the most timely manner. That means the equipment has to work now, tomorrow, and the next day. You have to be able to maintain it. It does you no good to have equipment that is not maintainable or sustainable. It also has to be tested. Changes do not exist in isolation, but have rippling affects which we have to discover, analyze, and prepare for. For example, if I was the loggy on this program I would have to figure out how the addition of the armour would affect the life-cycle of the vehicle, fuel consumption, tire life, transmission, etc, etc, etc, and I would have to work the supply system to make sure I had adequate spares to handle the changes. If you add the armour and the tires start blowing out in half the time, what will you do if there aren't any more tires? That wouldn't stop me from working nonstop on the armour, but I am responsible for ALL of the logistics involved with that piece of equipment, and for making sure that it serves its purpose.

We have to balance current readiness with future readiness – sounds simple, but it isn’t. Someone has to make decisions that will affect all of you out there. If the wrong decision is made, we do not just brush it off as another bad day at the office. We watch those casualty lists as closely as you do, and have many of our civilian workers deployed along side of you as civilians or reserves.

The SOF community plays by different acquisition rules. While the normal acquisition cycle takes about 5 years, the SOF cycle can be shortened to 6 months. We are trying to do what we can to shorten the regular cycle, but there are laws that we have to abide by. Congress plays its part as well.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

A few comments from the dark side:


The SOF community plays by different acquisition rules. While the normal acquisition cycle takes about 5 years, the SOF cycle can be shortened to 6 months. We are trying to do what we can to shorten the regular cycle, but there are laws that we have to abide by. Congress plays its part as well.


Good post, however this last part is not entirely correct. SOF still has to adhere to the FAR (Federal Aquisition Regulations) however we have the ability to use portions of the FAR that deal with national security and other parts that allow things like sole source procurement for a much smaller population than the Army as a whole. While some of our toys are few in number they also get pretty expensive. We also have had the ability to "modify" equipment to meet our needs and expedite the effort a whole lot faster than the normal DOD folks. For instance we could get all the airworthiness tests done very fast for modification to certain aircraft and produce the items for pennies when it would have cost us 100s of dollars per item if it was produced by the civilian firm that developed the aircraft. SOF (white side of the house) has had things in the development cycle for many years, however they are either large ticket items, are being fielded to both SOF and some non SOF units, or are being developed concurrently for other organizations with specific SOF modifications. The black side of the house is an entirely differenct story.

Jack Moroney

[lrd]

Good post, however this last part is not entirely correct. SOF still has to adhere to the FAR (Federal Aquisition Regulations) however we have the ability to use portions of the FAR that deal with national security and other parts that allow things like sole source procurement for a much smaller population than the Army as a whole. While some of our toys are few in number they also get pretty expensive. We also have had the ability to "modify" equipment to meet our needs and expedite the effort a whole lot faster than the normal DOD folks. For instance we could get all the airworthiness tests done very fast for modification to certain aircraft and produce the items for pennies when it would have cost us 100s of dollars per item if it was produced by the civilian firm that developed the aircraft. SOF (white side of the house) has had things in the development cycle for many years, however they are either large ticket items, are being fielded to both SOF and some non SOF units, or are being developed concurrently for other organizations with specific SOF modifications. The black side of the house is an entirely differenct story.

Jack MoroneyThank you for the correction. In my attempt to emphasize the time difference from requirement to implementation between communities, I simplified things grossly.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon unveiled his long-awaited programme of
regimental cuts and mergers affecting some of the Army's most
historic names amid scenes of uproar in the Commons.

The Scottish National Party's Annabelle Ewing was expelled from the
chamber by the Deputy Speaker Sir Alan Haselhurst after she branded
Mr Hoon a ""back-stabbing coward".

For the Tories, shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said the
announcement from a "discredited and ineffective Defence Secretary"
marked a "dark day" for the Army.

However Mr Hoon said the changes were essential to provide a
more "agile, flexible and deployable" Army capable of meeting the
evolving strategic challenges of the post-9/11 era.

As expected, the Defence Secretary set out plans to cut the number
of infantry battalions from 40 to 36, with the amalgamation of the
Army's smaller regiments into a series of regional "super regiments".

In Scotland, where the changes have proved most controversial, The
Royal Scots and The King's Own Scottish Borderers will merge into a
single battalion, which will combine with the remaining four
battalions - including The Black Watch - to form The Royal Regiment
of Scotland.

One of the other battalions being "axed" from the infantry - the 1st
Battalion The Parachute Regiment - will be re-roled to provide the
core of a tri-Service "ranger" unit providing support for the
Special Forces like the SAS.

The head of the Army, General Sir Mike Jackson, said the idea of
creating a ranger unit had only emerged over the autumn as a result
of the experience of Special Forces operations during the past 18
months.

"It has become clear there is something of a gap between their
capabilities and other forces," he told a news conference at the
Ministry of Defence.

"Very clearly comes from this a requirement to provide 'semi-
conventional' support in a number of areas to our highly specialised
Special Forces."

[brewmonkey]

Brew,

How much logistics experience do you have?

How much planning out flights, rest and maintenance time, POL, etc?

My next door neighbor did exactly that for a number of years after an injury ended his career as a PJ. Logistics planning for the Air Force.

You are making assumptions without any data at all.

What assumptions am I making? All I said was that my suggestion would be to fly more of the supplies in to Iraq rather then putting them on trucks and sending them up the road. Whether the flights originate in Kuwait or Stateside is irrelevant.

My experience with logistics is somewhat limited but having served as the Company Commanders HMMWV driver and then later the XO's I know enough to get supplies from where they are to at least my company.

[brownapple]

You are assuming that there is any benefit to flying in supplies, that flights aren't already maxed out, and that the additional POL/maintenance load required for aerial delivery can be handled by the logistics system in addition to the materials already being delivered.

Or, would you prefer to reduce the total amount of logistical support reaching the troops by subtracting that required to conduct aerial resupply?

[brewmonkey]

You are assuming that there is any benefit to flying in supplies, that flights aren't already maxed out, and that the additional POL/maintenance load required for aerial delivery can be handled by the logistics system in addition to the materials already being delivered.

Or, would you prefer to reduce the total amount of logistical support reaching the troops by subtracting that required to conduct aerial resupply?

LOL. No I am not suggesting that.

I just do not see us being maxed out if we are still having to send supplies in by truck. There has to be someway to put that cargo on a bird and send it in that way. My memory of being resupplied was mainly by truck and even back then (late 80's) I always thought that the supplies (Class III, IV, V,VII & IX) they were moving would have been delivered more effectivly by air.

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6069

Ugly Reporting Wrongs Rumsfeld

by Allan H. Ryskind
Posted Dec 17, 2004

It may not have been conscious sabotage of the defense secretary, but it's hard to believe otherwise.

Nowhere was the media's irresponsibility on the Iraq conflict more acutely demonstrated than in the barrage of ugly news reports on Donald Rumsfeld's exchange in Kuwait with Spc. Thomas Wilson, an exchange that is still reverberating across the country.

Those who pay close attention to the news are almost certainly familiar with the reported encounter. Spc. Wilson, an airplane mechanic with the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked the secretary an important question: ". . . 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 . . . to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament [sic] vehicles to carry with us north."

Out of Context

Virtually all the newspaper, magazine, radio, and TV accounts wildly misrepresented what happened next. As the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks "reported"--and his piece was wholly representative of the media in general--"Rumsfeld replied: '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." Rumsfeld, as the media would have it, was blowing off the deepest concerns of our men and women about to be placed in a deadly situation.

This observer--along with a number of other pro-Bush, but not necessarily pro-war or pro-Rumsfeld conservatives I talked with--was also initially outraged upon first hearing the exchange endlessly repeated on radio and TV, and then reading the account in cold print. How could the secretary have been so callous? Why hadn't he told these soldiers what the Defense Department was doing to improve matters?

Any parent with a kid at risk in Iraq would have been fully justified in demanding Rumsfeld's head for such cold-blooded remarks. Rumsfeld, according to the media's portrayal, was telling the troops to "suck it up" and casualties be damned. No wonder his reported remarks caused such a furor.

But the official transcript of the Kuwaiti townhall meeting with the troops, as last week's HUMAN EVENTS reported, reveals an entirely different story.

The first words out of Rumsfeld's mouth in response to Wilson were not what the media either said or implied or disclosed in film clips. They were, instead, words of encouragement. Rumsfeld dwelt at length on how much progress the military was making in solving the problem that began materializing a year ago August when the enemy started using explosives to blow up thin-skinned Army vehicles normally used in the rear of the combat zone. Nor was the secretary caught off guard by the question, as the media has suggested. Here, in fact, is how Rumsfeld immediately responded--all 94 words worth--to Spc. Wilson's now famous query:

"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."

Then Rumsfeld launched into an explanation of why there weren't as many armored vehicles as the conflict now warranted. "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 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," said Rumsfeld.

"I can assure you," he continued, "that General Schoolmaker 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 they're working at a good clip. . . . [T]he 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."

Does this sound like the media's grotesque portrait of Rumsfeld?

Those friends of mine who had been furious with the defense secretary for his apparent indifference to the soldiers' life and death concerns were stunned as to how they had been misled when I read them the transcript. They were not upset that the question had been prompted by an embedded reporter, Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga Times-Free Press, for the query, judging from the positive reaction of some of the troops, was clearly a legitimate one.

But they were hot under the collar--and still are--at having been hoodwinked by the Washington Post, the New York Times, and radio and TV networks as to Rumsfeld's response. The Post, in fact, repeated the distortion two days in a row--December 9 and 10--when it had to know better. Even NBC's Tim Russert--the toughest, but fairest news moderator in TV--showed the distorted film clip of Rumsfeld's answer four day's after his town hall meeting.

The issues of Time and Newsweek that hit the newsstands this past week were still misreporting the Rumsfeld-Wilson exchange. Time: "It was Rumsfeld's response though, that instantly ignited a firestorm. 'You go to war with the Army you have,' Rumsfeld told Wilson, 'not the Army you might want . . .'" Newsweek: "Rumsfeld's initial response [to Wilson's question] was testy: 'You go to war with the Army you have,' he barked." On December 15, Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol--nearly a week after the print media had twisted Rumsfeld's reply--unleashed a jeremiad against the Defense secretary, using the essentially false quote as his launching pad.

Doesn't anyone look at original transcripts anymore?

Rumsfeld talked to about 2,300 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilian laborers at Camp Buehring in northern Kuwait. Contrary to media suggestions, the troops were warm and receptive. The gathering frequently cheered and applauded the defense secretary, as he praised the troops and informed them how important their mission was. They cheered and applauded his remarks in response to their questions, gave him standing ovations and crowded around him for 45 minutes shaking his hand and snapping his picture after he had briefed them. His appearance was also broken up with good-natured laughter. These soldiers were clearly not acting bitterly or ready to mutiny. Those who read the complete transcript of Rumsfeld's appearance as well as the briefing for reporters by Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb will have a far different understanding of what occurred than if they choose to rely on the news accounts.

Gen. Whitcomb, commander of the Third Army and Coalition Forces Land Component Command, has major responsibility for ground operations in Iraq. He explained to reporters the day after Rumsfeld's meeting with the troops that the U.S. was in the process of mass-producing armored Humvees, from 30 per month last August to "over 400 per month" currently. He described how the military, in 10 sites in both Kuwait and Iraq, has been systematically adding armor "to existing unarmored vehicles" and using other measures to make the vehicles safer. Of some 30,000 "wheeled vehicles" in the area, Whitcomb allowed, fewer than 8,000 are not armored currently, but many of those are not being deployed in dangerous areas and there is an effort to fix them as well.

None of this is essentially disputed.

Fog of Journalism

Whitcomb then boasted: "I can tell you that the last full brigade that deployed into Iraq about six weeks ago, the 256th Infantry, almost a thousand wheeled vehicles . . . had some level of armor protection on it. . . . Our goal in what we're working towards is that no wheeled vehicle that leaves Kuwait going into Iraq is driven by a soldier that does not have some level of armor protection on it."

Why aren't they armored in the first place? In former wars, these vehicles were normally deployed in the rear areas. The Humvee, as Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf notes, "was never considered an armored vehicle to begin with," but the insurgents have unleashed a new tactic that the Pentagon has clearly been grappling with in a serious way.

Americans know the Iraqi situation is dicey. The military is conflicted as to how many troops are needed and whether the situation is worsening or, as some believe, is essentially contained in the Sunni triangle. Our knowledge of what's happening is certainly clouded by the fog of war. But what about the fog of journalism? How can Americans--especially decision-making Americans in Congress and elsewhere--comprehend what's happening when the journalistic community relentlessly spreads what amounts to a wretched lie about what our government is doing?

[Gypsy]

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=6069

But what about the fog of journalism? How can Americans--especially decision-making Americans in Congress and elsewhere--comprehend what's happening when the journalistic community relentlessly spreads what amounts to a wretched lie about what our government is doing?

And that right there is the million dollar question. It seems the "journalists" will stop at nothing to discredit this Administration and the hundreds of good things that have happened as a result of OEF and OIF. They sicken me.

[Airbornelawyer]

I just do not see us being maxed out if we are still having to send supplies in by truck. There has to be someway to put that cargo on a bird and send it in that way. My memory of being resupplied was mainly by truck and even back then (late 80's) I always thought that the supplies (Class III, IV, V,VII & IX) they were moving would have been delivered more effectivly by air.The amount of supplies that can be moved by air depends on a lot of factors, the most important of which are the fleet capability of the cargo fleet and the airfield throughput capability of the airfields available.

Airfield throughput capability is the amount of passengers or cargo that can be moved through the airfield per day via strategic airlift based on the limitations of the airfield (such as parking spots). It is calculated as MOG x average payload x operating hours divided by ground time.

MOG is "Maximum on Ground." Normally, you plan based on the lesser of (i) the maximum number of aircraft which can be accommodated on the airfield (the parking MOG), (ii) the maximum number of aircraft which can be simultaneously "worked" by maintenance, aerial port, and others (the working MOG), or (iii) the maximum number of aircraft which can be simultaneously refueled (the fuel MOG).

For 24-hour operations, the maximum airfield throughput for a 1 MOG airfield is 172 short tons per day. For 2 MOGs, it is 345 short tons per day. I have no idea how much capacity Baghdad IP has.

Fleet Capability is the amount of cargo or passengers which can be moved into or out of a location or theater expressed in short tons or passengers per day. It is calculated as average payload x number of aircraft x USE Rate divided by the round trip flying time (RTFT).

Assuming a trip from Kuwait City to Baghdad, the RTFT for a C-130 is about 4 hours (the distance is about 370 miles and block speed of a C-130 for short trips is 185; divide distance by block speed for the flying time per leg, and multiply by 2 for a simple round trip). Average payload of a C-130 is 12 short tons. C-130 USE Rate is 6. So for the round trip from Kuwait to Baghdad, the fleet capability is 18 short tons per aircraft. So a squadron of 12 C-130s could be expected to move 216 short tons per day of supplies, assuming the airfield has the airfield throughput capability for that.

So if we assume Baghdad IP has plenty of capacity (not necessarily a reasonable assumption), a squadron of C-130s will bring in 216 short tons per day of supplies.

As for ground transport, the Army's unit tonnage capability estimates for line hauls for various units are as follows:
Light truck company (2.5-ton trucks): 225 short tons per day
Light truck company (5-ton trucks): 450 short tons per day
Medium truck company (22.5-ton flatbed): 1,350 short tons per day
Medium truck company (34-ton flatbed): 1,980 short tons per day
Medium truck company (7500-gallon tanker): 675,000 gallons per day
Heavy truck company (70-ton trailer): 6,880 short tons per day
Light/medium truck company (5-ton & 22.5-ton): 520 short tons per day
Line hauls are based on 90 miles one way per operating shift, so some adjustment would have to be made for the greater distances.

Still, this might give some perspective on (a) how mind-numbingly complicated logistics is and (b) how much can feasibly be moved by land versus by air.

This is how much you can move. How much you need is another question. According to some older numbers, in a hot dry climate of medium-level combat operations, the requirements for all classes of supply (except X) are 123.7 pounds per person per day. So an average thousand soldiers require about 62 short tons per day. We also have to add some amount for Class X requirements, since we are doing a lot of reconstruction too.

[brewmonkey]

All right ... all right ... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what have the Romans done for us?

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/181162

Armor installed within 24 hours of soldiers' complaint
2004-12-17

From Wire Reports

Senior Army officials told a wire service reporter Wednesday that within 24 hours of a soldier's complaint to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about shortages of vehicle armor in Iraq, protective armor had been installed on every vehicle in the soldier's unit.

According to a Hearst Newspaper report Thursday, Army Maj. Gen. Stephen Speakes and Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, senior members of the Army's combat systems development and acquisition team at the Pentagon, said routine pre-deployment preparations before proceeding to Iraq included adding protective armor plates to the last 20 vehicles of the Tennessee-based 278th Regimental Combat Team's 830 vehicles.

``When the question was asked, 20 vehicles remained to be up-armored at that point,'' Hearst reporter Stewart M. Powell quoted Speakes as saying at a Pentagon briefing. '``We completed those 20 vehicles in the next day. ... In other words, we completed all the armoring within 24 hours of the time the question was asked.''

On Dec. 8, Spc. Thomas ``Jerry'' Wilson, 31, of Nashville, asked Rumsfeld why, after almost two years of war, soldiers were searching dumps for metal to weld on vehicles destined for hostile territory.

``Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?'' Wilson said.

The question appeared to surprise Rumsfeld and prompted cheers among the soldiers listening to him in a hangar. After asking Wilson to repeat the question, Rumsfeld replied: '``You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have.'``

During Wednesday's briefing, Speakes said the soldier may not have known that ``an existing program'' was under way to add armor to the last of the unit's vehicles when he questioned Rumsfeld.

[brewmonkey]

But had the soldier not asked the question, they would have hit the LD without that armor or at least a good portion of it.

http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/181162

Armor installed within 24 hours of soldiers' complaint
2004-12-17

From Wire Reports

Senior Army officials told a wire service reporter Wednesday that within 24 hours of a soldier's complaint to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about shortages of vehicle armor in Iraq, protective armor had been installed on every vehicle in the soldier's unit.

According to a Hearst Newspaper report Thursday, Army Maj. Gen. Stephen Speakes and Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, senior members of the Army's combat systems development and acquisition team at the Pentagon, said routine pre-deployment preparations before proceeding to Iraq included adding protective armor plates to the last 20 vehicles of the Tennessee-based 278th Regimental Combat Team's 830 vehicles.

``When the question was asked, 20 vehicles remained to be up-armored at that point,'' Hearst reporter Stewart M. Powell quoted Speakes as saying at a Pentagon briefing. '``We completed those 20 vehicles in the next day. ... In other words, we completed all the armoring within 24 hours of the time the question was asked.''

On Dec. 8, Spc. Thomas ``Jerry'' Wilson, 31, of Nashville, asked Rumsfeld why, after almost two years of war, soldiers were searching dumps for metal to weld on vehicles destined for hostile territory.

``Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?'' Wilson said.

The question appeared to surprise Rumsfeld and prompted cheers among the soldiers listening to him in a hangar. After asking Wilson to repeat the question, Rumsfeld replied: '``You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have.'``

During Wednesday's briefing, Speakes said the soldier may not have known that ``an existing program'' was under way to add armor to the last of the unit's vehicles when he questioned Rumsfeld.

[Airbornelawyer]

So much of this seems to be driven by media and political efforts to manufacture a scandal or play the quagmire card. Here are some illustrative Q&As from the Wednesday briefing by LTG Lance Smith, D/CINCCENTCOM:

Q What's the source of these sectarian clashes, and what do you do to prevent this from evolving into a civil war?

GEN. SMITH: I'm not sure what sectarian clashes --

Q Well, I think up in Mosul there was sort of a gunfight between Sunni Arabs and Kurds, and I believe there was a similar incident --

GEN. SMITH: Both of whom are Sunni, by the way. :rolleyes: Can't be sectarian if you're the same religion.

Q Yes, when do you anticipate the U.S. troop strength reaching 150,000 in Iraq? And if the elections are delayed or take place over a long period of time, how long do you think you can sustain that level?

GEN. SMITH: We're at, I think, about 148,000 today. So it's just a matter of troop flow in and out. That 2,000 could happen tomorrow, could happen in another couple of weeks.

Q Will you reach higher than the 150,000 or do you think that --

GEN. SMITH: I don't know exactly what the number will be, but it will be very close to 150,000.

Q And how long do you think you can sustain that, given that this is on the backs of people who thought they were leaving?

Q On the force protection one, we haven't heard much about vests lately.

GEN. SMITH: Everybody has vests.

Q So that's not an issue anymore?(Damn! There goes my headline: "No armor for soldiers or their vehicles")

[NousDefionsDoc]

But had the soldier not asked the question, they would have hit the LD without that armor or at least a good portion of it.


So you're saying that they armored 20 vehicles in 24 hours because a Sp/4 embarrassed the SECDEF on television?

[Roguish Lawyer]

The articles posted by NDD illustrate why I hate the media and like Rumsfeld.

[brewmonkey]

So you're saying that they armored 20 vehicles in 24 hours because a Sp/4 embarrassed the SECDEF on television?

If they were getting the armor before the question was asked then why was he so concerned about his vehicle getting armor? Did his CoC forget to tell him and the rest of the guys about it or did he just forget?

Yes I am saying they got the armor that quick because of the question he asked.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil. There was no way they were going to let that unit SP without armor after that shit.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I can't help you if you're going to be silly.

I guess if he had complained about his pay, there would have been $10 grand under his pillow the next day?

[Airbornelawyer]

If they were getting the armor before the question was asked then why was he so concerned about his vehicle getting armor? Did his CoC forget to tell him and the rest of the guys about it or did he just forget?

Yes I am saying they got the armor that quick because of the question he asked.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil. There was no way they were going to let that unit SP without armor after that shit.
Maybe things aren't quite as they are being reported. From a briefing and Q&A with MG Stephen Speakes, U.S. Army G-8, Force Development:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041215-1801.html

Q Thank you. I was wondering if we should be thinking about the difference between soldiers who are going to be headed into Iraq and Soldiers who are already there. A lot of the concerns about who did and didn't have were from soldiers who were going in, and I didn't -- I personally didn't get a sense of what the people who are already there are using and what their needs and gaps are.

GEN. SPEAKES: Very, very good question. The first point is that you'll recollect that one of the questions was the status of the 278 ACR; in other words, the date that we had the visit by the secretary of Defense, we had a question about their up-armoring status. When the question was asked, 20 vehicles remained to be up-armored at that point. We completed those 20 vehicles in the next day. And so over 800 vehicles from the 278 ACR were up-armored, and they are a part now of their total force that is operating up in Iraq.

***

Q On the 278th, can you repeat this? At the time the question was asked, the planted question, the unit had 784 of its 804 vehicles armored?

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.

Q At the time of the question -- summarize this, now -- that unit that the kid was complaining about was mostly armored?

GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. In other words, we completed all the armoring within 24 hours of the time the question was asked.

Q So it's possible that -- from these numbers -- it's possible that he had a vehicle that had not been armored that was slated to be armored or that had not been armored that was not supposed to be armored, that would be carried on a heavy truck?

GEN. SPEAKES: Both were very possible. And very frankly, if you live out at one of those camps, the level of chaos and confusion as you're going through the final stages of getting a unit ready to go north -- to me the fact that every soldier in that unit didn't have a picture of this is not surprising. This operation took place over about four different locations, widely separated in various locations across Kuwait. And then, of course, he may not have even understood that a part of the solution was waiting for them up in Iraq because the stay-behind equipment that was up in Iraq that had already been add-on armored was never seen by the soldier until he or she got up north and actually drew it in Iraq. And so it's a complex picture. And the bottom line is right now it was successful. We accomplished the missions that General Schoomaker gave us, and it's frankly something that's very, very important that we continue to do.

Q If he hadn't asked that question, would the up-armoring have been accomplished within 24 hours?

GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. This was already an existing program. Remember that when I began this presentation we talked about General Schoomaker in his testimony in front of the HASC in November -- made it real clear. He said all vehicles operating north of the berm will be up-armored, and what that meant in common-sense language is you don't leave Kuwait without either an up-armor or an add-on armor solution. And we understood that, and most importantly the theater did. And so we were in constant dialogue, ensuring that we provided everything that was required to make this happen. And this didn't happen just for the 278th. In other words, the 256th, which was the Army Guard brigade directly in front of it, had the same identical solution; and although different numbers of vehicles, approximately the same solution in terms of percentage of fill.

Q Why do you think they were scrounging for their own armor, then? What was that about?

GEN. SPEAKES: I can't comment on soldiers. One of the things that's the most important, I think, to remember is the level of industry and inventiveness of the part of the American soldier is one of the great characteristics of our Army. And so I certainly don't begrudge the soldier the right to go after whatever he thinks will make him better or safer. But at the point that we're at right now, the Army has got some pretty good solutions that we'll stand behind.

[brownapple]

LOL. No I am not suggesting that.

I just do not see us being maxed out if we are still having to send supplies in by truck. There has to be someway to put that cargo on a bird and send it in that way. My memory of being resupplied was mainly by truck and even back then (late 80's) I always thought that the supplies (Class III, IV, V,VII & IX) they were moving would have been delivered more effectivly by air.

How much fuel do you think a truck burns per ton of cargo? What is the maintenance time to operating time ratio on a truck?

Now, same information for a C-130.

"I always thought that the supplies there were moving could have been delivered more effectively by air."

That's why you aren't a logistics planner.

[lrd]

If they were getting the armor before the question was asked then why was he so concerned about his vehicle getting armor? Did his CoC forget to tell him and the rest of the guys about it or did he just forget?I spend two afternoons each week in telecons with representatives from supply (NAVICP & DLA), industrial level maintenance (DEPOT), the manufacturer (prime contractor), fleet support team (FST) engineers, Naval Air Forces (CNAF), Wing maintenance and material control departments (owner of a type model series - TMS), and representatives from EACH squadron. We work our maintenance plan, discuss the status of each plane that is not up, and work to get the parts, manpower and trained personnel, support equipment, facilities, etc., necessary to get them flying. We also discuss the status of modifications being performed on the TMS. Does all of this information get passed down to everyone in the squadron? I seriously doubt it. And the way schedules slip back and forth, what we discussed Friday might not be true today.

Yes I am saying they got the armor that quick because of the question he asked.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil. There was no way they were going to let that unit SP without armor after that shit.
brew - how do you think they accomplished this in 24 hours?

[brewmonkey]

I can't help you if you're going to be silly.

I guess if he had complained about his pay, there would have been $10 grand under his pillow the next day?

I am being dead serious, if anything is being silly it is your pay comment.

LRD- If this unit was scheduled to have that much armor put on the vehicles, Someone in the CoC would have knwon about it. While not everyone in the unit knows everything that is going on, something of this importance would have certainly been passed long to the Sqd level. These troops would have been told that on such and such a date at this time have your vehicle cleaned nd ready for the welder to apply armor.

This is the result of someone doing something to get the mission completed. With pre-fab up armor for HMMWV's it takes 45 minutes to add a 2-door kit. If it is a pre-fab 4 door kit the time can be upwards of 2.5 hours. This is also something that must be done by welders and just doing the 2 door kits is 16.5 man hours. If they throw in 6 four door kits the time can be upwards of 27 hours for all vehicles.

http://www.1id.army.mil/1ID/News/August/Article_70/Article_70.htm

Sorry, I just don't buy that this is not a result of the open question forum.

[lrd]

This is the result of someone doing something to get the mission completed. With pre-fab up armor for HMMWV's it takes 45 minutes to add a 2-door kit. If it is a pre-fab 4 door kit the time can be upwards of 2.5 hours. This is also something that must be done by welders and just doing the 2 door kits is 16.5 man hours. If they throw in 6 four door kits the time can be upwards of 27 hours for all vehicles.

http://www.1id.army.mil/1ID/News/August/Article_70/Article_70.htm

Sorry, I just don't buy that this is not a result of the open question forum.brew - I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that the kits were on site with all bit and piece parts and manpower necessary for install, but that they weren't going be installed?

[brewmonkey]

brew - I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying that the kits were on site with all bit and piece parts and manpower necessary for install, but that they weren't going be installed?


No, what I am saying is that up until the day of the SecDef visit they were scrounging for armor in trash piles and anywhere else they could. It is my understanding that they did not have enough to armor most of the vehicles much less any kits to do the work. The very next day they suddenly have enough to do the job? Someone made this happen over night and my guess is it was not someone in the unit.

[NousDefionsDoc]

No, what I am saying is that up until the day of the SecDef visit they were scrounging for armor in trash piles and anywhere else they could. It is my understanding that they did not have enough to armor most of the vehicles much less any kits to do the work. The very next day they suddenly have enough to do the job? Someone made this happen over night and my guess is it was not someone in the unit.


So, you give the benefit of the doubt to the press and a Sp/4 and not the SECDEF. The reporter knew the vehicles were scheduled to be armored, it was on his blog. You are making a big deal out of nothing, just like the left and the press, And Donald Rumsfeld doesn't strike me as afraid of either the press or some Sp/4. He weathered the Lynch deal, Abu Graib, all the other stuff. And you claim some 71L Sp/4 from the NG has him crapping his pants.

So you think the comment about the pay was silly? I think its just a half degree of separation from what you are claiming here.

[NousDefionsDoc]

If they were getting the armor before the question was asked then why was he so concerned about his vehicle getting armor? Did his CoC forget to tell him and the rest of the guys about it or did he just forget?

How about he was set up by the reporter? How about he doesn't want to be there and was looking to embarrass the SECDEF? How about somebody dared him to do it? How about he's a smart-assed Sp/4. How about the Battalion Commander forgot to consult with the SP/4IC before making his battle plans?

I don't know what Army you were in, but in the one I was in, the CofC didn't run everything by Sp/4s when they were trying to get something done.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I don't know what Army you were in, but in the one I was in, the CofC didn't run everything by Sp/4s when they were trying to get something done.


No but we sure did spend a lot of time on some of those young lads that let their alligator mouths overload their tadpole assholes that thought the CofC should be bypassed at all times and go straight to their congress critters because for some reason their feelings were hurt or they just knew that no one above them knew how to resolve their problem of the day.

Jack Moroney-sorry for interrupting-let the gunfight continue :munchin

[lrd]

No, what I am saying is that up until the day of the SecDef visit they were scrounging for armor in trash piles and anywhere else they could. It is my understanding that they did not have enough to armor most of the vehicles much less any kits to do the work. The very next day they suddenly have enough to do the job? Someone made this happen over night and my guess is it was not someone in the unit.You are right about it not being someone in the unit. The program manager for that piece of equipment is responsible for mods on the equipment. He receives the requirement and has an integrated product team work the modification from concept to development to implementation. You can save time by using NDI/COTS (non-developmental/commercial-off-the-shelf items). None of this could have occurred in 24 hours if it hadn't already been in process. I think I've said about all I can on this. Neither you or I know exactly what was in place...we can only read from open sources and interpret from our own experiences. I've tried to explain it from the acquisition side.

[The Reaper]

No, what I am saying is that up until the day of the SecDef visit they were scrounging for armor in trash piles and anywhere else they could. It is my understanding that they did not have enough to armor most of the vehicles much less any kits to do the work. The very next day they suddenly have enough to do the job? Someone made this happen over night and my guess is it was not someone in the unit.

This would appear to be an assumption/heresay, unless you were there or know someone who was.

TR

[brewmonkey]

So, you give the benefit of the doubt to the press and a Sp/4 and not the SECDEF. The reporter knew the vehicles were scheduled to be armored, it was on his blog. You are making a big deal out of nothing, just like the left and the press, And Donald Rumsfeld doesn't strike me as afraid of either the press or some Sp/4. He weathered the Lynch deal, Abu Graib, all the other stuff. And you claim some 71L Sp/4 from the NG has him crapping his pants.

So you think the comment about the pay was silly? I think its just a half degree of separation from what you are claiming here.

I am not making a big deal out of nothing. I simply expressed my dislike for Rumsfeld and then everyone decided to pile on.

Where on the reporters blog does it say he knew (where is his blog?) and did it have a date that this would happen by?

I never claimed some SPC had him crapping in his pants at all. I find it very hard to believe that within 24 hours of the question they had all the armor they needed yet it was scheduled for that day.

[brewmonkey]

You are right about it not being someone in the unit. The program manager for that piece of equipment is responsible for mods on the equipment. He receives the requirement and has an integrated product team work the modification from concept to development to implementation. You can save time by using NDI/COTS (non-developmental/commercial-off-the-shelf items). None of this could have occurred in 24 hours if it hadn't already been in process. I think I've said about all I can on this. Neither you or I know exactly what was in place...we can only read from open sources and interpret from our own experiences. I've tried to explain it from the acquisition side.

Exactly, we can only go from our experience and in my experiences in the Army shit like this does not happen overnight and if it was scheduled to happen then it would have been on the training schedule and PVT Snuffy would have known. If that was the case then he would have told the reporter to blow it out of his ass as his unit was getting the armor they needed.

You guys can bag on me all you like for expressing my opinions and views, it will not change what I think or believe. Comparing me to the liberal media or the left is laughable at best. I happen to say one thing that they say so I must be one of them? :confused:

[NousDefionsDoc]

Dislike is subjective. How can you form a subjective opinion about a man you have never met? Or have you met him?

You are entitled to your opinion. But I hardly think it fair for you to criticize the SECDEF for a non-issue. It is also unfair to state or imply that the administration is doing anything less than the best it can with regard to force protection without knowing all the facts.

I didn't save the link to the blog, mostly because I don't care about that reporter's opinion.

This whole thing was nothing more than another attempt to embarrass the administration in general and the military leadership in particular and make a name for a reporter. I have little doubt that there are several field grade officers that have had many sleepless nights resolving the issues of the HummVs. There are people in a plant in Ohio working 3 shifts to get them out as fast as they can.

Have a nice day.

[brewmonkey]

My dislike does not center around one event and it matters not that I do not know him personally, I never met John Kerry and I dislike him as well. Had I said I hate the man then I would agree with you, I mean how can you hate someone who you do not know personally?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Just so we're clear:

They packed up and shipped, unloaded and unpacked and installed 20 kits in 24 hours because a Sp/4 embarrassed the SECDEF on tv?

[The Reaper]

Just so we're clear:

They packed up and shipped, unloaded and unpacked and installed 20 kits in 24 hours because a Sp/4 embarrassed the SECDEF on tv?

Maybe they were special grits that boiled faster in his kitchen. I mean special armor that Santa sent them and self-installed. :D

Hey, brew, I am not attacking you, just expressing a personal viewpoint.

Frankly, I suspect that they took whoever was next in line for armor, and put it on the whiner's unit vehicles at someone's behest (likely O-6 or above, but not necessarily the SecDef), lest said whiner be whacked in an unarmored vehicle on his way to Iraq, and garner even worse press, but what do I know?

Better that the unit which had waited their turn and was supposed to get the armored vehicles lose people than the unit who bitched, right? Squeaky wheel gets the grease everytime, and buddy is only half a word.

Just my .02.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Frankly, I suspect that they took whoever was next in line for armor, and put it on the whiner's unit vehicles at someone's behest (likely O-6 or above, but not necessarily the SecDef), lest said whiner be whacked in an unarmored vehicle on his way to Iraq, and garner even worse press, but what do I know?

DAMN! Ambush partially sprung! Pick up and move 150 meters East and set up a hasty!

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

.

Frankly, I suspect that they took whoever was next in line for armor, and put it on the whiner's unit vehicles at someone's behest (likely O-6 or above, but not necessarily the SecDef), lest said whiner be whacked in an unarmored vehicle on his way to Iraq, and garner even worse press, but what do I know?


TR

Actually if I was the next one in line to have my vehicles armored and the vehicle this kid was to ride in was to be armored he would go as the frigging hood ornament of my lead vehicle.

Jack Moroney-equal opportunity purveyor

[lrd]

DAMN! Ambush partially sprung! Pick up and move 150 meters East and set up a hasty!Darnit.




:cool:

[brewmonkey]

Just so we're clear:

They packed up and shipped, unloaded and unpacked and installed 20 kits in 24 hours because a Sp/4 embarrassed the SECDEF on tv?


That's not at all what I said. The armor was most likely in country or fabricated on the spot. I still say it is rather funny that within 24 hours of the question ALL the units vehicles had armor.

[brewmonkey]

Maybe they were special grits that boiled faster in his kitchen. I mean special armor that Santa sent them and self-installed. :D

Hey, brew, I am not attacking you, just expressing a personal viewpoint.

Frankly, I suspect that they took whoever was next in line for armor, and put it on the whiner's unit vehicles at someone's behest (likely O-6 or above, but not necessarily the SecDef), lest said whiner be whacked in an unarmored vehicle on his way to Iraq, and garner even worse press, but what do I know?

Better that the unit which had waited their turn and was supposed to get the armored vehicles lose people than the unit who bitched, right? Squeaky wheel gets the grease everytime, and buddy is only half a word.

Just my .02.

TR

Squeaky wheel indeed and I have no doubt that some other unit did got buddy fucked because of this.

And they weren't special grits, they were Magical grits that I got from the guy who sold jack his magic beanstalk beans! :D

And no worries on the attacks, I have thick skin. Irish Catholic raised on LI in an Italian neighborhood. You better have thick skin or be a track star.

[NousDefionsDoc]

That's not at all what I said. The armor was most likely in country or fabricated on the spot. I still say it is rather funny that within 24 hours of the question ALL the units vehicles had armor.

I doubt they fabricated it on the spot, since there is only one factory in the entire US doing it for the USG. So, what's the other logical explanation? If the armor was in-country, then that would indicate to me that the SECDEF had already done his job and the delay was some PFC mechanic in a motor pool somewhere. Am I wrong?

[NousDefionsDoc]

I don't think anybody has attacked you - do you feel attacked?

[brewmonkey]

I don't think anybody has attacked you - do you feel attacked?


No, no one attacked anyone unless I missed a page. I was referring to TR's comment on not attacking me and all I was saying is if someone had done so I grew thick skin a long time ago. Shit happens!

[brewmonkey]

I doubt they fabricated it on the spot, since there is only one factory in the entire US doing it for the USG. So, what's the other logical explanation? If the armor was in-country, then that would indicate to me that the SECDEF had already done his job and the delay was some PFC mechanic in a motor pool somewhere. Am I wrong?

Like I said before, my dislike for the SecDef has very little to do with this and is more about how I feel he is not preparing our Army for the next 10-20 years.

Time for some pain meds.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Like I said before, my dislike for the SecDef has very little to do with this and is more about how I feel he is not preparing our Army for the next 10-20 years.

Time for some pain meds.


Ok, we can go there. How is he not doing it? What will the threat be in 10-20 years? What does the Army need to look like?

[brownapple]

Like I said before, my dislike for the SecDef has very little to do with this and is more about how I feel he is not preparing our Army for the next 10-20 years.


Sounds like your idea for preparing the Army for the next 10-20 years is to prepare to fight the Cold War again.

[Polar Bear]

Dislike is subjective. There are people in a plant in Ohio working 3 shifts to get them out as fast as they can.

The plant NDD is talking about is called “O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company” it is based just 20 miles north of me. They have the ability to produce about 300+ Humvees a month. They where only producing 100 or so a month and that is because that is all that has been asked of them. Until the question was asked by are SPC

I don’t know who to fault but someone is not doing their job. Since the War started it has been a hot topic locally in the news on why they where not producing up to the plants capacity. The answer was always the government has not asked us to ramp up production.

Just my .02 cents
PB

[Doc]

Monday, February 16, 2004
Fairfield company doubles armored Humvee production


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sixty employees to be added at O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt

The Associated Press


FAIRFIELD, Ohio - A company that's produced armored Humvee military vehicles for eleven years has doubled staff and production as the military expands its fleet, company officials said.

About 300 workers produce up to a dozen armored Humvees daily at O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Co. plant in this southwest Ohio city.

There were 150 workers finishing five vehicles a day six months ago, when U.S. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, toured the plant as part of a federal budget request for $25 million to expand the military's fleet of armored Humvees.

Sixty more employees will be in place by May, plant manager Jay Tepe said.

"We recognize the need. We're not going to let the soldiers down," he said. "We're going to continue to do everything we've been doing."

Expansion started even before contracts were in place at the subsidiary of Jacksonville, Fla.-based Armor Holdings Inc.

"We took a leap of faith. We moved out before we had a contract," spokesman Michael Fox said.

Army Lt. Col. Kevin Peterson said the military needs 4,000 armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, or Humvees, by November.

President Bush, in his 2005 budget proposal last week, called for $150 million for the company to armor 818 new vehicles.

The standard Humvee, with its lightweight construction, was designed to transport troops and cargo over rough terrain. It wasn't built to withstand street battles, ambushes and bomb attacks.

The 12,000-pound armored Humvee, costing about $150,000 each, starts with a frame shipped to O'Gara from AM General Co.'s assembly plant in Mishawaka, Ind.

Armored Humvees seat about three and are equipped with 7.62 mm armor-piercing protection, which means they can withstand assault rifles and land mines, said Ronald Carson, plant production and fabrication manager.

"I've seen the results," said Claude Bolton, assistant Army secretary for acquisition. "Our troops have been saved by this vehicle."

Bolton and acting U.S. Army Secretary Les Brownlee toured the plant Friday and praised the company's efforts.

"What you are doing here is vitally important," Brownlee told more than 100 workers. "You're doing it for these young soldiers out there, the young men and women who volunteered for their country."

Many plant workers either served in the military or are in Reserve or National Guard units.

Welder Rob Caudle, who served in the Navy, said the importance of his work has hit home. He has friends in Iraq, he said, and a co-worker was recently deployed to Afghanistan.

[brewmonkey]

Sounds like your idea for preparing the Army for the next 10-20 years is to prepare to fight the Cold War again.



Yes and no. While the Soviet Union is gone and the threat of Communism is severly dimisnished, I still do not trust the Russians but I doubt they are about to mount an attack on anyone outside their immediate borders (former USSR) much less anything CONUS. In fact I doubt anyone would try something like that as they don't have the manpower and/or the logistical supply line needed to support an operation that big.

While I am not saying we need a million man Army, we do need more then the 400K or so we currently have on AD. I would like to see another armored division, another heavy infantry division and a armored cavalry regiment added to the roles with of course the COSCOM/DISCOM and other elements that would be needed to handle that increase, especially a postal BN. We have a postal unit up the road from me (USAR) that spends all their time gone in support of deployments. I would also like to see 4 more fast Sea lift ships added to the 8 we currently have giving us the ability to move almost 2 heavy divisions at once by sea. It is not much of an addition


I would put the Armored division at Fort Stewart, the Infantry Division at Fort Lewis and the ACR at Fort Irwin. The 2 divisions are at posts with sea port access accessible and the ACR at Irwin would give the units there flexibility to deploy without hurting the OPFOR mission. Since the close of "turtle land" at Irwin I am not sure if they still have the same mount of training area but with the 2 ACR's you would be able to run missions in the central & southern corridors at the same time while running live fire in the northern part (BDE Ops).

I do not see any country readily posing a threat to the US but I would feel a lot better knowing that my country has the ability to do the job should the need arise.

[brewmonkey]

called for $150 million for the company to armor 818 new vehicles

That is a little over $180K per vehicle or twice the cost for a standard HMMWV.

[Polar Bear]

Doc I stand Corrected....Here is the most recent article

Saturday, December 11, 2004
Army asks Fairfield for more armor
O'Gara-Hess says it can add 100 Humvees a month for Iraq

By James McNair
Enquirer staff writer

With the Bush administration eager to prove its commitment to the safety of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the Army entered negotiations Friday with the parent of a Fairfield company that says it is ready to increase its output of armored Humvees by as many as 100 a month.

O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt in Fairfield, a division of Jacksonville, Fla.-based Armor Holdings, is armor-plating 450 Humvees monthly as part of a $235 million contract from the Army. Its Fairfield plant employs about 550 people.

Army Secretary Francis Harvey spoke with Armor officials Friday and was told production could be stepped up as early as February.

The talks came after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was caught off guard Wednesday by a soldier who complained of a lack of armored vehicles. Rumsfeld said it wasn't an issue of money or desire, but was a matter of production capability.

Armor Holdings said it has the capability at its Fairfield operations to turn out 50 to 100 additional armored Humvees each month. The company said it must coordinate delivery of additional Humvees, which are made by AMC General in South Bend., Ind., at a cost of about $150,000 each. It was unclear Friday whether an increase in orders would mean more jobs at the Fairfield plant.

More than half of the almost 1,200 U.S. casualties in Iraq resulted from roadside bomb explosions and rocket attacks by Iraqi insurgents. The Army said Thursday that about 8,000 of the 30,000 military vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan are not protected by reinforcing armor, prompting criticism from troops and congressional leaders. Another 10,000 vehicles have been retrofitted with armor on the front, rear and sides, but not on the top and bottom.

"This was, once again, a miscalculation by the Pentagon of exactly what kind of environment we would have after the fall of Saddam," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt had been armoring 350 Humvees a month before the Army raised its order to 450 in September. It was turning out only 50 in late 2003, when a surge in attacks on U.S. military vehicles spotlighted the need for more armor.

Speculation about additional orders drove Armor Holdings' stock up $1.72 Friday to $44.60.

[Doc]

They where only producing 100 or so a month and that is because that is all that has been asked of them. Until the question was asked by are SPC

Just my .02 cents
PB


Companies burn midnight oil to make armored Humvees

POSTED: Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:03:24 PM
UPDATED: Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:12:50 PM

FAIRFIELD -- Production and employment are both expanding rapidly at the southwestern Ohio factory responsible for putting armor on the Humvees used by U.S. troops.

The Army upped its order for armored Humvees in December and is expected to buy nearly four times as many as last year. That's led to about 300 extra workers at the O'Gara-Hess and Eisenhardt facility in Fairfield, and officials say another 200 should be hired soon.

Those workers put armor coatings on Humvees made by A.M. General in Mishawaka, Indiana. A company spokesman says A.M. General's 600 employees are working overtime, although they can make the vehicles faster than they armor can be put on them.

Gary Allen of O'Gara-Hess says workers there know they're part of the war effort and that it's a highly motivated group.

[Polar Bear]

Doc I stand corrected... last night The enquiers web page was not working and I could not find the article with the correct numbers I was looking for, my main point was they was they where not producing as much as they could.

Michael

[brownapple]

I would like to see another armored division, another heavy infantry division and a armored cavalry regiment added to the roles with of course the COSCOM/DISCOM and other elements that would be needed to handle that increase,


In response to what threat?

There isn't any serious amount of heavy divisions anywhere in the world that can't be handled by the current force structure unless you are planning to fight a land war with China (a conflict that won't happen), a war against the entire EU, or the North Koreans miraculously get POL and food to supply their divisions (again, won't happen). Even the Russians can't mount anything resembling a serious threat with heavy divisions, even if they came up with the POL and other logistical support to try.

Remember, there are a limited number of suppliers of armored vehicles in the world today, and their production is pretty clearly visible to all. No one is going to do a build up like Germany did Pre-WWII anymore.

The point to the military is to be prepared to fight realistic war options in the effective and efficient manner possible. It seems that you prefer to waste money, time, and troops.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Doc I stand corrected... last night The enquiers web page was not working and I could not find the article with the correct numbers I was looking for, my main point was they was they where not producing as much as they could.

Michael


Why should they produce as many as they can? Demand drives supply, not production capabilities. ArnorGroup "can" probably do 1,000 a day. The armor is a non-issue or they wouldn't have been able to install the last 20 the next day. The only question I have is did somebody else go without to satisfy this Sp/4? doesn't seem to be the case or we would have heard from the elite members of the media.

Now, if you want to criticize the SECDEF for not personally signing the condolence letters, I'm your huckleberry. That was bad form and an error in judgement as far as I'm concerned. If he does nothing else, he has to get that one right.

But I'm not ready for him to be fired over it. Close, but not yet.

[Doc]

Rumsfeld to personally sign all condolence letters


By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Friday, December 17, 2004



(See Secretary Rumsfeld's statement at end of story)

WASHINGTON — Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will begin personally signing condolence letters sent to families of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, after receiving criticism over his use of mechanical signatures.

In a statement provided to Stars and Stripes on Thursday, Rumsfeld tacitly admitted that in the past he has not personally signed the letters, but said he was responsible for writing and approving each of the 1,000-plus messages sent to the fallen soldiers’ families.

“I have directed that in the future I sign each letter,” he said in the statement.

“I am deeply grateful for the many letters I have received from the families of those who have been killed in the service of our country, and I recognize and honor their personal loss.”

In a separate statement, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said, “In the interest of ensuring timely contact with grieving family members, he has not individually signed each letter.”

Department of Defense officials for the past few weeks had said only that the content of the letters was private.

But several families of troops killed overseas said they were sure the notes they received had not been signed by hand, and said they were angry that Rumsfeld was not paying attention to their loss.

“To me it’s an insult, not only as someone who lost a loved one but also as someone who served in Iraq,” Army Spc. Ivan Medina told Stripes.

“This doesn’t show our families the respect they deserve,” said Medina, a New York resident whose twin brother, Irving, was killed in a roadside bombing in Iraq this summer.

Illinois resident Bette Sullivan, whose son John was killed in November 2003 while working as an Army mechanic in Iraq, was incensed when she, her son’s wife and her grandchildren received the exact same condolence letter with the apparently stamped signature.

“If each family receives two copies, how many signatures does that amount to?” she asked in an e-mail response to Stripes. “I can understand the use of stamped signatures for his brothers’ mementos, but for those of his wife and children and mother? No, no, no.”

Retired Army Col. David Hackworth, an author and frequent critic of the Department of Defense, publicly criticized Rumsfeld in a syndicated column earlier this month for not reviewing each KIA letter personally.

He called the fake signatures “like having it signed by a monkey.”

“Using those machines is pretty common, but it shouldn’t be in cases of those who have died in action,” he said. “How can [DOD officials] feel the emotional impact of that loss if they’re not even looking at the letters?”

Hackworth said he objected to using the stamped signatures for promotion and commendation letters as well, but said not personally handling the condolence letters is a much more serious offense.

Family members had expressed similar concerns to Stripes about President Bush’s signature on his condolence letters, but Allen Abney, spokesman for the president, said that Bush does personally sign the letters sent from the White House.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secretary Rumsfeld's statement

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on condolences to servicemembers and their loved ones, as provided to Stars and Stripes:

“It is a solemn privilege of the many of us in the Department to meet with U.S. forces and families who have experienced injury or death in the defense of our country.

“During visits with wounded forces and their families at Walter Reed Army Hospital or at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center, I have drawn inspiration from the dignity and resolve of these wonderful young Americans and their loved ones.

“Over the past years, my wife, Joyce, and I have met with several hundred wounded troops and their families during visits to intensive care units, therapy facilities, and their rooms in military hospitals in the United States and abroad.

“During visits to military installations, I have met with still others during their visits to the Pentagon.

“Joyce and I also have met together and individually with spouses and children of those killed in action.

“At the earliest moment in the global war on terror, I determined that it is important that military families who have lost loved ones in hostile actions receive a letter from me directly.

“I wrote and approved the now more than 1000 letters sent to family members and next of kin of each of the servicemen and women killed in military action. While I have not individually signed each one, in the interest of ensuring expeditious contact with grieving family members, I have directed that in the future I sign each letter.

“I am deeply grateful for the many letters I have received from the families of those who have been killed in the service of our country, and I recognize and honor their personal loss.”

[NousDefionsDoc]

Slamming the barn door shut...

He screwed the pooch on this one IMO.

[The Reaper]

Slamming the barn door shut...

He screwed the pooch on this one IMO.

Concur, but IIRC, everyone BG and above has an autopen machine signature, and probably some COLs as well.

The real issue is what is signed personally, and what is autopenned. SecDef's claim is that he used the autopen to get them out more quickly. If he is on the road OCONUS, that may make sense, but if he is in DC (and at the office almost every day), he should be signing them personally. The POTUS does.

Signing them himself also reminds him of the real cost of this campaign.

What is this, the third effort by the media to remove the SecDef?

TR

[brewmonkey]

In response to what threat?

There isn't any serious amount of heavy divisions anywhere in the world that can't be handled by the current force structure unless you are planning to fight a land war with China (a conflict that won't happen), a war against the entire EU, or the North Koreans miraculously get POL and food to supply their divisions (again, won't happen). Even the Russians can't mount anything resembling a serious threat with heavy divisions, even if they came up with the POL and other logistical support to try.

Remember, there are a limited number of suppliers of armored vehicles in the world today, and their production is pretty clearly visible to all. No one is going to do a build up like Germany did Pre-WWII anymore.

The point to the military is to be prepared to fight realistic war options in the effective and efficient manner possible. It seems that you prefer to waste money, time, and troops.

I guess since I do not agree with your idea of the what the military should look like it is a waste of resources, time and money? I am simply stating what I believe and do not believe. While a ground war in Asia is not likely no one here can predict what is going to happen 10-20 years down the road.

[Doc]

My family received a Letter Of Condolence that was mechanically signed by President Nixon in 1970. The fact that it was mechanically signed didn't take away it's significance from us.

There are thousands of Veterans from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the "Peace Time" periods in-between that die everyday and they receive the same mechanically stamped letter.

If it's good enough for them, then when I die it's good enough for my family to receive too.

Imagine how much time it would take for a handful of Key leaders to sign thousands of these letters each day? Would that time be better spent doing things for those of us still alive?

[brewmonkey]

My family received a Letter Of Condolence that was mechanically signed by President Nixon in 1970. The fact that it was mechanically signed didn't take away it's significance from us.

There are thousands of Veterans from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and the "Peace Time" periods in-between that die everyday and they receive the same mechanically stamped letter.

If it's good enough for them, then when I die it's good enough for my family to receive too.

Imagine how much time it would take for a handful of Key leaders to sign thousands of these letters each day? Would that time be better spent doing things for those of us still alive?


I agree. Could you imagine if FDR had to hand sign letters of condolence for those KIA in just the battle of the Bulge? We lost IIRC almost 20K KIA in a little less then 2 months.

Not only would the time be better spent on those alive but it could also be spent making sure those who have died families recieve the proper benefits for their loved ones service.

[The Reaper]

I recently received a significant document with the signature of the POTUS on it, and another one with General Schoomaker's.

I treasure them, despite the fact that they are almost certainly autopen signatures.

It occurs to me that they have more pressing matters to attend to right now rather than sign routine correspondence. If it was a personal communication, I might have a different expectation.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Signing them himself also reminds him of the real cost of this campaign.

I agree with this 100%. I would hate to try to put a number on it for when it would become unfeasible. I doubt they were mechanically stamped in WWII, probably more like delegated down to a manageable level. I don't know for sure though.

My opinion is if you're going to tout the relatively low number of casualties as a success (which I agree it is), then you can't say you don't have time to sign that low number of letters yourself. Its contradictory. Its been about 1,000 for about 3 years. Call it one a day. I'm sure he could find time in his busy schedule to manage it.

I support him on most things he's done. He's wrong on this one. That's my opinion and nothing is going to change it.

[brewmonkey]

I agree with this 100%. I would hate to try to put a number on it for when it would become unfeasible. I doubt they were mechanically stamped in WWII, probably more like delegated down to a manageable level. I don't know for sure though.

My opinion is if you're going to tout the relatively low number of casualties as a success (which I agree it is), then you can't say you don't have time to sign that low number of letters yourself. Its contradictory. Its been about 1,000 for about 3 years. Call it one a day. I'm sure he could find time in his busy schedule to manage it.

I support him on most things he's done. He's wrong on this one. That's my opinion and nothing is going to change it.


I believe I saw a device used during WWI & WWII to sign them. It was hand operated and was a real signature but it had a total of 5 pens attached to it and the other 4 followed the hand movement of the first. I cannot think of the name of the device but I know someone here (AL?) will know what I am thinking of.

[Doc]

It's a moot point. He's already agreed to sign these forms himself.

The families of Veterans from other conflicts will have to be satisfied with the rubber stamp.

[brownapple]

I guess since I do not agree with your idea of the what the military should look like it is a waste of resources, time and money? I am simply stating what I believe and do not believe. While a ground war in Asia is not likely no one here can predict what is going to happen 10-20 years down the road.


No, but we can be sure that Chinese Culture will not change dramatically in 10-20 years. And at heart, the Chinese are entrepeneurs and merchants. They will not go to war with one of their largest markets. It would be inconceivably stupid from their point of view.

And preparing for threats that don't exist instead of for those that do is wasting time, money and troops. A corporation that operated as you recommend would be out of business.

In 1863, at the Battle of Gettysburg, it was the Corps that was the key combat element.

In 1944, at the Battle of the Bulge, it was the Division that was the key combat element.

In 2003, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was the Brigade that was the key combat element.

Get with the times.

(corrected date on Gettysburg)

[brewmonkey]

No, but we can be sure that Chinese Culture will not change dramatically in 10-20 years. And at heart, the Chinese are entrepeneurs and merchants. They will not go to war with one of their largest markets. It would be inconceivably stupid from their point of view.

And preparing for threats that don't exist instead of for those that do is wasting time, money and troops. A corporation that operated as you recommend would be out of business.

In 1864, at the Battle of Gettysburg, it was the Corps that was the key combat element.

In 1944, at the Battle of the Bulge, it was the Division that was the key combat element.

In 2003, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was the Brigade that was the key combat element.

Get with the times.

I agree, the Chinese need Wal-Mart. Without the US they lose the biggest part of their export business, as well they seem to have set their eyes on buying US Corporations especially smaller ones working in the IT field. While the US is stuck with Microsloth controlling a big part of the market I would look to China to produce a viable OS with a GUI based on Linux. They will also develop a computer that is on par with some of the US based models but much cheaper, even after shipping. Give it 20 years and they will be importing cars to the US.

As for running a corporation like that, the US Army is not a corporation. If you think it is a waste of time and resources that is fine, I disagree with you. While a BDE may be the key element of OIF, BDE's are a part of a Division and can be deployed on their own and with the new BCT they have most of the organic units they need to do so. You have your opinions on the Military and I have mine, let's just agree to leave it at that.

[brownapple]

As for running a corporation like that, the US Army is not a corporation. If you think it is a waste of time and resources that is fine, I disagree with you. While a BDE may be the key element of OIF, BDE's are a part of a Division and can be deployed on their own and with the new BCT they have most of the organic units they need to do so. You have your opinions on the Military and I have mine, let's just agree to leave it at that.


Only you can't identify a viable threat to support why the Army should have the pieces you suggest.

It's taxpayers' money you are talking about. Money that taxpayers have a right to expect to be used in an efficient and effective manner. What is the purpose of additional heavy divisions?

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Placing a pen to paper over a signature block that has been prepared for you does not take a whole lot. The tough part is reaching deep down in your gut to find the words to compose that letter.

Jack Moroney

[Doc]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Monday brushed aside criticism of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over his handling of the Iraq (news - web sites) war and described him as a "caring fellow" who will win over doubters on Capitol Hill.


Reuters Photo


Reuters
Slideshow: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld




"He's done a fine job and I look forward to continue to work with him," Bush told a news conference.


Bush said Rumsfeld would "reach out to members of the Hill, explain the decisions he's made. And I believe that, in a new term, members of the Senate and House will recognize what a good job he's doing."


Rumsfeld over the weekend came under barrage of fresh criticism and accusations of "insensitivity" after admitting he did not personally sign his name on letters of condolence to families of soldiers killed in Iraq.


Rumsfeld acknowledged that letters to family members of more than 1,000 U.S. troops killed in action had been signed by machine and in a statement said he would now sign them in his own hand.


Bush defended Rumsfeld. "I know Secretary Rumsfeld's heart. I know how much he cares for the troops," Bush said. "I have heard the anguish in his voice, and seen his eyes when we talk about the danger in Iraq and the fact that youngsters are over there in harm's way. He's a good decent man. He's a caring fellow."


"Sometimes, perhaps his demeanor is rough and gruff. But below that rough and gruff, no-nonsense demeanor is a good human being who cares deeply about the military and deeply about the grief that war causes," Bush said.


Rumsfeld got himself into trouble earlier this month for appearing to brush off a soldier headed to Iraq who complained that military vehicles did not have sufficient armor and troops were having to piece together scraps of metal for extra protection.


Some prominent Republicans in Congress, including Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, have questioned Rumsfeld's performance.


But two key Republicans, Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Richard Lugar of Indiana and Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) chairman John Warner of Virginia said on Sunday that it would be too disruptive to change the leadership at the Pentagon (news - web sites) given the pending elections in Iraq on Jan. 30.


Pointing to the coming Iraqi elections, Warner said on NBC's "Meet the Press," "We should not at this point in time entertain any idea of changing those responsibilities in the Pentagon."

[CRad]

Frankly, I suspect that they took whoever was next in line for armor, and put it on the whiner's unit vehicles at someone's behest (likely O-6 or above, but not necessarily the SecDef), lest said whiner be whacked in an unarmored vehicle on his way to Iraq, and garner even worse press, but what do I know?

Better that the unit which had waited their turn and was supposed to get the armored vehicles lose people than the unit who bitched, right? Squeaky wheel gets the grease everytime, and buddy is only half a word.

Just my .02.

TR

That's what I think happened too. But, why didn't Sec Rumsfeld say that kits were in country and being put on the vehicles? I like Sec Rumsfeld a lot even though I've never met him. :rolleyes: Guy has the right of it when he says the answer was at fault. I don't think the Sec meant it to come out the way it did. On the other hand, he's right. You go with what you have not with what you'd like to have.

As for the autopen thing. Who cares? Does the Sec personally know the people killed? Granted, signing the letters himself gives him time to ponder on the cost in human lives but to me it seems an awful lot like making a kid write "I'm sorry" 1200 times. Is it a punishment? Those Soldiers, Sailors and Marines won't be any less dead.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Not punishment - respect.

[CRad]

Not punishment - respect.

How does a personally signed letter from the Secretary of Defense show respect? Why not one from the Joint Chiefs or a the guy who commanded the soldier and knew him? If the President is sending letters to the families why does the Sec need to send one as well? I'm missing the significance of a letter from a guy I never met even if I do like him. He doesn't know me or my family.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I don't think the average person knows about the use of autopens.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

I'm missing the significance of a letter from a guy I never met even if I do like him. He doesn't know me or my family.

Well actually it is not about being beer drinking buddies, it is all about the brotherhood of arms. There are many folks that I have never met that have served and are serving and I respect them for having the personal fortitude of accepting the challenging and wearing this country's uniform. For those SF soldiers with whom I have shared a common set of experiences and goals on this list but may have never met, I have a pretty good idea of the character of the person and respect does not cover the depth of personal and professional pride and at the same time humility I feel about them. No, you do not have to know someone personally to respect them for what they do even though you may not always understand who they are. I think NDD hit it squarely on the head.

Jack Moroney

[uboat509]

The Defense Secretary We Have
From the December 15, 2004 Washington Post: Our soldiers deserve a better defense secretary.
by William Kristol
12/15/2004 3:25:00 PM






"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."
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
in a town hall meeting with soldiers
at Camp Buehring in Kuwait, Dec. 8

ACTUALLY, we have a pretty terrific Army. It's performed a lot better in this war than the secretary of defense has. President Bush has nonetheless decided to stick for now with the defense secretary we have, perhaps because he doesn't want to make a change until after the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections. But surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defense secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term.

Contrast the magnificent performance of our soldiers with the arrogant buck-passing of Rumsfeld. Begin with the rest of his answer to Spec. Thomas Wilson of the Tennessee Army National Guard:

"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."

So the Army is in charge. "They" are working at it. Rumsfeld? He happens to hang out in the same building: "I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. . . . And that is what the Army has been working on." Not "that is what we have been working on." Rather, "that is what the Army has been working on." The buck stops with the Army.

At least the topic of those conversations in the Pentagon isn't boring. Indeed, Rumsfeld assured the troops who have been cobbling together their own armor, "It's interesting." In fact, "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." Good point. Why have armor at all? Incidentally, can you imagine if John Kerry had made such a statement a couple of months ago? It would have been (rightly) a topic of scorn and derision among my fellow conservatives, and not just among conservatives.

Perhaps Rumsfeld simply had a bad day. But then, what about his statement earlier last week, when asked about troop levels? "The big debate about the number of troops is one of those things that's really out of my control." Really? Well, "the number of troops we had for the invasion was the number of troops that General Franks and General Abizaid wanted."

Leave aside the fact that the issue is not "the number of troops we had for the invasion" but rather the number of troops we have had for postwar stabilization. Leave aside the fact that Gen. Tommy Franks had projected that he would need a quarter-million troops on the ground for that task--and that his civilian superiors had mistakenly promised him that tens of thousands of international troops would be available. Leave aside the fact that Rumsfeld has only grudgingly and belatedly been willing to adjust even a little bit to realities on the ground since April 2003. And leave aside the fact that if our generals have been under pressure not to request more troops in Iraq for fear of stretching the military too thin, this is a consequence of Rumsfeld's refusal to increase the size of the military after Sept. 11.

In any case, decisions on troop levels in the American system of government are not made by any general or set of generals but by the civilian leadership of the war effort. Rumsfeld acknowledged this last week, after a fashion: "I mean, everyone likes to assign responsibility to the top person and I guess that's fine." Except he fails to take responsibility.

All defense secretaries in wartime have, needless to say, made misjudgments. Some have stubbornly persisted in their misjudgments. But have any so breezily dodged responsibility and so glibly passed the buck?

In Sunday's New York Times, John F. Burns quoted from the weekly letter to the families of his troops by Lt. Col. Mark A. Smith, an Indiana state trooper who now commands the 2nd Battalion, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, stationed just south of Baghdad:

"Ask yourself, how in a land of extremes, during times of insanity, constantly barraged by violence, and living in conditions comparable to the stone ages, your marines can maintain their positive attitude, their high spirit, and their abundance of compassion?" Col. Smith's answer: "They defend a nation unique in all of history: One of principle, not personality; one of the rule of law, not landed gentry; one where rights matter, not privilege or religion or color or creed. . . . They are United States Marines, representing all that is best in soldierly virtues."

These soldiers deserve a better defense secretary than the one we have.


William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard.




© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041215-1801.html

Q If he hadn't asked that question, would the up-armoring have been accomplished within 24 hours?

GEN. SPEAKES: Yes. This was already an existing program. Remember that when I began this presentation we talked about General Schoomaker in his testimony in front of the HASC in November -- made it real clear. He said all vehicles operating north of the berm will be up-armored, and what that meant in common-sense language is you don't leave Kuwait without either an up-armor or an add-on armor solution. And we understood that, and most importantly the theater did. And so we were in constant dialogue, ensuring that we provided everything that was required to make this happen. And this didn't happen just for the 278th. In other words, the 256th, which was the Army Guard brigade directly in front of it, had the same identical solution; and although different numbers of vehicles, approximately the same solution in terms of percentage of fill.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Army to upgrade armor on older personnel carriers

By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Army, beset with complaints that its troops are going into combat in inadequately armored Humvees, will send an older and less used class of armored personnel carriers to Iraq after spending $84 million to add armor to them.

These vehicles, both veteran warhorses, are the M113/A3 armored personnel carrier and the M577 command post carrier. Both will be tougher and safer than newly armored Humvees.

Army officials who pushed hard over the last two years for getting the M113 into duty in Iraq said it was more useful, cheaper and easier to transport than the Army's new wheeled Stryker armored vehicle, which also is in use in Iraq.

The Army and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld found themselves at the center of a firestorm last month over the pace of adding armor to the Humvee, a small transport vehicle that's been pressed into service in Iraq as a combat vehicle. Critics have charged that even with armor the Humvee is too easily destroyed by rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices.

An Army representative, who didn't want to be identified, said Monday that $84 million was being spent to add armor to 734 M113/A3s and M577s.

For the M113s, that includes hardened steel side armor, a "slat armor" cage that bolts to the side armor and protects against RPGs, anti-mine armor on the bottom and a new transparent, bulletproof gun shield on the top that vastly improves gunners' vision.

The M577, nicknamed the "high-top shoe" for its tall, ungainly silhouette, will get only slat armor and anti-mine armor. Its high sides can't take the steel armor without making the vehicle unstable and even more liable to roll over.

The slat-type armor essentially is a metal cage designed to detonate RPGs before they breach the steel armor and the light aluminum wall. Similar slat armor has been added to the Stryker vehicle.

The armor kits will be produced in the United States, the Army representative said, and installed in Kuwait.

The representative said the M113 upgrade was requested by Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, the ground commander in Iraq, and approved by Gen. George Casey, the commander of multinational forces in Iraq.

The M113 typically carries a driver, a commander and 11 infantry soldiers. It can be fitted with a .50-caliber machine gun or a MK19 40 mm grenade launcher. The M113/A3 version, introduced in 1987, has a bigger turbo-charged diesel engine, an improved transmission, steering and braking package, and inside liners to suppress spall, the superheated molten metal produced by RPG and tank-round hits. It has a range of 300 miles and a road speed of more than 40 mph. It also can swim.

More than 80,000 M113s in 28 configurations have been manufactured since they were introduced in 1960, and they still do yeoman duty in many of the world's armies.

At around 13 tons, the M113 is much easier to transport than the behemoth M1A2 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle or even the wheeled Stryker.

The Army has spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying armored Humvees at $150,000 each and buying and making special tempered-steel and bulletproof-glass kits to add armor protection to the thin-skinned variety. The demand for armor on the Humvees grew as insurgents began pouring RPGs onto American patrols and convoys, and detonating deadly homemade bombs in the late summer of 2003.

The current demand in Iraq is for more than 22,000 armor-protected Humvees, a goal the Army says it will meet sometime between now and March. Its prime focus has turned now to armoring the five models of trucks that travel Iraq's dangerous roads to supply American forces.

Rumsfeld recently told a Tennessee National Guard soldier, who asked why his outfit had to scavenge dumps in Kuwait for scraps of armor for their Humvees, that "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might like to have."

One serving officer, who asked not to be identified, said Rumsfeld "didn't even let us go to war with the Army we had; he made us leave half our armored vehicles at home in pursuit of lighter, faster and cheaper."

[lrd]

March 21, 2005: The U.S. Army in Iraq is faced with a dramatic growth in the number of deaths from accidents involving Humvees (“hummers”). Last year, some 39 soldiers died in such accidents. But the rate of accidental deaths from these accidents has doubled in the last four months. That's about five percent of all deaths. Most of the accidents involve new hummers, the ones with armor installed at the factory. The hummer was always considered a safe vehicle, because it had a low center of gravity, and it’s width made is less prone to rollovers. But now there are more rollovers, and they appear to be caused by the increased weight of the armor, and the higher speeds troops use to avoid, or get away from, ambushes. Combat casualties have been falling sharply over the past three months, and part of that has to do with the high speed driving tactics adopted by troops using hummers. Such tactics have evolved over the last two years. But all that hot roding comes at the cost of more fatal accidents. The army is studying the situation, and will probably come up with new driving techniques to minimize the dangers.
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTATRIT.HTM