Folks, the bottom line, regardless of what you think about the personalities involved, is that the chain of command has the responsibility to provide the resources needed for the execution of the mission. It also has the responsibility to ensure that the resources provided are used in the manner for which they were designed and that if you have mission requirements for which you do not have the appropriate resources you change the concept of the operation so that the troops have the greatest chance of mission success. You can bring a hand gun to a tank battle but your first shot better take out the TC.

Jack Moroney

I don't think the guy's asking for the "very best" of anything. He was asking for adequate equipment. Not a clue on how SPC Thomas might feel about a tax increase to cover that but I can tell you how I as the Wife of one soldier and Mother and Aunt to several soldiers and sailors feel about seeing a tax increase on that soldier husband of mine's LES. It would be fine with me. I can tell you for a fact that soldier boy's 8 year old son would be Jim Dandy with having a few less toys if it meant Dad was going to be safer in a war zone.

Spend my tax money on good stuff for the boys and cut out crap like federally funded parking lots in Alaska and you you won't hear a word from me or mine.

I like Sec Rumsfeld better than anyone else in Bush's Cabinet but his answer sucked. He can and should do better.

You do the best with what you have. Would you like to have more? Yup. Should the Chain of Command bust their ass to get you what you need? Certainly. However, unlike oranges, armored vehicles don't grow on trees. Maybe once you convince the US population to mobilize akin to WWII and convert commercial industry to producing war stocks, Joe will get everything he perceives as 'mission essential'. Further, what is this soldier's mission? Will he be regularly running convoys through high IED threat areas, or is he concerned that his one-time trip from Kuwait into Iraq before he spends a year manning a desk in the Green Zone might be mined? What would be considered 'adequate' equipment for his mission? I don't know the answer, and I'm guessing most of us here don't, because we're too far removed from the facts in this particular case. I do know that as a former soldier, had I ran my mouth like that to even my BDE CDR rather than use my chain of command, I would rightfully expect to be labeled a whiner and be smoked for the rest of my time in the unit.

Granted and also think that Army gripes need to be kept out of the media for the most part. However, Sec Rumsfeld did ask for questions which would seem like a good time to by-pass chain of command and get an important question some face time. I'm all for following the chain of command but there's something about it that reminds me of that game "telephone." The soldiers with boots on the ground say one thing but by the time it reaches the top it sound completely different.

As for John Q Public being convincd that it needs to mobilize "as if we actually were fighting a war" :rolleyes: I think stories like this one can do more good than harm. The more people understand what our Army is doing without the better it is for the soldiers. This makes me think of the following saying...


For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the want of a horse the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of care about a horseshoe nail."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Given this, I'm wondering if the question was actually a concern of the soldier, or if he was acting as a reporter's pawn to get his 15 minutes of fame:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6676765/

In a related development, it was revealed Thursday that a reporter claims to have helped the soldier prepare the question directed at Rumsfeld. The Poynter Institute, a news media think tank, published on its Web site an e-mail from reporter Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga Times Free Press in which he explains how he worked with the soldier since he wasn't allowed to question Rumsfeld himself.


And from the cited website:

12/9/2004 11:40:00 AM
From: [Chattanooga Times Free Press military reporter] Pitts, Lee
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2004 4:44 PM
To: [Chattanooga Times Free Press staffers]
Subject: RE: Way to go

I just had one of my best days as a journalist today. As luck would have
it, our journey North was delayed just long enough see I could attend a visit today here by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have. While waiting for the VIP, I went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.

So during the Q&A session, one of my guys was the second person called on. When he asked Rumsfeld why after two years here soldiers are still having to dig through trash bins to find rusted scrap metal and cracked ballistic windows for their Humvees, the place erupted in cheers so loud that Rumsfeld had to ask the guy to repeat his question. Then Rumsfeld answered something about it being "not a lack of desire or money but a logistics/physics problem." He said he recently saw about 8 of the special up-armored Humvees guarding Washington, DC, and he promised that they would no longer be used for that and that he would send them over here. Then he asked a three star general standing behind him, the commander of all ground forces here, to also answer the question. The general said it was a problem he is working on.

The great part was that after the event was over the throng of national
media following Rumsfeld- The New York Times, AP, all the major networks -- swarmed to the two soldiers I brought from the unit I am embedded with. Out of the 1,000 or so troops at the event there were only a handful of guys from my unit b/c the rest were too busy prepping for our trip north. The national media asked if they were the guys with the armor problem and then stuck cameras in their faces. The NY Times reporter asked me to email him the stories I had already done on it, but I said he could search for them himself on the Internet and he better not steal any of my lines. I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I foud out I would be on an unarmored truck- and my paper published two stories on it. But it felt good to hand it off to the national press. I believe lives are at stake with so many soldiers going across the border riding with scrap metal as protection. It may be to late for the unit I am with, but hopefully not for those who come after.

The press officer in charge of my regiment, the 278th, came up to me
afterwords and asked if my story would be positive. I replied that I would write the truth. Then I pointed at the horde of national media pointing cameras and mics at the 278th guys and said he had bigger problems on his hands than the Chattanooga Times Free Press. This is what this job is all about - people need to know. The solider who asked the question said he felt good b/c he took his complaints to the top. When he got back to his unit most of the guys patted him on the back but a few of the officers were upset b/c they thought it would make them look bad. From what I understand this is all over the news back home.

Thanks,
Lee

For some reason I have the Bulge episodes of Band of Brothers running through my head like an 8 track tape. You know, the one where they go into plug the break through and they don't have any winter clothes or med supplies and they have to take the ammo from the guys that are retreating. All this after being at it so long.

And I keep thinking about the first guys into Korea and that first winter...

I hope that the embedded flak from the Chatanooga Times has his pimp hat and cane, and the troops realize that they were just used like whores.

Razor had it right.

There is exactly ONE manufacturer for uparmored HMMWVs in the U.S., and last I heard they were running round the clock to crank them out. Money did not appear to be an issue, production capacity was.

What an ass the reporter was. I hope the folks back home are proud of him. :rolleyes:

TR

Is O'Gara still the only ones making them?

O'Gara Hess & Eisenhardt

http://www.ogara-hess.com/military/W...ehicles/M1114/

Last time I heard they were. Not sure who is making the kits, but if you start adding weight without upgrades to the rest of the vehicle, you have an imperfect solution.

TR

The parent company has a tough time retaining top talent. I think they need to pay their employees more. :)

I could care less about the "solution", it was his SECDEF reply to the troops question!

I was working for Armor Group when they aquired O'Gara. They have a factory here and one of the few glass factories. We had a meeting with them and toured their factory here. Their salesmen were saying how hard it was to sell the cars, so I went out and sold 8 in 10 days. No commission for me :boohoo . The process is pretty cool. Glass is a critical path item.

They do good work. They have a sign up that says they've made ever POTUS car since Truman.

http://www.indystar.com/articles/4/200880-5704-010.html

Bayh has requested more armored Humvees for troops in Iraq

By Dan McFeely
dan.mcfeely@indystar.com
December 9, 2004


A soldier's complaint to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that there is a shortage of armored Humvees wasn't a surprise to Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind.

In October, Bayh wrote a letter to Rumsfeld asking him to provide an accurate estimate of how many Humvees the Army needed.

Humvees are manufactured by AM General in Mishawaka, Ind.; they are then sent to Ohio to be armored.

The military continues to change its requests and then blame the industry for not producing the up-armored Humvees fast enough, according to Meg Keck, a spokeswoman for Bayh.

Bayh could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

In October, Bayh called on the Department of Defense to ensure that all troops have armored vehicles and equipment needed to fight the war on terror, after learning that the Army was short 3,000 armored Humvees and needed $350 million to provide bolt-on armor kits to protect troops.

Bayh urged Rumsfeld to work with suppliers to speed production and delivery of the vehicles.

"Our brave men and women fighting overseas should never be without the equipment they need while they are fighting the war on terror," Bayh said at the time. "Once again, the Pentagon is short of the vehicle that our troops consider a Number One priority. These shortfalls and delays are unacceptable."

Bayh said that since May 2003, the Army's requirements for additional armored Humvees grew from 235 vehicles to more than 8,100 as of October. The workers at AM General and the other companies have increased production to meet each previous Army demand, Bayh said.

In May, Bayh pushed an amendment through the Armed Services Committee to provide an additional $610 million for the Army to purchase more armored Humvees and armor kits.

Like TR said, post-fielding (aka bolt-on) armor kits may provide ballistic protection, but if you don't have a more powerful engine/transmission, the extra weight slows you down considerably, causes the engine to overheat, wears out the drive train faster than normal, and generally suck. We had 'em in Bosnia; no one that had to use them regularly had anything good to say about 'em.

Somehow, I suspect that Senator Bayh's enthusiasm is more about bringing the bacon home than troop safety.

IMHO, he is no friend of the military.

TR