Posted on 12/14/2004 6:31:05 AM PST by Stingray51
Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf said yesterday he was "angry" at Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's response to a soldier who complained he and his fellow grunts in Iraq lack sufficient armor plating. And Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a Vietnam War hero, reiterated that he has "no confidence" in the Pentagon boss.
After a soldier told Rumsfeld that he and his fellow servicemen must scrounge for metal to better fortify their Humvees, the secretary told him, "You go to war with the Army you have." That response didn't sit well with the former general.
"They deserve every bit of protection we can give them," Schwarzkopf scowled in an interview with "Hardball" host Chris Matthews on MSNBC. "I was very, very disappointed - let me put it stronger - I was angry by the words of the secretary of defense."
More than half of the more than 1,200 U.S. troops killed in Iraq have come from insurgent attacks on the vehicles.
"When he [Rumsfeld] laid it all on the Army, I mean, as if he as the secretary of defense didn't have anything to do with it, the Army was over there doing it themselves screwing up," Schwarzkopf said.
McCain piled on in an Associated Press interview .
"I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops - linguists, Special Forces, civil affairs, etc.," he said. "There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue."
The troops are willing to carry on even when wounded, because they believe in the mission, and for their brothers in arms. It is dangerous to infer that they stay, because of support of the Presidents plan.
What nonsense.
The top officers at CentCom, CANNOT complain publicly.
This Humvee thing has just kept popping up. The armor thing. It would seem to me that it REALLY needs to be FIXED. It is making Rumsfeld and the Administration look bad, and it is just not smart to keep the status quo. DO something REALLY concrete about it, so next time a liberal reporter plants a question about ARMOR, the answer can be, "We have done thus and thus and thus to the extreme . ."
There was a blurb in a Tennessee newspaper that had an old picture of Rumsfeld on one side, this same "soldier" who asked the question on the other side, and someone else in the middle (wife I think) and he was purported to have asked the same type of question about armor at that time in a "town hall" type of meeting a year or so ago. So, if Rumsfeld gets waylaid by this same guy again in a town hall forum, I won't feel sorry for him. Wake up!
Of course Rummy wants the best for our troops, as any American would. This isn't about Rumsfled, the media want us to think it is but it's not. That doesn't change the fact that it is an issue, kind of like the fact that just because the Dem's voted against the armor doesn't mean we can't fix it.
And even if that soldier had his panties in a wad, those panties were in Kuwait about to go into Iraq, and deserving of our respect.
Unless, maybe, you're active duty in the warzone, then you can call him whatever yoy want.
Not that you require any.
The mission in Gulf War I did not include securing the entire country. The mission in Gulf War II did. Thus, the latter requires more equipment suitable to local patrols of less than entirely secured (i.e. small groups of armed hostiles are still on the loose) areas.
The first thing Rumsfeld said in response to "the question" was:
SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.
How does that comport with your contention?
You are right, it seems to me that they want more troops in theater in the beginning, and now. This war is being managed in DC, the targets and ROE are restrictive, and the rules of war are being turned on their heads. Simply put, this is very similar to the early years of the Vietnam war, and Rummy should know better.
"but Stormin' Norman is a different story."
From what I saw of Rumsfeld's answer, I didn't like his attitude. And yes, Stormin' Norman is very definitely a different story.
It's not nonsense. Both comments were flippant answers meant to end the discussion without getting to the root of the problem.
That is how Rumsfeld answered the question. And then some.
Don't you see facts matter not when an agenda is being moved on?
That's what the investigation will reveal.
And thanks on the picture, it's a picture of me.
If we'd waited until an occupation army had been drafted and trained we'd have never gone.
BINGO! We have a winner.
(aside) Talk to Dick Cheney about what he thinks of Norman, and his plan for Desert Storm, can we say hey diddle diddle straight up the middle.
When I heard one of the troops home on leave state, "I know that if we don't kill 'em over there, they're just gonna follow us to kill our families back here," it sounds like that is the same as what President Bush has been saying.
I hope you get to see all or Rumsfeld's answer. There was nothing wrong with his "attitude".
(what do you mean by that?)
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?
How was Rumsfeld's lengthy, thoughtful and detailed answer in any way "flippant"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.