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."
That is just how important this conflict is in the long term.
I have no intention of living like an Israeli, and if you don't, then I suggest you get on board.
We must change the Islamic culture in the entire Middle East, or destroy them.
If we do not succeed, they will destroy us by killing our economy which is our life!
If it goes, then everything else goes with it.
Iraq is the birth place of Islam in many ways, and it is also the only chance we have to create a catalyst for change in the East.
If our efforts here fail, then our future will become a nightmare of defensive actions that will make economic vitality impossible and knock us back to a second rate country that can no longer defend it's interests against the hordes of America haters that will descend on us to feast on our carcass.
We have no real friends. They would all like to see us grovel in the dirt!
We are in this thing for generations to come. It will not be over when the terrorists are killed or captured.
It will only be over when the very source of the problem, the culture of death in the middle east is eliminated by changing it to democratic based society.
Failing that, the only other option will be to fight them to the last man standing in a area that comprises over a third of the planet and without any help at all.
I suspect, that we would fail economically within 20 years if that became the reality and the American experiment would be over, Kaput!
Stop. Some applauded. They did not "cheer wildly" until the end of Rumsfeld's remarks.
Yes, many of the troops supported having the question asked. Most sat quietly with arms folded when it was asked. I have no problem with the question being asked.
Rumsfeld then answered it.
But don't overstate the reaction to the question being asked as if it were a unanimous expression of "At long last! The question that's been on all of our minds!".
Schwarzkopf wanted "Heavy" so he gave them a "Light" warplan that called for a frontal attack into the teeth of the Iraqi defense up the Wadi Al Battan. He projected his casualties based on the assumption that the Soldiers & Marines would get gassed during the breaching operation. The Bush I administration blanched, and Schwarzkopf got most of what he wanted.
Schwarzkopf knows what it is like to be "second-guessed". He's probably reluctant to do it, but both he & Rumsfeld know that it comes with the job.
When a war starts...it starts. You can't put it on pause and fix what needs to be fixed. You go with what you have and work on improving it as you go along.
Annie, I'm an old time freeper. I've even protested against Hitlery when we freeped her here in Atlanta, so I think i've established my conservative bona fides.
I'm also a retired army officer. Take some time and see what retired army people are saying about Mr. Rumsfeld. We think Mr. Rumsfeld is enamored with flashy, gee whiz solutions while telling the army to gut it out (read, we'll spend money on air force and navy programs, while cutting army procurement-in the meantime, the army and the USMC is left to take all the casualties in Iraq).
Mr. Rumsfeld has had it out for the army every since he took office. He humiliated Army Secretary White, an honorable man, and forced him out of office. He had his deputy secretary, Paul Wolfowicz (who never served a day in uniform) publicly disagree with the professional opinion of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, concerning the number of troops required to subjugate Iraq after the war (hindsight shows the professional opionion of general shinseki was correct--of course that was only based upon over 35 years of army service--not the bureaucratic expertise of Mr. Wolfowicz) and when General Shinseki retired, he again embarrassed the entire US Army and the Army chief of staff by not attending the retirement ceremony. The implied message from Mr. Rumsfeld was that he doesn't give a damn about the army.
Sure I voted for president Bush over the fraud Kerry (a man who should have been court martialed). But I, and many other army people think that the first cabinet secretary to go should have been Mr. Rumsfeld. Why? Because professional army soldiers have no confidence in him. If you have any friends who have served in the army for over 7 years, ask them what they think of Mr. Rumsfeld. Most likely the response will not be very positive.
I agree, based on my very dated Army experience, that the armored hmmwv is not the optimmal solution. Maybe M113s or some foreign vehicle off the shelf would be better (maybe Russian BTRs, who knows). But for better or worse the armored hmmwv is the interim solution that has been chosen. My point is that the soldiers and public are entitled to straight talk. Rummy said this is about physics and not money (see the quote above), clearly making the point that we are producing armoreed hmmwvs as rapidly as possible. And that has been shown to be false.
You were informed that this was an event orchestrated by a journalist who recruited soldiers for his purposes, which he admitted were to embarass the administration.
You are what Karl Marx referred to as a "useful idiot."
Thanks, I was unable to find Gen. Whitcomb's reply, although he didn't really add much. Like I said before this is an issue, but we are at war and everything isn't perfect, and as far as issues go we could have a lot more than this. That being said I'm glad this is being debated, for it has prompted the right sort of action to get more armored Humvees, etc.
"If they call and say, 'You know, we really want more', we'll get it done," said Lee Woodward, a spokesman for AM General, the Indiana company that makes Humvees and the civilian Hummer versions.
And
"The concerns expressed are being addressed, and that is we expect our troops to have the best possible equipment," Mr Bush said.
Thank you Mr. President, that is all we can ask.
They were.
The unit was to be transported to it's Iraq base only by armored vehicles and planes.
At the new base they were going to use armored vehicles left by the departing unit.
278th Tennessee N.G. Reponse on Questions to Secretary Rumsfeld
The issue of armoring vehicles has been distorted by the reporter's interference. I assume there actually is a problem getting vehicles that should be armored armored, but that has nothing to do with this unit.
I agree that you "go to war with the army you have," but it is also imperative you give the troops the best possible means to conduct that warfare. They knew there was a problem and the Defense Dept. should have been protesting loud and clear until the problem was solved. It is criminal to just say they only funded 450 a month, so that's all we could do. They should have responded to this problem.
I'm not calling for Rumsfeld to resign, but when a mistake is made it should be answered. This is akin to Janet Reno's, "I take full responsiblity," but none of the consequences.
Good luck to your son.
I must be thick, because I don't get it. Nice picture, though.
So, what you're saying is that nobody could have realized in advance that armored vehicles would be needed to secure Iraq?
It isn't an issue, except in the mind of the media. The soldiers were not clamoring about this issue, some jackass from CHATTANOOGA had his panties in a wad over it.
I challenge anyone who thinks Rummy doesn't want the troops to have the best available equipment.
The Democrats--John Kerry included--were the ones who voted AGAINST providing armor for the troops.
A logistical problem in getting that armor delivered is not the same as denying the troops the armor. That is what John Kerry wanted to do.
I thought it was the MO of the democrats to question the integrity of the person, and thereby discredit the facts, now I find it is rampant among republicans too.
Basically, DOD sent the word down that generals had better not request more than Rumsfeld & Co. had decided to give them.
Unfortunately he and Bush have been unwilling to recognize that 9/11 completely changed what we need, and his plans should have gone out the window.
Instead of continuing to downsize the Army we should have rapidly doubled it's size back to 1990 levels.
SO9
Nice post - thanks for making me smile. ;^)
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.