Posted on 12/18/2004 4:40:13 AM PST by johnny7
WASHINGTON - President Bush and the Senate's top two Republicans voiced support for Donald Rumsfeld on Friday as allies of the defense secretary sought to outflank increasingly vocal GOP critics in and out of Congress. "Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a great job leading our efforts at the Department of Defense to win the war on terrorism and to help bring about a free and peaceful Iraq," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Friday. "And he's instrumental in our efforts during this time of war we are in."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., issued a statement saying that he, too, is "confident that Secretary Rumsfeld is fully capable of leading the Department of Defense and our military forces to victory in Iraq and the war on terror." And Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP whip, said Rumsfeld "is an excellent secretary of defense, and we are fortunate to have a man of his courage and vision serving the president at this critical time." Rumsfeld's supporters spoke out after several days of GOP criticism aimed at the man who has steered the Pentagon during the Iraq war and its messy aftermath. More than 1,300 American troops have died since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began in 2003. None of Rumsfeld's congressional GOP critics has called for his ouster.
Still, they have grown increasingly outspoken in recent days, less than two weeks after the White House disclosed that the president wanted the defense secretary to remain in his post into a second term. The increased criticism from Republicans also comes after Rumsfeld's encounter with troops in Kuwait who complained about long deployments and a lack of armored vehicles and other equipment. "I'm not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld," said Sen. Trent Lott in remarks to the Biloxi, Miss., Chamber of Commerce this week. "I don't think he listens enough to his uniformed officers."
The Mississippi Republican said Bush should make a change at the Pentagon in the next year or so. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, released a letter to Rumsfeld asking why the Army had not moved more aggressively to produce fully armored Humvees for the troops in Iraq -- an issue she said she had raised at a hearing nine months ago. "I don't like the way he has done some things. I think they have been irresponsible," said Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. The Vietnam veteran's list of criticisms was long: "We didn't go into Iraq with enough troops. He's dismissed his general officers. He's dismissed all outside influence. He's dismissed outside counsel and advice."
1st Gulf War we lost 35 or more due to inadequate IFOF gear.
Insurgents are using 155 shells for their IEDs.
Please explain the design of the "up-armor" for HUMVEEs that would help.
I can't speak for cynicom but I do tend to observe and read and think about these events and apply what intelligence I have to solutions. That's probably one of the greatest things that our American system does for us is provide that kind of opportunity and couple that with the ability to bring those ideas to discussion.
Remember "the guys in pyjamas" that brought down Dan Rather and the Swift Boat Vets that knocked down Kerry?
Sometimes we are absolutely right and we do have to call 'em as we see 'em.
Rummy needs to stand down for a better man.
In point of fact they are not doing so, at least not in unarmored HUMVEEs. The unarmored hummvees are trucked in, not driven, and are only used inside the "green zone" and other more or less secure places. The armor doesn't really help much against IEDs anyway, nor RPGs. Even the Stryker, that darling of the Clinton DoD, is vulnerable to RPGs, and the add on "bustle" (sort of a 360 degree cow catcher affair) ; only protects part of the vehicle, but a mobility kill is still quite likely if the RPG hits below the bustle.
Just don't believe that Rumsfeld's the right guy for that job - and believe that his lack of adequate leadership is costing us more casualties
That's fine, you can criticize Rummy all you want, but I think he is more than competant to get the job done.
And will trust Rummy rather than those who snipe at him. It has to remebered that people also sniped at Churchill in the 30's, when he said that hitler was a threat.
Great homepage arasina; wonderful pictures of the real players!
Sure: the armor that's being designed (mostly 3/8th inch "High-Hard" steel) will stop most fragments from a 155mm HE round at about 50m. That same armor will stop a 7.62 X 54MM fired at close range. We tried out titanium and exotic ceramics and even polyurea coatings, but the best is the old hardened steel. We are working on bar armors and others to try to offset the RPGs too.
The difference is that with armor, some of the troops that could have been casualties, aren't. Some of those that are casualties aren't injured as catastrophically.
Without armor, even the smallest frag goes all the way through both sides of a HMMWV without slowing down. We have to do better than that!
What would be the proper type of equipment? The Stryker, which is the creation of the Clinton era DoD, is about as vulnerable to RPGs as the HUMVEE. Bradleys are much better, but they are "too heavy for available transport. (Of course we could build more transport). Bradleys and Abrams tanks were used in the recent battle for Falluja. The bottom line is that Clinton raped the military budget, and Bush has only partly restored it. It's the only part of the budget that was actually cut during Clinton's terms.
As for not enough boots on the ground. I wonder where they would come from? Many units are up for their second deployment in a few more months, less than a year after they returned from their first one. (4th ID for example) The only way we could put more boots on the ground would be sending folks over "for the duration", with sort R&R periods interspersed. Even those would have to be somewhere nearby. Or a draft of course, and for the most part the military itself doesn't want that.
BUT....if we really wanted to, we could have armor plated every damn HumVee in the world in a year and a half!
That's a cop-out!
Do you really think after the first RPG went through a HumVee that appropriations wouldn't have been made to remedy that?
Without tracing all our deployments all over the world, I can assure you we have the combat troops available to stifle the "insurgents" in Iraq.
Take a look at some of the military threads sometime.
They're saying the same thing, and they KNOW the deployments!
Over half of the total federal budget is in "non discretionary" funding. That is, funding mandated by law, other than the yearly authorization acts. Only Congress can change those laws. (Well, and the courts, but they tend to add to the entitlements, not reduce them).
But troops cost money, big money - they need costs of living and housing and medical for them and their families and training and eventually, retirement money.
The choice has been between F-22 Raptors and armored divisions, carriers for battle groups versus Marine Expeditionary Forces. Nobody has the guts to say "if this is the defense you want and these are the missions we have to fight, then you have to carve out this much from the tax base to support it".
Instead, we get Rummy and "this is the army we have".
These are our kids over there and I couldn't be more proud of them - but we need more of them. Not National Guard, not reservists, not call-backs to active duty, we need real active army and Marine Corps warfighters for the long haul. Fast.
And we need a SecDef with the guts to get that done.
Your numbers bear out the facts. Since Canada has refused to provide ground for the construction of the ICBM missile cover, I am wondering if we will increase our spending.
After watching Congress closely for fifteen years and being the gloomist I am, probably not.
>>Or a draft of course, and for the most part the military itself doesn't want that.<<
DOD wants warm bodies that they can train. The people don't want the draft.
It IS a wonderful blizzard of data. Too bad you weren't interested in reading it, because it refutes your contention that Rummy is at fault. Don't run from it --- here is the bottom line again:
"O'Reilly asked how much responsibility Rumsfeld bears for the current situation in Iraq. .....the irony is that it was Secretary Powell and some others who wanted the extended occupation. They are the ones who did not want to turn things over to the Iraqis, who feared and distrusted the Iraqis and blocked all efforts to do precisely that. ...
...even before the war Rumsfeld's Department of Defense had argued that we should train thousands of Iraqis "to go in with us so that we wouldn't be the aggressor, we wouldn't be the occupying power, and those proposals were blocked largely by the State Department and the CIA. [Powell and Tenet]
Rumsfeld was never able to get approval for the political strategy that might well have saved us from much of the subsequent trouble."
Now, live with it. Those are the facts. The facts are quite different from what you've been asserting on this thread. By deliberately ignoring the facts in reply #100 and 153 You have totally discredited yourself with intellectually honest people as being a person who is interested in the truth. The only truth you're interested in is "your truth", because it fits your template and agenda.
I commend you for your service. I can see you are still leading by example going to the hospitals uplifting the morale of those wounded military personnel. Though we may have a different opinion on Rummy I would want a Marine like you covering my back in combat. Rummy inherited what was left from 8 years of do nothing. I retired in 92 and was thankful to go before the draft dodger, coward, perjurer, rapist and commie persona grata took office. Yes those vehicles need to receive that armor
ASAP. If the leaders in the military cannot do the job relieve them and replace them with, "Can Do" Officers and NCO's. If Rummy fails in implementing these armor updates then replace him too. I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Looks like Generals Myers and Franks were a part of the decision. Link
What makes you think Rumsfeld overrode the amount of troops Franks and Myers wanted?
Still taking Rummy out of context after all that's been documented to you on this thread. You are pathetic.
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're 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's a matter of production and capability of doing it. As you know, you go to war with the army you have, 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. 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 it would be desirable for it to have, but that they're working at it at a good clip.
Rummy was saying that it was up to Abizaid to determine the number of troops that were needed. What makes you think that Rummy overrode the number of troops that General Abizaid wanted back in April?
It's a different war now or haven't you figured that out? Like I said in earlier threads, the Iranian and Syrian borders are nearly wide open and we don't have enough troops to cover a small part of that, much less Ramadi and Mosul and Falluja and Najaf and God forbid, Baghdad.
The commanders in the field haven't got any more people to pull from and they're extending the ones that have been in battle and away from their families for months and months. We have some members of the army hierarchy talking about putting girls into frontline infantry combat, now that we're running out of reservists and National Guard to pull from. The equipment is getting older and more worn down and Rumsfeld has people like you reaching to defend him and his ineptitude.
When are you going to lift up your eyes and look? What will it take before you finally realize that the guy who we have invested the trust of our best children doesn't know how to fight and complete this war?
We need a real commander - not a blusterer, not an excuse finder - somebody who knows that he has to build our ground combat arms back up and quickly.
The focus of effort is this war and it's now. Not six months ago and not last year. We need the army we are supposed to have not the army that Rummy built.
Ready to cover your six whenever you need me. Semper Fi
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.