In Search Of Utopia: I guess...

Like ISOU? Make a Donation!

Connect

Recent Entries

« I brazenly stole this.... | Main | Arguing with some of these idiots, is like entering a knife fight with a Bazooka »

July 06, 2005

I guess...

This just shoots the shit out of Jay Tea's armor excuse doesnt it?

Soldiers in Iraq complain that Washington has been too slow to acknowledge that the Iraqi insurgency consists of more than "dead-enders." And even at the Pentagon many officers say Rumsfeld and his brass have been too reluctant to modify their long-term plans for a lighter military. On the battlefield, that has translated into a lack of armor. Perhaps the most telling example: a year ago the Pentagon had more than 400 main battle tanks in Iraq; as of recently, a senior Defense official told NEWSWEEK, there was barely a brigade's worth of operational tanks still there. (A brigade usually has about 70 tanks.)
In continuing adherence to the Army's "light is better" doctrine, even units recently rotated to Iraq have left most of their armor behind. These include the I Marine Expeditionary Force, which has paid dearly for that decision with an astonishing 30 percent-plus casualties (45 killed, more than 300 wounded) in Fallujah and Ar Ramadi. The Army's 1st Cavalry Division—which includes the unit in Sadr City—left five of every six of its tanks at home, and five of every six Bradleys.

A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur. According to an unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now circulating through the Army, of a total of 789 Coalition deaths as of April 15 (686 of them Americans), 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs.

The military is 1,800 armored Humvees short of its own stated requirement for Iraq. Despite desperate attempts to supply bolt-on armor, many soldiers still ride around in light-skinned Humvees. This is a latter-day jeep that, as Brig. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, assistant division commander of the 1st Armored Division, conceded in an interview, "was never designed to do this ... It was never anticipated that we would have things like roadside bombs in the vast number that we've had here." One newly arrived officer, Lt. Col. Timothy Meredith, says his battalion had just undergone months of training to rid itself of "tank habits" and get used to the Humvees. "We arrived here expecting to do a lot of civil works," says Meredith.

But ya gotta give it to the Right Wing for actually "selling," their "Support the Troops," meme...

Way to go Boys and Girls... I would pay to see Jay explain this to the widows and children of some of the folks who have died.

Posted by David A at July 6, 2005 05:54 PM
Filed Under Hypocrisy | 486 Words

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.grupo-utopia.com/blog/mt/mt-tb.cgi/445

Comments

I have several responses to this:

1) It's obvious that you either didn't read my whole piece, deliberately misunderstood it, didn't understand what you read. I'll let others determine if you are lazy, dishonest, or stupid.

Here's the last paragraph of that piece, also known as the "conclusion:"

"Again, I'm no expert on these matters. But I do know that the balance between armor and performance is a fine one, and simply slapping hunks of metal on the vehicles isn't necessarily the best solution. But it definitely is something that needs to be addressed."

How that translates into "screw the cowardly troops for wanting armor!" is beyond me, but apparently in Davidland it does.

2) I decided my second response, restating the whole pluses and minuses of armor, would be the proverbial "teaching a pig to sing" effort. You are either incapable or unwilling to grasp the issue.

3) Why don't you take some of that money you "would pay to see Jay explain this" and contribute it to the various funds to support the troops, and buy them the armor that you discuss? I live paycheck-to-paycheck, but you apparently have the discretionary income to actually make a difference. Come on, put something behind your words for a change.

4) For using the deaths of those who have served our country honorably, and done far more heroic things than either of us ever will, to make a cheap point against me, there is only one response:

Fuck you. Fuck you, you disgusting scum. I don't know if you intention was to "foul your nest" and disgust me enough to voluntarily exile myself, you have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams. This ie quite possibly the most obscene thing I've ever encountered since I started blogging. I've done everything I can to have a reasonable, serious discussion on matters of great import. I see that such is beyond your capabilities, and I regret the time and effort I put forth.

I fully expect this will be my last comment here. I will not track back to anything you post, and would ask you to do the same.

Posted by: Jay Tea at July 6, 2005 08:15 PM

Instead of filing this under "hypocrisy," perhaps David should file this under "showing my ignorance of military history."

When someone up-armors a vehicle, the immediate response is to create larger warheads to blow up these same vehicles. This has been going on since teh creation of tanks in World War I. You can keep up-armoring vehicles until they fail from excessive weight, but the enemy will always find a way to exploit weaknesses in that vehicle. You can't armor vehicles "enough." It is always relative.

So David, run with your "Rethuglicans don't care about the troops" meme if it helps you sleep a little easier. We read Kos and teh DU and Atrios, and we know who really cares about the troops, and who really doesn't.

More importantly, so do they.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at July 6, 2005 08:55 PM

Struck a nerve huh? Well, I guess the fuck you and the you dont know what the hell you are talking about refers to the troops in the referenced article as well? Whatever guys. This has not been a debate, it has been a fucking excusathon. Just admit it, the Administration FUCKED UP. YOU will sleep better at night!

Posted by: David Anderson at July 6, 2005 08:59 PM

And I guess the body armor that the troops parents are buying is useless as well huh?

Posted by: David Anderson at July 6, 2005 09:00 PM

As an asside, I just love getting lectured by a guy who flys a flag on his blog that represents the most disgusting period in American History. But it is par for the course. Stupidity is a relative term Jay. I for one find yours and Johnny Rebs arguments agains armor to be incredibly stupid. Under your rational, why dont we just outfit the troops in Speedos and Tank Tops, a lot cooler in the desert heat, and they will sure as hell be able to run faster.

Posted by: David Anderson at July 6, 2005 09:04 PM

Oh, and one final thing. You know what I find "disgusting?" I find it disgusting that some of you on the Right are so oppossed to criticizing the current administration that LOGIC goes out the window. IF the troops... The ONES ACTUALLY FIGHTING, not the ones sitting behind their keyboards providing play by play, feel that armor is important enough that they pay for it out of their own pocket, or scramble through scrap yards trying to find pieces of metal to jerry rig to their vehicles, JUST WHO THE HELL are you to sit back on your ass, far from harms way and debate the benefits. If armoring those vehicles did not save a single life, but made the troops feel less stressed, it would be worth it.
So you want to get pissed JAY? I have been pissed since your High Priest of Bullshit, Karl Rove insulted everyone on the Left a few weeks ago. And I no longer care about diplomacy.

Posted by: David Anderson at July 6, 2005 09:10 PM

If you try to armor the 101st's vehicles, or the 82nd's or even my own 1/180 BN's we'll kick your a$$. The units mentioned are Air Assault units.

I don't mention this to indicate that Armored Humvees are bad or that they shouldn't be used in Iraq. Only that Armor is not the panacea that the loony left is currenly proclaiming. It can be bad for the vehicle and it can be bad of rthe mission.

As for the mission in Iraq, unarmored Humvees do remain there, but they are not leaving guarded perimeters. Anyone leaving a gate is leaving in an armored vehicle. This includes teh 2 1/2 ton and 5 ton trucks. They look a little funny.

FWIW, Rove wants you to be pissed at him and to ditch diplomacy on account of it so you'll become sloppy and stupid. You and he can feel free to decide if it's working.

Posted by: RTO Trainer at July 7, 2005 01:14 AM