Daily Kos

Insufficient Armor: Scandalous Incompetence Costs Soldiers' Lives

Digg this! Share this on Twitter - Insufficient Armor: Scandalous Incompetence Costs Soldiers' LivesTweet this submit to reddit

Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:11:01 AM PST

Donald Rumsfeld excuses all of his incomptence with weird statements like "you go with the Army you have" and "you know what you know but you don't know what you don't know" and the like. Well I know this, the Pentagon is filled with incompetence. And it is costing us the lives of our soldiers:

The war in Iraq was hardly a month old in April 2003 when an Army general in charge of equipping soldiers with protective gear threw the brakes on buying bulletproof vests. The general, Richard A. Cody, who led a Pentagon group called the Army Strategic Planning Board, had been told by supply chiefs that the combat troops already had all the armor they needed, according to Army officials and records from the board's meetings. Some 50,000 other American soldiers, who were not on the front lines of battle, could do without.

In the following weeks, as Iraqi snipers and suicide bombers stepped up deadly attacks, often directed at those very soldiers behind the front lines, General Cody realized the Army's mistake and did an about-face. On May 15, 2003, he ordered the budget office to buy all the bulletproof vests it could, according to an Army report. He would give one to every soldier, "regardless of duty position."

But the delays were only beginning. The initial misstep, as well as other previously undisclosed problems, show that the Pentagon's difficulties in shielding troops and their vehicles with armor have been far more extensive and intractable than officials have acknowledged, according to government officials, contractors and Defense Department records. In the case of body armor, the Pentagon gave a contract for thousands of the ceramic plate inserts that make the vests bulletproof to a former Army researcher who had never mass-produced anything. He struggled for a year, then gave up entirely. At the same time, in shipping plates from other companies, the Army's equipment manager effectively reduced the armor's priority to the status of socks, a confidential report by the Army's inspector general shows. Some 10,000 plates were lost along the way, and the rest arrived late.

In all, with additional paperwork delays, the Defense Department took 167 days just to start getting the bulletproof vests to soldiers in Iraq once General Cody placed the order. But for thousands of soldiers, it took weeks and even months more, records show, at a time when the Iraqi insurgency was intensifying and American casualties were mounting.

For this alone, Rumsfeld should resign. It is inexcusable.

  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 112 comments

  •  Sorry... (none / 1)

    Outrage meter way past full.  What's on reality TV tonight?

    To the WH: "It's your job to f*ck-up power; it's Fox's job to f*ck-up truth.' - Jon Stewart

    by RichM on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:06:51 AM PST

  •  You run the Country with the Gov't you have (3.50 / 2)

    Not the Gov't that people with actual functioning brainwaves want.

    "The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind". William Blake

    by egarratt on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:07:11 AM PST

  •  Seriously (none / 0)

    Where's the outrage?  
    •  Ask George W. (2.60 / 10)

      I'm against the war.  The troops can cry on George W.'s shoulder.  They largely voted for him.

      The war itself is the real outrage.  Where's the body armor for Iraqi civillians (and Italian journalists for that matter) who keep getting killed ``by accident?''

      "Dream for just a second and then do it!" -- Kolmogorov

      by theran on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:16:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't believe that a the majority voted. (3.83 / 6)

        The majority of the people I served with and currently work with were not for Bush, although they couldn't state that too loudly for obvious reasons. It could be that I only associate with people who agree with me and therefore didn't get an honest cross section of opinions. I've said it before and I will continue to present these numbers, less than 1% of the American population is in the military. To suggest that the soldiers deserve what they get is unconscionable.

        Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. (Paraphrasing B. Franklin)

        by p a roberson on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:23:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (none / 0)

          Why can't they express their meaning? And why are the reasons obvious? I'm REALLY baffled by this. Once I read it, my immediate thoughts went to Nazi-Germany and the Soviet Union.

          So, in an effort to try and understand, could you please tell me what could've happened if a soldier/officer went out and told his comrades at arms that he didn't support the sitting president? Or is it just a case of the pro-Bushites bullying the hell out of anyone not a Bushite?

          I'm sure they, whoever they are, could make life uncomfortable for you, but nothing close to what they could in Nazi-Germany and the SU I'm sure. But I',m still baffled that people are afraid to speak their meaning fearing consequenses.

          ____________
          Dub mentality
          My blog

          by Coug on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:04:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  For soldiers in uniform (none / 1)

            They are not permitted to conduct political activities while in uniform. Many leaders extend that to the old 24/7 rule. Your are a soldier 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year. Believe me, soldiers do have the right to vote and do so when they can. Engaging in politcal activity while on duty can be punished under UCMJ. This is not like appearing in court, your commander administers punishment, you can refuse this option, but the next step is a Court Martial with more severe penalties. Soldiers become cautious when it comes to stating political beliefs. Those who do proclaim their political beliefs do so with the knowledge they are stating a popular opinion.

            Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. (Paraphrasing B. Franklin)

            by p a roberson on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:12:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Popular in what way? (none / 0)

              But if the majority are against the President, then wouldn't that be the popular opinion?  Put another way: since when are majorities silent, except when they are suppressed or imagined?

              "Dream for just a second and then do it!" -- Kolmogorov

              by theran on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:31:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't mean to suggest that a majority was (none / 1)

                against President Bush. As I said earlier in this thread, I associate with like minded people and when you do that then you don't get a realistic view. It is true that a majority of military service memebers support President Bush (soldiers tend to support the President regardless of politics. I'm aware that this is a generalization). I don't believe that the number of soldiers that voted for President Bush is as great as some would believe. Soldiers tend to do their jobs as best they can in spite of the leadership that they have. That is what they do, "defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic ..."

                Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. (Paraphrasing B. Franklin)

                by p a roberson on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:42:59 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Soldiers supporting the president (none / 0)

                  soldiers tend to support the President regardless of politics. I'm aware that this is a generalization

                  I'm curious about what percentage of soldiers supported Clinton during his eight years. Anyone have some numbers on that?

                  It's hard to imagine a majority of the armed forces supporting a president as disliked by the Right as Clinton was. But I'd be happy to have that assumption debunked.

                  Are we a nation of six-year-olds? Answer: yes. - David Cross

                  by Jake Mohan on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:11:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If I had known this would go on this long (none / 0)

                    I would have sat on my hands.

                    My statement, "soldiers tend to support the President regardless of politics. I'm aware that this is a generalization;" the point that I tried to make here is that soldiers just like kids who live at home tend to support who their parents support. In the case of soldiers they support the President regardless of who the President is, because they believe that is the right thing to do. After all, it is in their oath of enlistment. "I, (insert your name here), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

                    Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. (Paraphrasing B. Franklin)

                    by p a roberson on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 03:10:10 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I apologize for this addendum (4.00 / 3)

                The popular view that I spoke of earlier tends to be a conservative view point usually republican. When your commander is watching Fox news in his office, you know that a liberal view point will not be received well. Keep in mind that soldiers do not have the right to demonstrate, etc. They can be charged with a variety of charges such as incitement, mutiny, engaging in political activities while on duty. etc. The Manual of Courts Martial is a very interesting book; you can charge someone with almost anything. Bottom line, I'm just one person speaking about what I have experienced. I present these for discussion, but to also speak for my former soldiers and peers who aren't able to go online here and post a view point, because it may result in punishment or even a loss of a job.

                Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. (Paraphrasing B. Franklin)

                by p a roberson on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:56:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Not at all surprised (none / 1)

        So basically you are saying that anyone who did not vote the way you wanted them to deserve to die. I got a feeling you are not the only one who thinks that way.
        •  luckily (none / 1)

          they are few and far between here on dKos. I wouldn't be here otherwise.

          Mr. Bush, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

          by pacific city on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:35:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Where do you get that? (none / 1)

          I don't wish anybody dead.  I do, however, reject the nonsense that raising the level of weaponry available is going to do anything other than escalate the level of violence even further.  

          For one thing, I'd have to believe that with better defensive gear, the military wouldn't try to be more aggressive.  Since they seem to be mostly losing at the moment, I find it doubtful that the commanders would want to just do the same thing, only more safely.

          Is there a bizarre culture of violence and death that sucks kids into the military?  Sure.  Do the recruiters lie?  All the materials they put up around campus do.  Are the Republicans always looking to push all in with somebody else's stack?  Yes.  Does anybody ever deserve to die for a priori reasons?  Of course not!

          I don't see how any of these answers obligate me to support escalating the war in Iraq in any way.

          "Dream for just a second and then do it!" -- Kolmogorov

          by theran on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:23:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They voted for him (none / 1)

            It's not only your right but your obligation to speak out against a war you don't believe in. That I object to is your statement "let then cry on Bush's shoulder--- they voted for him anyway" That comes off as saying to hell with then they voted for him so they are getting what they deserve
            •  Different intention (none / 1)

              What I was really going for is that the military and its extended family needs to raise their voices if this is really a major issue to them.  It shouldn't be up war opponents to do so, since it's dishonest to oppose the war and support expanding it further.  

              So long as the military continues to line up solidly with Bush and the GOP, it's hard to imagine these kinds of concerns getting addressed.  If armor is really what's important to the troops, they'll need to find a way to push.

              As you pointed out, I'm not the one to do that.

              "Dream for just a second and then do it!" -- Kolmogorov

              by theran on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:26:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  doing that, thanks... (none / 0)

                why do you make assumptions that military family members aren't doing anything to protest the war? Do some research and recognize that just as we kossacks appear to have little effect on what BushCo does, the military families are speaking out but are just a tiny voice amid the screaming right-wing fanatics dominating the media.

                Mr. Bush, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

                by pacific city on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:05:20 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  the military CANNOT raise their voices (none / 0)

                They are not permitted to. They would be prosecuted as was amply described upthread. Especially if you're going against the current administration.

                So don't assume. You know the old saying about ASS-U-ME.

            •  No matter who voted for him (none / 0)

              these soldiers are underequipped and that's not their fault.

              Just remember that.

              This space available. Bad credit, no credit, no problem! Financing available!

              by Stand Strong on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:32:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  callous... (3.50 / 4)

        and repugnant.

        One of the more tragic facts that undermines your position is that the troops lacking armor are more likely National Guard or Reserves, troops who are more representative of the general population of the U.S. and therefore are more likely to vote for Demcrats.

        Regardless, your position is hard to stomach because you are talking about 18-19-20 year old kids who likely haven't fully developed their ideology and don't deserve to be pawns for either political party.

        Mr. Bush, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

        by pacific city on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:34:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (none / 1)

          It's not callous and it's not repugnant to oppose throwing more money and people into the disaster in Iraq, which happens to be my position.  Other disagree, including, it would appear, the military's command structure and a great many of those who volunteered.  That's fine.

          What's not fine is your assumption that military service is somehow the highest form of citizenship, and that as a civilian the best I can do is try to project my own ideals onto the military and the troops.  Neither of these are true.  

          The military is certainly at least partly culpable for the ongoing atrocities.  It's culture and structure doesn't value people lives that highly, apparently including the lives of the troops.  I agree that this is a problem the Bush administration does not want to address.  But when we're looking at that, let's not forget the complete disregard for civilians and journalists in Iraq, camptown women in Korea, and the local population pretty much everywhere the US military has a large presence.  

          I don't disagree that the military serves an essential function (though not in Iraq), but that doesn't make it perfect or unassailable.  Moreover, I see no particular obligation to give my voice to the military when I am opposed to what it's doing.  The troops, veteran's organizations and war supporters should be able to find their own, if they don't feel that Bush has given them adequate material support.  

          I will continue to argue against the war, rather than try to manufacture a side issue just to put pressure on Bush.  If this armor problem was important to the war supporters, they would find a way to make that known.

          "Dream for just a second and then do it!" -- Kolmogorov

          by theran on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:16:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  um (none / 0)

            1. I don't agree with the war. I am now and have always been against it.

            2. I never said this nor do I believe this to be true: your assumption that military service is somehow the highest form of citizenship

            3. I disagreed with your implicit assertion that somehow troops don't deserve adequate protection because most of them may have voted for Bush. That is the equivalent of suggesting that Republicans in Pennsylvania deserve to die from lung cancer because they voted for Bush who has gutted the Clean Air act.

            So don't set up straw men and don't attribute beliefs or assertions to me that I never made.

            Mr. Bush, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

            by pacific city on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:59:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  "I sayeth unto you...let those without sin... (4.00 / 3)

            You seem to speak in grand platitudes about what the military is and does and why people join. I would ask, however, have you ever served? Supporting our troops is NOT support for the war!!!! I have heard over and over again how, since I support the troops (I am a veteran) I automatically support the war in Iraq and every other bungled adventure our military has undertaken. This is simply NOT true! I am wholeheartedly in opposition to our troops being in Iraq and will continue to say so as loudly and vehemently as possible. That being said, according to a DoD study last year, 1 in 5 casualties in Iraq could have been prevented in Iraq if the troops there had been provided with the correct safety equipment. We are in Iraq for the time being (I hope nothing more than to see that change!) and it is the duty of our government to do everything in their power to make sure that as many of our troops come home alive and/or in one piece. This is an incredibly important topic because it is a way for those of us who don't support the war to point out to those "rally round the flag" people (I think you know who I mean) and let them know that our administration does NOT support the troops. I submit to you that, to you, "the troops" are simply an abstract. Those people who were, as you put it, dumb enough to vote for him. Well, as many in this thread have demonstrated, many of them may not have voted for him (in fact, most in the military don't vote). To you they may be an abstract but, to some of us, they are friends and loved ones and we want the administration to do EVERYTHING they can to protect them until they are smart enough to bring them home. Just my $.02

            "This is where some of my dreams become realities. And where some of my realities become dreams." -Willie Wonka

            by green917 on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:26:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah well . . (4.00 / 2)

    The main thing that's costing the lives of our soldiers is that we invaded Iraq.  Had we not done that, they wouldn't even need armor, and nobody would be trying to kill them.

    Just sayin'.

  •  Chain of command (none / 1)

    Didn't Rumsfeld say he submitted his resignation, only to have Bush refuse it?  I think the problem is further up the chain.
    •  Rumsfeld.. (none / 1)

      ..actually submitted his resignation twice, and was refused both times.

      "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." - MLK

      by amayernx on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:19:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, on the issue of submitting resignations.. (none / 0)

        If I was in his shoes and submitted my resignation twice and the boss said "No, sorry, we really need you", that's when you stop showing up for work. See how long it takes for him to get rid of you. If that doesn't work, pull a Fight Club and beat yourself up in the bosses office until he gives you a well-paying telecommuting job in return for keeping your mouth shut.

        What if Bush threw a meeting and nobody came?

        "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." - MLK

        by amayernx on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:21:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This barely begins (4.00 / 2)

    to touch the level of gross incompetence.  Read the whole article.  An read this diary.

    StarkReports.com: Unscripted, unvarnished and unedited

    by Mike Stark on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:14:36 AM PST

  •  Several points (4.00 / 4)

    One is that the State Department and other intelligence agencies predicted the insurgency before we even went in.  

    A basic rule of fighting a war is that you prepare for the worst possible contingencies.  This administration didn't, they prepared and handled it like a stroll on the beach.

    As a result, countless numbers of people on both sides have died.

    Secondly, the Defense Department refused to allow private citizens to provide armor for our troops.  A police department in Florida collected old vests to send to troops, but they were told they couldn't do so.

    Thirdly, the shortage of vehicle armor continues.

    My son arrived in Kuwait a while back to lead a convoy of his troops to Iraq.  They spent 2 weeks trying to uparmor their vehicles.  It appears that only 30% were fully armored when they left.

    Fortunately, they did not encounter any hostile activity on the 3 day journey.

    The fact is, this administration did go to war with the army they wanted.  Just not the army they needed.

  •  Soldiers' problem (none / 1)

    Seriously, it's up to the men and women in the forces (and their families) to make this an issue.  Until they get sick of being treated like toilet paper by Bush and Rumsfeld nothing will change.  When you serve in the military you are entering into a contract with the gov't.  It is up to those individuals to decide whether the gov't is breaching their end of the deal.
    •  well, no... (4.00 / 3)

      I don't agree. It is up to the civilian population of this country to effect change in the incompetent CIVILIAN leadership. As civilians, we can speak out and demand change and criticize the government without getting thrown in Leavenworth.

      The troops don't have a voice in the political realm other than through the secret ballot.

      Mr. Bush, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

      by pacific city on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:41:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No true (none / 0)

        Okay, fine, deployed soldiers don't have much of a voice (although it is louder than it used to be).  But veterans groups, family members of those deployed, and individual retired vets do have voices.  They can all speak out.

        There is a perception that liberals are cynically using troops misfortune as a club to bash Bush.  Now, that perception may not be accurate, but it is odd that the loudest voices on this issue are ones from people who are not ordinarily thought of as interested in vet issues.

        I think that it might be more effective for many liberals to look a little less like altruists.  People are less supicious of people defending their own interests.  Arguments that Bush has weakened the military and left potential terrorism targets unprotected here in America will likely be received with less skepticism.

        •  I do know about... (none / 1)

          the typically futile efforts of veterans' and military family groups to be heard by this administration. These charlatans honestly don't give a shit about military families unless you're willing to be props in a political ad or sign a loyalty oath (not kidding there--my husband is in Iraq and I tried to get tickets to many Bush campaign events but was denied.)

          Military families are largely conservative but they have clearly been duped by the rhetoric of the Bush Administration for four years and the Republicans for decades. As a liberal and a military family member, I believe it is my resposibility and the responsibility of civilian activists to speak out in the interest of those who are being exploited, even if they don't recognize their exploitation. I need your help because my voice is not enough.

          Mr. Bush, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

          by pacific city on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:08:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  which is why (none / 0)

            protest marches should be organized for Washington DC by these groups.  They should be organized in other cities, too, that are more protest friendly.  organize petitions to send to congressmen/women and senators.

            Organize informational rallies that call attention to the problem.  

            Forget being heard by the admin and try to get heard by everyone else.

            I got a t-shirt (-6.88, -6.15)

            by guyermo on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:26:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's time to get un-duped (4.00 / 3)

            I, of course, am a former member of the military myslef--and a war veteran.  I have always been a liberal, so it simply does not compute in my head how the military community just sits there in unbelievable stubborness, refusing the believe the total screaming reality right in their faces:

            The Republicans don't give a shit about you, they'll kill and maim you for lies, they'll obliterate your families for nothing, they don't have a clue as to how to really defend this country, and they'll trash the reputation of a real veteran candidate by saying his war wounds were faked.

            Oh please sir may I have another while we kill some more innocents?

            The military community has a responsiblity as Americans and adults to reject this incredible abuse, yet they do nothing.  I'm afraid, pacific city, that in a scenario like this many, many more Kossacks will say crummy and offensive things about our men in uniform.  You just can't expect frantic liberals desperate to stop Bush and the war to be different.  It's expecting too much of the human character.

            •  I really don't care... (none / 1)

              if people say crummy and offensive things about the military. I'll respond and criticize them for it, just as I would if they said crummy and offensive things about any group that is being screwed by this Administration.

              Look, there are vets groups and military family groups out there making noise. Veterans for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Operation Truth. But the military community in its entirety is a very small proportion of the U.S. population and it's clear we need a popular nationwide movement that includes military and non-military groups speaking out against the Bush Administration, if we expect to see any results.

              For what it's worth, I'm trying to make my puny little voice heard so pretty please with sugar on top--Get off my back.

              Mr. Bush, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

              by pacific city on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:35:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Soldiers and their families (4.00 / 3)

                are, as a general rule, loathe to speak out when they have problems.  It's part of the midset, for one thing.  You don't openly criticize the Commander in Chief.  It just isn't supposed to be done.  But also, there is a very strong culture of "suck it up and drive on."  The mission has to be done, with the tools at hand, so we make whatever adjustments we can and get on with it.
                It's one thing to point out problems for which there are solutions, like not having the parts to make your truck run.  It's another thing to complain about not being safe.  It seems like whining for a soldier to complain about not being safe.  'If you wanted safe, what the hell are you doing in the army?'
                That's the attitude.  It can be a source of pride, because one is so hard that one persevered in the face of adversity.  This can be a force-multiplier.
                It can also cause problems, like when some idiot soldier doesn't mention that he didn't pack the appropriate clothing for the weather because he didn't want to carry it.  And he didn't mention it until he's hypothermic.
                Also, there is an historical belief that the army can't do stuff like good equipment anyway.  Look at the M16 rifle for an example.  Last but not least, there's the belief that the army, as an institution, is out to fuck me anyway it can anyway.
                Take all of that, along with the fact that bad-mouthing the president, secdef, and the chain of command is strictly verboten, and now you have some idea why soldiers don't complain.

                Every drill, I learn that there are more Democrats in my unit than I thought.  Oklahoma Dems, particularly in the National Guard, tend to be more conservative than your typical garden-variety Dem.  But there are more of us than I thought, and every month I find more and more who are concerned and disillusioned with this administration.

                Being a liberal in Oklahoma is a lot like being a gay republican, without all the ickyness (the republican ickyness, I mean.)

                by soonergrunt on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:50:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  mmhmm, (4.00 / 4)

                  my husband says the same thing about having lots of Democrats or at least Kerry voters in his unit. He's the commander and doesn't feel it is appropriate to ask anyone about their political views for all the reasons you cited above but soldiers volunteer information eventually.

                  As a soldier's wife, I encountered some of the ugliness that comes from the upper officer corps if a family member dares to challenge the Bush Administration. My husband's commander sent an email to my husband in Iraq to say that I was "aiding and abetting the enemies of the U.S. and the U.S. miltary" by protesting the war. The thing that upset me the most was that I didn't want my husband, who is trying to keep his soldiers and himself alive in a war zone, to be distracted by stupid b.s. coming from some idiotic, right-wing, Hannity-reading LTC (yes, he used to carry the Hannity book around the Reserves center.)

                  Anyway, I know why the soldiers don't speak out. And I have experienced the negative effects when family members protest. Anyone who thinks that soldiers can do much to improve their personal situations, much less address the geopolitical implications of their deployment to a war, need to get a better grasp of the realities of military life.

                  Mr. Bush, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

                  by pacific city on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:12:42 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  One of the greatest hurdles to speaking out (none / 0)

                    is not so much fear of the administration, since that's a distant thing, but fear of one's own superiors.  Soldiers and their families are afraid of pissing off the chain of command.  Even if the CoC would never think of retribution for one's legal political activities, there is the fear that if you embarass the boss, he'll ruin your career.
                    All it takes is one bullet statement on the OER/NCOER and your meteoric rise to the top stops dead in it's tracks, never to recover.  It's the reason that all the NCOs go to the NCO club, even though the food sucks.  It's why young Liutenants take up golf when they'd rather be mountain-biking.

                    Being a liberal in Oklahoma is a lot like being a gay republican, without all the ickyness (the republican ickyness, I mean.)

                    by soonergrunt on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:19:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  it's a good thing... (none / 0)

                      that my husband is planning to resign his commission as soon as he comes back from Iraq. My anti-war activities have definitely put a damper on his potential career as an officer in the Reserves. And I'm fucking glad for it---I want him done with it and home safe, thank you.

                      Mr. Bush, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

                      by pacific city on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:58:56 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  I would show you the following web sites (none / 1)

          Go:

          here

          and

          here

          and

          here

          I could list 1000 more just like them. We in the military community are speaking out against the horror that is Iraq. Perhaps you simply aren't listening?

          "This is where some of my dreams become realities. And where some of my realities become dreams." -Willie Wonka

          by green917 on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 01:39:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The troops have no voice (4.00 / 4)

        I see the ultimate defender of our troops and his sneering 2's are with us once again.

        The problem here, as I dimly see it, is that many Kossacks--including myself--have an expectation that the troops should be more forcefully able to object to war.  It simply passes understanding that a real American would just sit there, be lied to, watch their buddies get killed and maimed, and yet still just sit there mute.  Even when their own life is on the line for nothing but lies they still do it.

        Pacific City maintains our troops have no voice and no way of objecting.  Many Kossacks see this silence as an aquiescence to the felonies of Bush, even an endorsement of it.

        The idea of that our troops are some selfless, shining embodiment of citizenship beyond any kind of criticism is laughable.  They're killing for lies and they know it.  Many like it, you know it's true (most do not).  On the other hand, they can only do what they're ordered to do--and will be punished for speaking out.

        Ambiguously, I tend to agree with pacific city on this.  All of us desperately want criticism of Bush from any quarter, especially the military, who have been abused so terribly yet continue to take it up the ass.  I think that's what sticks in the craw of so many Kossacks, the silence from a community that has been so screamingly abused and seen their members die for lies, yet they say nothing.

        I don't know to straighten this out yet in my head.  I do know, however, that the military has to hold some responsiblity for the war.  It just is not good enough that they doo all the killing and war crimes yet are not responisble in any way.  Bullshit.  Somebody has to be responsible, and that's part of the problem too:  no one is being held responsible for it, and humans will lash out at our men in that scenario.  It's inevitable.

        •  well, I'm a woman... (4.00 / 2)

          and I don't know about sneering but it does pain me to see ignorant comments that aren't backed up with any supporting evidence. Therefore, I gave the comment above a 2. (And a little 2 never hurt anyone.)

          No need to get personal. You are entitled to your opinion and I'd defend your right to express it just as much as I defend the rights of our troops to be treated as human beings, with dignity and respect and the basic equipment needed for survival. I don't think that is unreasonable.
           

          Mr. Bush, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

          by pacific city on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:15:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You made the point that I think many are missing (none / 1)

          "On the other hand, they can only do what they're ordered to do--and will be punished for speaking out." Like life in general military life is complicated. What I think people who have not served fail to understand that soldiers DO NOT have the right to protest, demonstrate (insert whatever activity you wish here) that is why it is done through proxies such as spouses, friends and family. The military population is less than 1% of the American population add in families and I would say it only reaches to 3% maybe 4%. They aren't a coporation with big bucks, so do they get the ear of the Presidnet or members of Congress. I believe this budget proposed by president Bush answers that question loud and clear.

          Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. (Paraphrasing B. Franklin)

          by p a roberson on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:12:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Even worse than this (none / 1)

            If the only people they have that are able to go to bat and tell how they really feel are their spouses/family, there are a number of factors about expecting them to do the protesting..

            Someone in the military has two families.  One back home, and one that they go out on missions with.  To ask your family back home to protest the war may be too much for a troop to bear personally, because they'd be perhaps seen as stabbing their squadmates in the back.

            Besides, the family at home have every right to have feelings too -- realize that to oppose the war makes it harder to bear that their troop is over there.  Supporting the war at least might make them think that maybe, maybe your loved one is doing the right thing and maybe won't lose their life over something useless.

            Self-deception maybe, but it's likely about all the support they can get in these times.  People are losing their houses while the main wage-earner is stuck overseas.

            I don't think it's so easy to say 'fine, the families can protest for them' because it's likely much more complicated than that.

            (I say this, by the way, WITHOUT a loved one anywhere in the middle east, thank god, but a nephew AND niece who are both of prime draft age)

            The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. - Sen. Edward M. Kennedy

            by Stymnus on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:41:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You raise a valid point. (none / 1)

              My point isn't about expecting families to protest it's about families and friends who are protesting. Soldiers let their feeling known to the people they care about and love. Those people in turn then speak out about how soliders are treated as well as voicing thier own opinions not necessarily shared by the service member. The original discussion was about the lack of armor, etc in the intial stages of this war and how the Pentagon screwed the pooch on this one. The other topics brought up here are relavent, but does not address the original topic. Regardless of how we feel about the war (personally I believe it to be a mistake) the fact is, we have American soldiers there without the proper equipment to keep them safe. So even though I disagree with the war, I have to support our troops and demand that they get the equipment that they need. Please understand that I don't disagree with what you have said, as you stated it is complicated.

              Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. (Paraphrasing B. Franklin)

              by p a roberson on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:02:33 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, I do (none / 1)

                It's particularly sad that the military familes that ARE stepping forward are basically ignored in any constructive way by anyone that makes a difference.  The general public will step on them for speaking out against their men and women, and people will think that someone 'put them up' to speaking against the war.

                And the Administration will go on ignoring them and their pain.

                The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. - Sen. Edward M. Kennedy

                by Stymnus on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:17:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  I hold the generals responsible (none / 1)

          It was their responsibility to make sure that the troops had what they needed. If they DIDN'T or the generals didn't feel that the administration was taking it seriously enough or planning for all possibilities, it was THEIR responsibility to open their mouths and say

          *"No, Mr. President, I will NOT order my troops to go ANYWHERE until there are plans in place for ALL contingencies" *

          ALL of them are responsible. They KNEW there was no planning for any real resistance after the initial battle phase. And they had to know there would be some. All their intelligence told them that. They know (or can easily find out) how long WMDs last, what capabilities Saddam had 12 yrs ago, what was likely still left, etc. And they had to know that ALL that WMD crap was a LIE.

          They are the real wimps, the REAL cowards. Too busy worrying about their careers. What would Bush do, fire them all? That would get some real attention, and if they were fired, they could talk.

          Wimps. Spineless wimps. The deaths of our troops are their responsibility as much as Bush, Rumsfeld and the others.

        •  I hope this will help clarify things... (none / 1)

          for those of you without any experience with the military. As a former enlisted member of the USAF, I bit my tongue so often that it's a wonder I don't have a speech impediment. Hopefully, the following will help clarify for those kossacks without military experience to understand what speaking your mind in the military can entail. Per the Uniform Code of Military Justice , a military member who speaks out against either a superior officer (if they can hear you, you are a priori speaking to them) or a member of the government (past or present) could be charged with any of the following offenses:

          Article 81. Conspiracy
          Article 88. Contempt towards official
          Article 89. Disrespect for superior commissioned officer
          Article 90. Assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior officer
          Article 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, petty officer, etc.
          Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation
          Article 94. Mutiny or sedition
          Article 98. Noncompliance with procedural rules
          Article 117. Provoking speeches or gestures
          Article 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman

          All of these are possibly punishable with jail time (at hard labor...not club fed), forfeiture of rank and/or pay, forfeiture of liberty (house arrest), and others. I hope this gives all of you a little better understanding about why the members of the military that want to stay military members (and those that want to be able to work somewhere other than the Golden Arches at some point) don't speak up. Quite simply, they are not permitted to do so. This, however, does not mean that those of us who are not subject to the judicial punishments listed above should not advocate on their behalf.

          "This is where some of my dreams become realities. And where some of my realities become dreams." -Willie Wonka

          by green917 on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:11:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  BUCK STOPS HERE (none / 0)

        Agreed.  But we need to pin the lack of armor on the COMMANDER IN CHIEF, whose first duty is to protect the force.  Don't buy the distinction between "the president" and "the military".  The President is IN CHARGE of the military.  Someone should ask him where the buck stops.
    •  also, the troops are generally poor.. (none / 0)

      and haven't you noticed that this administration doesn't give a damn about anyone but the uber-rich? Military families don't have lobbyists.

      Mr. Bush, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

      by pacific city on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:44:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This was tucked into the MTP transcript (none / 1)

    yesterday....this comment by Mike Allen of WaPo. The context had to do with positive developments in the middle east and giving Bush credit and blaming Rummy for the negative issues....does Mr. Allen know something here???? From the MTP transcript 3/06/05....my bold.

    MR. ALLEN:  Well, Tim, what you're seeing is the beginning of trying to attach the president's positive developments in Iraq and separate him from negative.  And I think this isn't imminent, but I think over the next year, we'll probably see the departure of Secretary Rumsfeld.  I think people in the White House are a little tired of him and I think the idea will be to try to sort of attach Iraq baggage to him.

    Our sister publication Newsweek on their cover this morning says:  "Where Bush Was Right."  And inside it says, "Bush really may change the world."  This is a change that nobody could have imagined in this short a time.  So the president can be out taking credit for the purple revolution even though people are seeing--you know, passing 1,500 debts, passing $300 million spent on this.

    "It's a shame you can't arrest people for stupidity." Sheriff Bob Bratton

    by emal on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:18:56 AM PST

    •  Bush may change the world! (4.00 / 2)

      Well, so did Yersinia pestis.
      •  So didn't Pangea (none / 1)

        ...but needless to say I think that they need Rummy around to deflect, absorb, hang all the failures and everything they effed up in regard to  foreign policy especially in the middle east around his neck. That is why Bush kept Rummy around him, to take the the heat, responsibility, and blame for all things gone bad(and there are certainly many of them)for Bush.  That is all that Rummy does. They are both a disgrace and the press should be reminded that Bush is in charge and including the bad goes to HIM. The Buck stops here, and it does not just detour over to Rummy's office for only things gone wrong.  

        "It's a shame you can't arrest people for stupidity." Sheriff Bob Bratton

        by emal on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:36:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here's a 4 (none / 0)

        for your humorous, scientific and historical post.  

        "Wide acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity." Dan Brown

        by Bulldawg on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:36:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Is this a real Meet the Press transcript? (none / 0)

      Or is is a mistyped transcript of a transcript?

      There's an important difference.  We're all aware of the energy dumped into spinning events these days, but if the transcripts of news programs are being misrecorded so that the numbers don't add up and the important parts become nonsensical -- that should be 1500 "deaths," I think, not "debts," and an Iraq war  for $300 million would be a bargain.  That's about what we spend per day.  

      Is this evidence of a memory hole?

      •  MTP transcript (none / 1)

        link.

        Scroll down about 3/5ths of the way on the page to where Timmy turns the discussion away from Social security to foreign policy and the democratic response while citing an EJDionne article.

        "It's a shame you can't arrest people for stupidity." Sheriff Bob Bratton

        by emal on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:43:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why aren't we camped out on the Mall in Washington (none / 0)

    waving flags and demanding resignations like the citizens of Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon, and Bolivia?

    What is wrong with us?

    Looking for a Change I can Believe in.

    by Cathan on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:24:00 AM PST

    •  Because (4.00 / 4)

      the citizens of Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon, and Bolivia, have experience with political repression/oppression, and they realize how precious civil liberties really are.  WE are fat, spoiled, lazy.  We think it's uncool to be smart.  We'd rather watch "reality" shows on the couch while eating junk food rather than getting up and doing anything about it.  

      "Wide acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity." Dan Brown

      by Bulldawg on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:41:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We're in debt. (none / 1)

      We're in debt up to our eyeballs and our jobs could disappear before we got back, and if we were to twist an ankle in the mud or get sick from sleeping in the cold, the medical bills could bankrupt us.  AND WE'RE AFRAID OF THAT MORE THAN ANYTHING, because the safety net is in tatters.  

      If we were to get arrested, there's no guarantee we'd ever be freed.  After all, we're either with them or with the terrorists.  Enemy combatants.  Subject to deportation on chartered CIA jets.  

      So we keep at it, going to work and hoping they won't shred the rest of the net, hoping that we'll never need the net, and hoping that we'll wake up and be free again.  Activist democracy is very expensive in 2005 -- er, freedom isn't free.  Many of us have been hypnotized into thinking that the freedom bill is paid by the Marines and soldiers in combat, but we all have to pay one way or another.

      •  So in other words... (none / 1)

        we're a bunch of gutless wusses who actually believe that voting will do anything and are too afraid to step up our actions no matter how many travesties are being carried out in our names.  We're just sitting behind our monitors and taking it thinking we're actually going to make any kind of difference like a god damn frog sitting in a pot of water on the stove clueless as to his fate as the water slowly begins to boil.

        How much are we going to let these guys get away with before we revolt?

        I think everyone should watch this movie.

        Looking for a Change I can Believe in.

        by Cathan on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:08:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You nailed it. (none / 0)

          I was just summarizing the reasons they've given us to think twice before raising our voices.  The number of people who actually voted for Bush is evidence of the increasing propensity of people to not think at all.  This administration has got one thing right, and that is that protesters are dangerous to its survival.  Look at the conventions this past summer, and how protesters were treated by the police and event organizers in New York and Boston.  It's easy to blame Bloomberg for New York's reaction, but what happened in Boston that made it OK for Democrats to stand by while protesters were put out of sight. relegated to a prison camp-esque enclosure?  Openness, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly have been under attack for a long time now, and we can't afford to be selective about when to champion them.  We're in debt, to the tune of the price of freedom, and it's payable in action or freedom itself.  Bushco is trying to collect.  How are we going to pay?
    •  My plane leaves Thursday! (none / 0)

      I am leaving Thursday to participate in demonstrations commemorating the 2 yr. anniversary of the begining of the war and to shout for them to bring our kids home now. Feel free to come join us!

      "This is where some of my dreams become realities. And where some of my realities become dreams." -Willie Wonka

      by green917 on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:20:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I read (2.00 / 3)

    about a potential new body armor much stronger than anything in existance.  It is based upon nanotechnology.

    Unfortunately, it isn't available yet.  And what is available costs $500 per gram.

    Does unavailablily mean that our military, AS IT IS, should not be used?  This seems to be an extreme case of the argument being made here, but apropos.

    I would suggest that if you wait until everything is peachy keen and you are finaly ready, first, you will never get to that stage and second, the opportunity being addressed became old news a long time previously.

    •  Um... (none / 1)

      The money has been allocated.  The production is in line.  This is not brand new technology we are talking about.  This is incompitence, pure and simple.  Or worse, the bilking of the tax-payers. Don't cut these guys any slack on this.  This is not asking for everything to be 'peachy-keen'.  This is just asking that the damn armor that was approved by Congress get to the soldiers in the field.  IMHO, your comment was not 'apropos'.

      To the WH: "It's your job to f*ck-up power; it's Fox's job to f*ck-up truth.' - Jon Stewart

      by RichM on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:39:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What a comment (none / 0)

      Do you not give a fuck about our soldiers? The basic armor that existed was NOT made available through sheer incompetence. You dare come and troll on THIS issue? Have you NO decency?

      Everybody dies alone.

      by Armando on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:05:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't read it as trolling (none / 1)

        I think he's saying that we, as a society, are not willing to spend the money and resources to have the perfectly equipped army.
        He's right.  Of course, it's not about the will, it's about the ability.  Perfection is unachievable, and if one waits for the perfect army before one begins fighting, one never goes to war.
        Not necessarily a bad idea, that.

        The issue at stake with the article--and I don't know if he understands this-- is whether or not enough is/was being done with that technology available today.  The answer is clearly, no.  The original decision was made that only combat troops and not support troops would get the body armor.  Fair enough as far as it goes, but when the support personnel started getting hammered, it should never have taken this long to get them equipped as well.

        Being a liberal in Oklahoma is a lot like being a gay republican, without all the ickyness (the republican ickyness, I mean.)

        by soonergrunt on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:07:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  $500 a gram??? (none / 0)

      Well, don't tell the Pentagon, they will ask for the money to buy it and then give the contract to someone who will send the currently available body armor and charge $500 a gram for it. Oh well, at least they would have something between them and the bullets, which they don't appear to have now.

      What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

      by Demfem on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:19:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How do I get a "contract"? (none / 1)

    These fuckers just keep awarding big contracts to unqualified morons who can't deliver. What the hell do I need to do to get one of these contracts. I can promise much and deliver nothing as well as anyone. And I won't deliver for less. How about that? Fucking war-profiteer scumbags. But, unlike in most wars, its not the scam-artists who are bilking the government, its the government is bilking the public, and the soldiers, directly. Cut out the middle man! Ahhhhhh! No one cares! It makes me nuts! They just sit there glassy-eyed and wondering if O'Reilly can really save Christmas from the secular onslaught. Damn! Damn! Damn!

    .....must sit calmly and just read the comics. (But not Family Circus. Those little bastards.)

    "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

    by aggressiveprogressive on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:33:52 AM PST

    •  Humvee armor (none / 1)

      The company that makes the armored Humvees says that it could have sent all the Humvees armored, but that the Pentagon didn't put in the order for the armor. It's not the company, it's the Pentagon not asking for it. Guess they figured all the flowers and kisses wouldn't dent an unarmored Humvee..oops!!

      What happens when Bush takes Viagra? he gets taller. Robin Williams

      by Demfem on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:22:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  blame/credit in the Bush Administration (none / 1)

    Funny how Bush is willing to take (and is given) credit for things to which he is only peripherally associated, like "democracy" in Lebanon, but when there is evidence that a direct subordinate of his makes a horrible mistake (or series of mistakes) that lead to the pointless deaths of our soldiers, he somehow cannot be held responsible.

    Liberal media, indeed.

    "Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."--PJ O'Rourke

    by David J on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:36:52 AM PST

    •  The fact that Bush & his handlers (4.00 / 2)

      are eager to grab the credit for any advances we've made galls me more than just about anything.  Any successes the US has had/will have are in spite of these incompetant horse's behinds. Our men & women in uniform have made these boobs look good.  I have to believe that most of military take pride in a job well done.  The credit 100% belongs to them & how are they being re-paid?

      I spent several years working for someone who had no clue about the right way to do things in our line of work.  Lucky for him, our entire staff had years of experience in our field & things always went smoothly & timely - giving the outward appearance that there was no problem.  Morale was in the crapper, we all hated coming to work - but we took pride in a job well done.  We made him look good in spite of his ineptness & he had no problem taking ALL the credit.  Our stress levels were high & we weren't in any danger of being blown to bits! We just waited for the day that someone would come along & see the situation for what it was.  That day did come - it took 7 years though.  

      The point of my story ( I apologize, it often takes me a while to get to the point) - Remembering how I felt living through a situation that can't hold a candle to their predicament - I can't begin to fathom how our military feels day in & day out!  It breaks my heart every time time I hear about another death.  And it pisses me off every time I hear these boobs being given or taking credit for anything!

      Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare!

      by 1040SU on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:09:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are dead on the mark! (none / 1)

        After having read the emails from about a dozen friends in Iraq over the past 2 years, morale is VERY VERY low. Mark my words, when we do finally get out of this predicament to the point where they can release stop-loss and when all the guard and reservists hit their 2 year active duty point (which will be soon for MANY of them), there is going to be a mass exodus from the ranks of our military. They're fed up and, just because they can't talk about it doesn't mean that they're going to keep taking it.

        "This is where some of my dreams become realities. And where some of my realities become dreams." -Willie Wonka

        by green917 on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:29:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Why resign? (none / 1)

    When you can give congress, reporters, and soldiers the finger and nobody cares?

    As Bush said, the moment for action has passed...

  •  How many times will Rumsfeld lie? (none / 0)

    I was just thinking about this issue this morning. How many times since the war began two years ago has Rumsfeld been called to task for not providing armor, only to claim he was going to resolve the issue quickly?

    Rumsfeld has lied repeatedly about this to divert attention. He says what the lapdog press wants to hear and then does nothing. The press, instead of pursuing the real story, move on to the next profit-inducing triviality. We have a shameful government and a shameful press.

    Are you shaking or biting the invisible hand?

    by puppethead on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:41:28 AM PST

  •  Garbage (4.00 / 7)

    crossposted at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/7/94240/07928 it's about to die off, I just couldn't let it go...

    I'm just going to take excerpts from the NYT article for now, I'll update later:

    In all, with additional paperwork delays, the Defense Department took 167 days just to start getting the bulletproof vests to soldiers in Iraq once General Cody placed the order. But for thousands of soldiers, it took weeks and even months more, records show, at a time when the Iraqi insurgency was intensifying and American casualties were mounting.

    By contrast, when the United States' allies in Iraq also realized they needed more bulletproof vests, they bypassed the Pentagon and ordered directly from a manufacturer in Michigan. They began getting armor in just 12 days.



     

    Diaries :: Mike Stark's diary ::  

    But an examination of the issues involving the protective shielding and other critical equipment shows how a supply problem seen as an emergency on the ground in Iraq was treated as a routine procurement matter back in Washington.

    While all soldiers eventually received plates for their vests, the Army is still scrambling to find new materials to better protect the 10,000 Humvees in Iraq that were not built for combat conditions.

    Army generals say a more effective answer to the threat of explosives may lie in electronic instruments that have proven successful in blocking the detonation of homemade bombs, called improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.'s. They have caused about a quarter of the more than 1,500 American deaths in Iraq, including those of two National Guard members from New York City just last week.

    Such an electronic countermeasure was used at the start of the war to shield Iraqi oil fields from possible sabotage. But some members of Congress and security experts say shortsighted planning and piecemeal buying on the part of the Army has resulted in too few of the devices being used to protect the troops.

    Others say that the Pentagon's longstanding preference for billion-dollar weaponry has made it less prepared to deliver the basic tools needed by soldiers on the ground.

    The insurgency had already taken root in Iraq when General Cody made his decision on April 17, 2003, that enough soldiers had bulletproof vests. As more casualty reports flowed in during the next month, he came to recognize that the advice he had gotten from staff members in Washington did not reflect the reality of the war.

    They really don't live in the reality-based world...  This stupid liberal media - out there protecting the troops again...

    The company, ArmorWorks of Tempe, Ariz., and its supplier of ceramics, the beer-making Coors family of Colorado, had ramped up their operations to meet the demands of the war, but ArmorWorks' president, William J. Perciballi, says Defense Department delays in awarding contracts for more plates forced him to lay off workers and shut down his assembly line for two months.

    Hmmm...  Who'da thought that a Bush crony would be responsible for making the ceramics...  this is criminal folks...

    High Performance Materials Group of Boothwyn, Pa., said it could make 20,000 plates for $4,960,000, a price 11 to 15 percent below even the next two successful bidders.

    The Pentagon's Defense Supply Center, which handled the contracts, says an Army ballistics engineer determined that High Performance, a research and development company, could do the work, despite its lack of experience in mass production.

    "We certainly demonstrated that we could make the plates," said the company's founder, Kenneth A. Gabriel, a former Army researcher who left the military in 1999. He said he had developed his own version of the ceramic plates that passed Army testing and prepared detailed plans for production that the supply center reviewed.

    Time to start researching Kenneth Gabriel...  A Bush nephew, maybe?  I wonder how much he was paid before the contract was terminated.

    Some soldiers waiting for the body armor say they felt punished for speaking out about the delays. Specialist Joseph F. Fabozzi of the New Jersey National Guard complained publicly during a visit home in late 2003.

    Returning to Iraq a few weeks later, he said, he was handed a $912 bill for having rear-ended a truck the previous summer while on a convoy. His National Guard unit did not respond to requests for comment.

    Mr. Fabozzi appealed the bill and won, records show, in part by explaining precisely how his gas pedal had jammed - because the trucks did not have armor plating, he and others had been told to place sandbags on the floors. "They would break and spill into the pedals," he said.

    Who'da thought there'd be retaliation from an Army led by the guy that still hasn't been to a single soldier's funeral?


    Soldiers are still jury-rigging protection for their trucks and Humvees because of another contracting problem with which the Pentagon continues to wrestle.

    Going into the war, it had only one contractor, O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt of Fairfield, Ohio, re-enforcing new Humvees with armor, handling 50 a month.

    The Pentagon decided against asking Detroit automakers like General Motors, which makes the Humvee's civilian version, the Hummer, to start making armored Humvees because they would need too much time to set up new assembly lines.

    But the Pentagon only gradually pushed O'Gara-Hess to ramp up to 550 vehicles a month, a level the company expects to reach only this spring. The latest uptick in ordering came in December after Specialist Thomas Wilson, a member of the Tennessee National Guard, confronted Mr. Rumsfeld in Kuwait.

    What say you, Bill O'Reilly>

    At the same time as installing shielding in new Humvees, the Pentagon has had to deal with the 10,000 Humvees in Iraq that were never re-enforced for combat.

    To help protect these vehicles, a Pentagon unit that was expediting purchases began pushing the Army to buy ceramic plates from private contractors.

    The Army, though, opted for plain steel plates that it could make in its own depots. The plates are failing to withstand the insurgent's bigger bombs, which are also blowing up more heavily armored vehicles. As a result, the Army has been forced to look for additional materials to protect the Humvees, according to contractors involved in the effort.

    Hey Little Green Footballs - this is your war - whaddya think?

    A California military contractor developed a countermeasure during the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Known as the Shortstop Electronic Protection System, it evolved into a portable device that was heralded for its ability to jam the radio frequencies used by insurgents to detonate their bombs.

    Col. Bruce D. Jette, a participant in the meetings of the Strategic Planning Board, the panel led by General Cody, used a jamming device to protect the oil fields in Iraq. Colonel Jette was heading up a new unit called the Rapid Equipping Force, which was given license to ignore the lumbering ways the Army traditionally fills orders from the field.

    Protecting the oil was more important than protecting the troops...  Hey, Powerline - what's this war about again?

    The Defense Department had been producing various I.E.D. countermeasures. But the Pentagon did not start ordering large quantities of one of the most promising ones, known as the Warlock, until December 2003, nine months after the war began, according to GlobalSecurity.org, a research firm based in Alexandria, Va.

    The firm said in a report that EDO Communications and Countermeasures of Simi Valley, Calif., has received three orders totaling $31 million for 1,899 Warlocks. EDO declined to comment, citing the secrecy constraints imposed by the Pentagon.

    The Pentagon has declined to say publicly how many devices it still needs in Iraq to protect all of the troops. But after learning the Army had so few that it could not spare any for training exercises, the House Armed Services Committee in December pushed the Pentagon for a big increases in its spending on I.E.D. countermeasures, to $161 million, in the next few months, until next year's budget is approved.


    Way to go Glenn Reynolds...  Sure looks like you placed your faith in the right team...  you fucking idiot...

    "There is the technology to prevent the detonation of most improvised explosive devices that exist," Mr. Taylor said, speaking with frustration. "We've allocated money for it. And yet that number remains classified, Mr. Secretary, not because the insurgents don't know how few are protected, but because I'm of the opinion the American people would be appalled if they knew how few are protected."

    Colonel Jette was also frustrated, and in October he resigned. In interviews, he said as the rush of war wore off, the Army's traditional supply corps began reasserting lengthy contracting and testing regimens, leaving him increasingly discouraged.

    "That perfection in testing becomes the enemy of what is operationally good enough," he said. "And the soldiers in the field are looking for good enough."

    The Rapid Equipping Force has a new leader, but still operates without a permanent charter. Gen. John M. Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff who helped establish the program, said he shares Colonel Jette's concern for its future. "The acquisition system would see it as a threat," said General Keane, who retired in 2003. "There is an implied indictment that they can't deliver in that rapid a period of time, which is essentially true."


    Listen...  I just want everyone to remember who the Commander-In-Chief is.  The final responsibility lies with the White House.  He ran as a War President...  He bought it, he owns it.  This is the most disgusting war-time leader the world has ever known.  "Nonchalance" does not begin to define his hands-off approach.  He's the CEO president alright - same CEO he was at Arbusto, Harkin, Spectrum 7 and all the other companies he ran into the ground.  Only now he's wasting young men's lives instead of Saudi financier's money...
    </snark (for now)>

    StarkReports.com: Unscripted, unvarnished and unedited

    by Mike Stark on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:45:16 AM PST

  •  C'mon people (none / 0)

    support the troops means DUMP BUSH.

    on every street corner....1...2...and go

  •  And the Army... (none / 1)

    is struggling to meet recruiting goals. I wonder why?

    Mr. Bush, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

    by pacific city on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 08:55:39 AM PST

    •  I wanna be (none / 0)

      an Airborne Ranger,
      I wanna live the life of danger,
      I wanna go to Teheran,
      Bagdhad and Afghanistan!

      Hoo-ahhh!

      "I wonder why? "  Self-preservation is strongest urge!

      "Wide acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity." Dan Brown

      by Bulldawg on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:03:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just one more example that this administration... (none / 1)

    ... doesn't give a crap about middle and lower income Americans.  It's almost as if they only see those of their own class.  Everyone else in this country has become invisible -- has been dehumanized -- to the point that it is acceptable for the criminals in charge to:

    • send our soldiers off to war without the basics of protective equipment;

    • cut back on health benefits for military members and their families;

    • heap abuse on the working poor, low income Americans and the elderly with a pernicious bankruptcy bill;

    • ignore or end the clean up of toxic waste sites that are predominately in areas with low income residents;

    • underfund public education with the ultimate goal of destroying it -- the ladder out of poverty being pulled up from the top;

    • and on and on and on.

    I said the other day, any low income or minority American who continues to vote for these greedy, selfish, criminal bastards better wake up.

    Rail on about homos and abortion, folks.  But remember that your ability to keep a roof over your head and food on the table -- your very ability to survive in this country -- is under attack from the most corrupt administration in American history who will reward their wealthy friends at the expense of everyday people every single time they are given the opportunity.

    You're damn right it's class warfare.  And lower and middle income Americans have targets on their backs.

  •  he tried three times (none / 0)

    to resign and Bush wouldn't let him.  he wanted to resign because the torture issue is going to blow up this term
    •  Oh, (none / 0)

      Please Gawd I hope so!  I hope BushCo. is dragged in front of a Nuremberg-style tribunal in the Hague.  I can hear Rummy now: "I vas only following Orders!"

      "Wide acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity." Dan Brown

      by Bulldawg on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:06:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A quick look... (none / 1)

    ...at the Iraq Casualties site

    http://icasualties.org/oif/

    Shows that in the period from 15 May 2003 though 31 October 2003 (169 days,) 214 US troops died and 1,268 were wounded.  Take it out just a couple of months to the end of 2003, (to factor in those that were still waiting for their armor) and the figures increase to 336 killed and 1,866 wounded.

    I wonder how many of them would be alive today, or not suffering from their injuries, if the Pentagon had not made a "misstep".  I wonder if their families are comforted by the fact that this was only a misstep, not a real fuck up.

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:01:31 AM PST

  •  US armed forces Vs. White House (none / 1)

    Where is the National Lawyers Guild or ACLU when these people need them.  They should file a Wrongful death Class action lawsuit against the Whitehouse and pentagon.  They have had 2 years (4 if you count pre-9/11 planning for this war) to get our troops properly supplied.  They have had ample time and plenty of public outcry to warrant addressing this issue.  They have failed and need to pay.  With the 8.9 Billion that the CPA "lost", we could have spent $60,000 per troop on equiptment and armor.  The saddest thing is Saddam would have sold out and given a peaceful transfer of power for a tenth of what we have spent to date.

    9/11 was a Faith-Based Initiative - Bill Maher

    by glazeone on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:03:45 AM PST

    •  As a Card-Carrying (none / 0)

      Member of the ACLU...and PROUD OF IT..., I will send them a e-mail asking that.

      "Wide acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity." Dan Brown

      by Bulldawg on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:08:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I like the ACLU (none / 0)

        But I support the Southern Poverty Law Center.  They need the funding more than the ACLU.  I think the ACLU taking on the Govt on behalf of our fighting men and women will give O'Liely a falafel sized aneurism.

        9/11 was a Faith-Based Initiative - Bill Maher

        by glazeone on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:01:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Soldiers for the truth (4.00 / 6)

    Is and I quote, "on this like white on rice". I sent an email to one of thier writers about this and that was his reply.


    The folded coffin flag is nothing but a receipt from the Masters of War to the pawns in their game.

    by BOHICA on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:05:39 AM PST

  •  Attention Bush Voters: (none / 1)

    Stop ignoring this shit. You are responsible for keeping this group of incompetent fucks in power.

    I hope you're happy, bitches.

    1500+ dead because Rummy wanted to test out his theory of transformation.

    Maybe next time you go to the polls, you'll open up for fucking minds and THINK for once, instead of playing into some purple-band-aid swift-boat Saddam-al-Qaeda-connection BULLSHIT like you did.

    Stop worrying about the "personal responsibility" of pregnant women and bankrupt credit card users and homeless people and gay men and women -- and START thinking about YOUR OWN personal responsibility in the 1500+ soldiers now dead for no reason at all.

  •  this is the final proof (4.00 / 2)

    that Donald Rumsfeld is a man completely without honor.

    the story about submitting his resignation and being refused by Bush is just a CYA move.

    first of all, I don't believe the story.  He has given me no reason to trust in anything he says.

    but even if the story is true, his private expressions of regret to the pResident mean nothing to me.

    He needs to apologize to the troops.  He needs to apologize to the American people.  He needs to apologize to the families of the soldiers who died for lack of reinforced Humvees and bulletproof vests, instead of signing their death notification letters with a G@dd@mned AUTOPEN.

    Where is the outrage from the red states?  How is it that all the Rpug BS about being the party of personal responsibility does not extend to their own SecDef? (Or their president, for that matter?!)

    Rumsfeld's ego-driven avoidance of admitting mistakes (which his pResident shares, that's why they like each other) is part of the reason why these mistakes don't get fixed faster.  At least Gen. Cody was man enough to change course once he realized he had made a wrong decision.  But the Rumsfeld/Bush/redstate/rpug vision of masculinity is completely opposite of that.

    He has no sense of shame.  He has no sense of honor.  These are irredeemably evil qualities for a man who has thousands of young lives in his hands.

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
    --Tom Harkin

    by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:18:11 AM PST

  •  Where is the outrage??? (none / 1)

    Why doesn't anybody call rumsfeld when he gives these bullshit answers?

    Why doesn't some reporter follow up by standing up and demanding WHAT KIND OF BULLSHIT ANSWER IS THAT???!!!  PEOPLE ARE DYING, AMERICAN SOLDIERS ARE DYING BECAUSE YOU FUCKED UP AND NOW YOU STAND THERE AND GIVE US BULLSHIT ANSWERS!!!  HAVE YOU NO SHAME???

    They could just keep yelling these questions while pentagon security dragged them out of the room and maybe the first one that did it ciuld be dismissed as a nutcase, but when the next one does it and then the next one, and maybe one of them is a big name reporter, it might start having an impact.

    I am here to represent the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Roar louder!

    by Josiah Bartlett on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:35:24 AM PST

    •  The next time (none / 1)

      Rummy lies, a reporter should just say to him: "You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restuarant"  and then walk out.  At the next PC with Rummy, two reporter's should sing it in harmony and then leave...and so on

      "Wide acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity." Dan Brown

      by Bulldawg on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 10:01:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Many misteps to body armor" NYT's (none / 1)

    The New York Times article on the body armor makes the U.S. Army look look much worse than the "Keystone Kops". And it appears Gen. Cody may have gotten a promotion.
    Next, we will find a E-3 or E-4 that we can Court Martial for the whole fiasco.
    Maybe we can hang him for the Italian debacle at the same time.
    Wow, say it a'int so....
  •  Sadly, (none / 1)

    You went to war with the leadership you have. Not the leadership you wish you had.
    •  In reality (none / 1)

      if we had had the leader we wished we had, we wouldn't even have gone to this war.

      If we had had a leader even halfway competent, we wouldn't have gone to this war.

      And we all missed the pointwhen Rummy said "You go to war with the Army you have, not the one you wish you had."

      They did go to war with the army they wanted.  They did not see any shortcomings because they had their heads in the sand about what it would take.  And unfortunately some, like Franks, chose not to tell them the truth so they could keep their jobs and get the glory.

      All three who got Medals of Freedom from Bush should throw them over the WH fence.

  •  and they wonder (none / 1)

    why there are even fewer young workers left to pay into SS because they are and will be dying on Bush's battlefields

    Think of it as just another way to undermine SS. None of these thousands of Now wounded and disabled veterans will be paying into the SS system in the years to come.

    Republican Health Care Plan: Stay Sick so we can keep the Insurance Companies Solvent oh and HOPE is Where the Heart is

    by demnomore on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 11:06:06 AM PST

    •  Don't worry (none / 0)

      Bush is trying to fill the ranks of the military by turning the screws on the lower classes in this country, forcing some to consider the military for food/ shelter alone.

      He has made it harder to get student loans, which were the only thing that allowed people like me to go to school.  

      His cuts to any type of social program that isn't faith based make daily life even harder for the nation's poor.

      Our military is already made up of much of the nation's poorest young people, now Bush seems to be forcing even more to look at the military as an option by taking away any benefits they were possibly receiving...

      I don't know about you, but that's what I call compassion.

  •  Having to buy their own (none / 1)

    Right now I could pick up my phone and have delivered overnight, a complete set of ballistic armor, equal to or better than the stuff the troops are getting from   Brigade Quartermasters without any difficulty at all. In fact from a review of their website many military families are apparently doing just that,  picking up the slack for the DOJ and buying ther own for their kids in the field.  
    Not just armor either,  browse the site a while and look at all the Mil-hardware they have an abundance of that is sorely lacking in the field.  

    Now someone please explain to me why the procurement office at DOJ wasn't given a Pentagon Credit card and told to go shopping?

    and if there is a manufacturing shortage why the hell are private companies orders being filled before all soldiers are supplied?

    Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

    by Magorn on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:37:29 PM PST

    •  Interesting update (none / 1)

      The site has changed since this morning when I posted this same comment in a similar thread.  Maybe someone in the Pentagon does have a shred of intelligence after all:

      POINT BLANK ARMOR
      Due to the importance of U.S Government Defense Priority Contracts, ALL Interceptor Body Armor has been restricted to ONLY U.S. Government Sales. There is NO schedule for delivery until late 2005. This includes all colors and sizes of all Military Interceptor models, including outershells.

      Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

      by Magorn on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:44:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  C'mon, Armando, sure soldiers ... (4.00 / 2)

    ...died and got maimed because of this, but why didn't you mention that it was all his fault. Not his as in Rumsfeld's. His as in Bill Clinton's. Get. with. the. program.

    Don't tell me what you believe. Tell me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 02:58:38 PM PST

  •  it's not THAT weird (none / 0)

    "you know what you know but you don't know what you don't know"

    I just must say I don't see this as a "weird" statement at all.

    this is basically how Confucious defined wisdom:

    "to know that you do not know what you do not know, and that you do know what you do know -- that is true wisdom" -- Confucious

    I know things like "known unknowns and unknown unknowns" sound odd to some people....but some of his phrases simply remind me of college math professors and computer programmers I've known

    oh...needless to say, I'm not a Rumsfeld fan

    PLEASE donate to a global children's PEACE project: Chalk 4 Peace

    by RumsfeldResign on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:39:37 PM PST

  •  Nothing that s.o.b. does is excuseable! n/t (none / 0)

    "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

    by Street Kid on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 05:44:16 PM PST

  •  "Physics" (none / 0)

    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.

    http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041208-secdef1761.html

  •  Perhaps it's been posted already (none / 0)

    but I read this article and got about 25 comments down, didn't see it, and was so pissed I just clicked post, before seeing if anyone else said the same thing.

    Not only is this deplorable and inexcusable but....

    WHAT THE FUCK IS BUSH DOING WITH THE $87 BILLION HERE, THE ADDITIONAL $<INSERT CRAZY AMOUNT> THERE?

    All this fucking tax-payer money and there's not enough armor?

    I mean...c'mon....what the fuck?

    This space available. Bad credit, no credit, no problem! Financing available!

    by Stand Strong on Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 09:28:36 PM PST

  •  deadly waste and inefficiency. . . (none / 0)

    note to self:  letter to editor, with deficit chart and photo of empty combat boots.

    govt priorities:

    iraqis provided with flat-tax.

    acknowledgement to Luntz.

    "many believe ceramics contractor was intern at AEI, where Lonne Cheney is employed."

Permalink | 112 comments