posted on April 26, 2004 12:01:40 AM new
This is an article in the lastest edition of Newsweek about how the US soldiers are ill-equipped to handle the fighting that they face and how lives are being lost because of it. It's a longer read so I will only post part of it with the URL.
They were sent to fight for their country. But some GIs didn't have all they needed to protect themselves.
For the Bush administration it has been a mantra, one the president intones repeatedly: America's troops will get whatever they need to do the job. But as Iraq's liberation has turned into a daily grind of low-intensity combat—and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld grudgingly raises troop levels—many soldiers who are there say the Pentagon is failing to protect them with the best technology America has to offer. Especially tanks, Bradleys and other heavy vehicles, even in some cases body armor. That has been the tragic lesson of April, a month in which a record 115 U.S. soldiers have died so far and 879 others have been wounded, 560 of them fairly seriously.
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.
ARLINGTON, Va. — Five of the Pentagon’s key acquisition officials were called to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to explain why armor to protect troops against IEDs has been so slow in getting to Iraq.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he is concerned that the Pentagon’s defense acquisition system does not have “the ability to rapidly meet our soldiers’ needs” for force protection, especially protecting convoys against improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs.
“I think you’re going to have a lot of convoys ambushed over there [in Iraq] from here on out,” Hunter said. “I think it’s clear that the IED is the order of the day for the bad guys. And we’ve got to be able to keep steel between our guys and those IEDs.”
posted on April 26, 2004 05:23:22 PM new
There was more than enough armor in the invasion plan. The problem was that Turkey wouldn't let the highly armored 4th ID enter Iraq through Turkey (Thanks to France & Germany). So the lighter equiped Marines had to pull much more weight which led to more casualties than they should've had.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on April 26, 2004 05:33:40 PM new
Actually, there wasn't enough armor. The humvees in Iraq are not suited to the front line battle. The military failed to plan for this and as a result soldiers have been killed.
The Army is making a “full-court press” to locate and deliver every armored Humvee in its inventory to Iraq, said Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division. At the same time, factories are boosting production of the armored version.
“They were not intended to be on the front lines,” Dempsey said of the unarmored vehicles. “In a linear battlefield, Humvees always operated behind the front lines — in most cases even out of artillery range. Iraq isn’t a linear battlefield. As we find ourselves in a low- to mid-intensity conflict, and we have all these vehicles designed for a linear battlefield, they come up short.”
The Army is trying to find every heavily armored Humvee “from every other place in the world,” Dempsey told The Associated Press. “I saw an e-mail the other day that said there was one uparmored Humvee in Kosovo and they were tracking it coming here.”
In the meantime, soldiers in Iraq are making do. They’re hardening their “soft-skins,” as unarmored Humvees are called, from kits available at some bases or by getting enterprising Iraqis to whack steel sheets onto their vehicles.
Some who have to ride in the soft-skins resort to prayer.
posted on April 26, 2004 05:42:47 PM new
Obviously the military wasn't prepared for IED's and I don't think they are reacting fast enough. But armor isn't absolutely necessary for the IED's and you can't armor every vehicle in the military. Every vehicle should have a cellular/radio jammer to prevent the IED's from going off. YESTERDAY. And there should always be a helicopter escort to kill the enemy trying to set off wired IED's.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on April 26, 2004 05:45:23 PM newThe problem was that Turkey wouldn't let the highly armored 4th ID enter Iraq through Turkey (Thanks to France & Germany).
That has to be the most asinine statement ever! This was a real hot potato for Turkey thats why they did not allow it.
France and Germany had nothing to do with the internal decision by Turkey.
U.S.Command stated it would have been nice to be able to have a two prong attack but not necessary.
Might help if you get your facts straight. If they need more armor they can send it in via Kuwait. Blame that idiot Rumsfeld and Cheney who kept saying we do not need anymore.
posted on April 26, 2004 06:05:05 PM new
Let me refresh your memory: Turkey said that they would let the 4th ID move through Turkey if the UN approved it. Of course France and Germany blocked a UN resolution and Turkey said no.
One third of the invasion force was stuck on ships off Turkey. The 4th ID had the most advanced equipment in the Army. But we kicked the sh!t out of them anyway.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
[ edited by ebayauctionguy on Apr 26, 2004 06:05 PM ]
posted on April 26, 2004 06:14:40 PM new
Turkey said no due to the internal pressure of its people who wanted nothing to do with this. Even with the amount of money we where going to "give" them they just did not have the backing of their people.
That is the main reason they backed out.
At this stage I just hope the troops get whatever they need and this whole mess gets sorted out soon and that the U.S. does not get stuck there for the next fifty years.
To put the blame for this on someone else is plain wrong.
posted on April 26, 2004 06:14:41 PM new
And here I could have sworn that it had something to do with massive pulic demostrations and a government vote which disallowed it. It had nothing to do with Germany and France and verything to do with the fact that that the last time we invaded Turkey was overrun with immigrants that are still having a nagative effect on their economy. There was a negotiation with the US which included offers of rather tremendous amounnts of money but when the US tried to add a codicil of requiring a restructuring of Turkey government systems they pushed the envelope to far and were shut down.
Helen - there is a thread dealing with that exact requirement somewhere in the archives if you want to dig it up for him.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 26, 2004 06:20:49 PM new
Trai - the "it's all Turkey's fault arguement becomes even more laughable when you consider that I can fly to Australia in 17 hours but apparently it takes over a year for a cargo plane to get to Kuwait
EAG - if our troops did not have the proper gear because... what... it wwas all in Turkey?. maybe they should have delayed the invasion a couple days until they got it where it was needed. I think you are going to have a very time blaming another country for us sending our troops into harms way without proper protection. It's not as if our troops were attacked and forced into battle ahead of time. We set the schedule.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 26, 2004 06:34:35 PM newThere was more than enough armor in the invasion plan.
Isn't "invasion plan" kind of an oxymoron? And wasn't it supposed to be more of a "liberation" plan?
I keep hoping that somehow there can be negotiations that have more of the world getting involved to solve this mess before there are too many more deaths and injuries .... and these are serious injuries.... loss of limbs.
posted on April 26, 2004 06:58:44 PM new
That was a year ago so it would make no differance now on what route they took. The way I see it is that the main problem is that there is no control over who lives and belongs in any city or town.
The bad guys are still coming over from Iran with cash and weapons. Till that control is put in the problem will continue to get worse.
Its going to take a long while before things get better.
I can only hope for the best as its too far gone to leave now.
posted on April 27, 2004 07:30:51 AM newThe Human Cost of War
The Human Cost of not dealing with our enemies when they first started their attacks on our country's interests = 9-11
Not military lives.....just your average citizens busy working to support their families and enjoying their lives. Not attacks against our military that represents our country....but against our own innocent citizens.....
helen knows....the innocents of all the other countries she 'whines' about....but never the innocent lives taken by our own countries enemies.
posted on April 27, 2004 08:50:04 AM new
Once again you have Iraq mixed up with 9/11, Linda and you're blaming them. Rereading those links that Helen posted I see that you believed the same thing over a year ago and you haven't changed even though Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and the terrorists weren't there.
The terrorists haven't been dealt with because President Bush diverted most of the attention and military to Iraq instead of the countries where the terrorists were hiding.
US Soldiers are being killed and maimed because of lack of equipment by the government so it is "the human cost of war". Innocent people are being killed and maimed when caught in the crossfire so that is also "the human cost of war".
posted on April 27, 2004 12:12:50 PM new
kiara - It sounds to me like you're under the impression saddam was an ally to the US. [hint - he wasn't]
--------------
Public support for the decision to use military force in Iraq has not changed significantly. The poll found that 54 percent think the United States made the right decision to use military force - about the same as in early February. And 53 percent of those polled support maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq until a stable government is established.
Most Americans are rejecting comparisons between the conflict in Iraq and the war in Vietnam. Just a quarter of those polled say Iraq will turn out to be another Vietnam. More than twice that number - 54 percent - believe the United States will accomplish its goals in Iraq.
[taken from the AP today - Pew Research Ctr.
----------------------
US Soldiers are being killed and maimed because of lack of equipment by the government so it is "the human cost of war". Innocent people are being killed and maimed when caught in the crossfire so that is also "the human cost of war".
The only other person running against this President looks to be kerry. HE'S THE ONE WHO VOTED AGAINST THE EQUIPMENT OUR MILITARY IS CURRENTLY USING IN IRAQ. He wouldn't vote for them NOR the $87B dollars to fund our troops HE VOTED TO SEND OVER THERE.
Before the first vote, Bush promised that his plan was to go to the UN, seek a resolution that would give Iraq a last shot at peaceful disarmament, and if not lead a coalition into war. He then broke that promise and instead implemented a unilateral policy that Kerry opposed.
Kerry's first-choice Iraq policy was: get the inspectors back and avoid a unilateral war. There was nothing inconsistent in Kerry's vote.
First, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and various people in the press spend a while engaged in various sorts of Iraq saber-rattling over the summer. Kerry criticizes said saber-rattling on the grounds that it (a) smacks of unilateralism, and (b) seems that many advocates of war are interested in regime change per se rather than disarmament. Then, Bush, in an effort to get serious about passing his resolution, states that his plan is to go to the UN, seek a resolution that would give Iraq a last shot at peaceful disarmament, and if not lead a coalition into war. Kerry (and this part of the action is left out of Tagorda's post) supports the Biden-Lugar compromise proposal that would authorize Bush to do this. Bush, the GOP congressional leaders, Dick Gephardt, and Joe Lieberman strike a deal that take the Biden-Lugar proposal off the table. Thus the proposal becomes one for a resolution that will leave Bush's hands untied, but Bush says he intends to go through the UN and to give inspections a chance.
Kerry, deprived of his first-choice solution, votes for the resolution. He then proceeds to spend some time trying to hold Bush's feet to the fire, criticizing aspects of the Bush policy that he dislikes. The hope here is to mobilize public opinion in such a way as to force the administration to live up to its conduct. Over the ensuing months, the administration largely fails to do this creating the situation I described in my article:
Months later, when the war actually began, much had changed. Inspectors were in the country, casting doubt not only on the administration's more extravagant claims but on much of the intelligence community's earlier work. Saddam was not cooperating fully with the inspectors, but they maintained that they were engaged in productive and useful work. A series of botched diplomatic moves had left the United States internationally isolated, not only lacking a U.N. resolution because of the opposition of veto-wielding France, but lacking even majority support on the Security Council. Global public opinion had turned dramatically against the American position, with majority support for war limited to the United States, Israel, and (on some days, at least) the United Kingdom. A compromise resolution was on the table that would have tightened the screws on Saddam somewhat and given the inspections process more time. It was clear that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat to the national security of the United States or any other country. Nevertheless, Bush chose to go to war, though his administration had failed to even assemble a reasonable plan for the postwar occupation or conduct an honest assessment of the costs. Kerry opposed this course of action, and rightly so.
posted on April 27, 2004 01:18:34 PM new
Unless you think you're 'guy' is a total idiot....he understood the wording typed on that legislation before he voted. He voted to go to give premission [it's very clear helen - go read it] for Bush to go to war against Iraq.
PERIOD. No matter his flip-flopping statements now about 'what he meant'. There were a couple of hand full of Senators who voted not to give this permission to the President.....KERRY COULD HAVE BEEN ONE OF THEM - but he wasn't.
posted on April 27, 2004 07:24:29 PM new
kiara - Once again you have Iraq mixed up with 9/11, Linda and you're blaming them.
Maybe I should have just said it's you who are the one that's mixed up. I know who the enemies of my country are.....both AQ and saddam. And I support MY President who's taking care of business.....not pretending this is all going to go away if only......
Good morning..
All news are depressing. Nothing is promising. Falloja is still on fire.
Things at Alnajaf threatens that it might be a new front, so we could be
even more happy! I feel hopeless and defeated.
Someone wants to destroy us, and he's making a very good job at it.
The whole world stands watching us.
Hearts and minds are confused wondering what is really going on???
We too, with open mouths and popped out eyes, are wondering: for God's sake
tell us what is really going on???
**************************
Did someone plan to make Iraq the battlefield for the war between terrorists
and their enemies??
Were ignoring borders' security and the state of lawlessness a planned thing
to draw America's enemies into Iraq where they can be fought?
When did the battlefield became Iraq instead of the US?
Iraq instead of Afghanistan?
what did We- innocent civilians- do?
Who cares about us?
Who defends us?
We go to our work and schools accompanied with fear and come back with it..
We hear explosions and the choppers flying day and night,and the fighter
planes flying at night.
I don't know what for!
Maybe they bomb Falloja and then fly back to Baghdad?
We don't understand anything anymore.
We want peace and security.
We want this insanity to stop...
Who holds the power to make it stop?
Who holds the power???
*****************************
Newspapers, radio stations and satellite channels keeps presing on our
nerves. Maybe in The rest of the world they're getting bored of listening to
our news.They'll start looking for less enraging and disgusting topics..
I don't blame them.
Human beings are weak creatures with low threshold when it comes to
listening to painful and irritating news.
The world will get bored and stops listening.
The ones who planned for all this devastation will go on with their plans
uninterrupted.
Will they win??
I don't know.
If we were negative and weak, then they'll win.
That's the way it is.
people keep their heads low because they are afraid and they want peace of
mind.
But what about us? What's left of our lives?
What do we bet on?
People die for trivial reasons and our eyes are filled with tears and our
hearts are torn apart by sorrow.
The same hearts which dreamt of peace, love and happiness- like any other
heart- heart which dreamt of happy moments with our loved ones, where we
laugh and talk to them and dream of a beautiful future.
We are no longer one of people with such hearts.
We don't belong to them any more.
Sadness lives with us and we don't know who is our friend and who is our
enemy anymore.
Life became a trivial matter like a cheap movie that you wouldn't want to
watch even if you got a free ticket.
That's Iraqis' everyday life.
Who cares about them or about their daily problems?
Who will volunteer to defend them and stop this daily destruction?
I don't think anybody wants to do that...
I don't think anybody can do that..
God now controls everything, and does what he wants.
and we have nothing to do except to be patient and wait.
************************
USA Today reporter visited us few days ago.
We talked about this site, when we started to blog and why.
Then I called the women and chidren from Falloja who were staying with their
relatives next door so he would interview them.
The fighting at Falloja was very intense at that time.
Then the article was published (
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-20-bloggers_x.htm ). It was
tasteless and meaningless and he didn't write a word about the Falloja
residents he met.
What exactly happened to César the reporter? I don't know...
But I can picture him apologizing and saying this is the way our media is,
sorry I couldn't write about them.
Thank you César.I understand what happened. You always show half of the
truth.
********************
This is what I think would happen to the CNN reporter.
He won't air the film or he'll edit it so -again- it'll be meaningless,
empty and trivial.
I look at the USA, the land of freedom and democracy from Baghdad, the land
of destruction, devastation and sadness, and I smile bitterly and wonder
about the meaning of such words: freedom and democracy.
Or what's left of them.
*******
posted on April 27, 2004 08:00:12 PM new
Linda, why does always sound like the left would rather we have another 3,000 killed than to do some preemptive strikes on their homeland?
Of course Kiara has no stake one way or the other, it wasn't the needle in Toronto that got bombed... It was NYC and Washington DC...
I am like you, President Bush set a path and is now following it, if the softies here at home keeping up their protesting and support for Saddam's people, we can't do what needs to be done there... bomb them flat and rebuild for those good people left.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 27, 2004 10:36:00 PM new
Linda, you've admitted here that you believe everything your government tells you and you're happy the way things are happening. So be it, I accept that.
But why are some of you so threatened when threads like this one are started here? Because it rattles your cage and it forces you to think that not all may be okay in la la land?
It's not like I wrote this story about the soldiers being ill-equipped, it has been reported from sources all over for awhile now, including reports from some of the soldiers right there. News coming out of Iraq by the citizens and some of the reporters there are not the rosy picture that some of you have pasted in your brain.
I prefer to step out of the box and look at the world around me and question things. We don't all buy into the "mind control" so why can't you accept that?
posted on April 28, 2004 05:26:31 AM newLinda, you've admitted here that you believe everything your government tells you and you're happy the way things are happening.
I have never said any such thing. Are the voices you accuse me of hearing starting to talk to you now? lol
But why are some of you so threatened when threads like this one are started here?
I can only speak for myself, but I don't feel threatened at all. I sometimes get upset at all the 'find-fault-with-something' articles that are usually posted here - by the anti-war crowd.... especially when I know that something said isn't true....or is only partially true, or is coming from an anti-war crowd and being twisted beyond belief.
Because it rattles your cage and it forces you to think that not all may be okay in la la land?
la la land? Where's that? LOL
No cage being rattled here. Just trying to put a little balance to 'the-sky-is-falling' crowd's posts that nothing EVER goes right. That we're killing innocents un-necessarily - when those same people won't even look at/speak about/acknowledge there are terrorists who wish to destroy my country. Don't make all these negative comments when the terrorists blow up trains like they did in Spain and recognize THESE are the people we're going after. They act like these people don't exist and want all to agree to stick their heads in the sand and pretend this isn't happening. Pretend what the terrorists have stated as their goals aren't really their intentions.
I don't need to be 'forced to think' about these issues....I read about them everyday and I have a son, currently serving in the Marines, who I know is telling me the truth.
It's not like I wrote this story about the soldiers being ill-equipped.
Kiara - it usually appears to me that you and helen ONLY post negative articles about anything to do with this war, my country and how everything this administration is doing is so wrong. What I believe you fail to realize or acknowledge is that war is war. It's not a pleasant time....things go right...things go wrong. But again I try to put a little balance into all the negativity posted here. Because there have been/are good things that have happened in Iraq since we invaded whether you wish to acknowledge them or not.
that some of you have pasted in your brain.
This comment I loved the best....especially coming from you who repeatedly tells others they can't read what's in your mind. So I'd expect YOU above all here to not be making a statement like that. lol
I prefer to step out of the box and look at the world around me and question things. We don't all buy into the "mind control" so why can't you accept that?
I can accept that others don't see the issues the same way I do. It's not a matter of 'mind control'. It's looking at the same issues and coming to/forming a different opinion. It's making a decision on how to deal with what's happening...do we "admit defeat" and run with our tail between our legs....letting the terrorists know we're fearful....or do we stand up tall and confront them - work to bring them down.
I believe war is sometimes necessary and when a US President sends our soldiers to war I support them. I don't believe it supports them, while they're fighting for there lives to point out how their government has done everything wrong or how they believe they're dying for no reason, because I don't believe they are.
posted on April 28, 2004 05:36:14 AM newLinda, why does always sound like the left would rather we have another 3,000 killed than to do some preemptive strikes on their homeland?
twelve - I really don't have an answer to that and I've wondered the same thing over and over. Maybe some don't really think this threat to our nation is really there. If we kiss the rears of the terrorists or do what they say...they'll just go away and leave us alone.
posted on April 28, 2004 05:43:33 AM newKiara - it usually appears to me that you and helen ONLY post negative articles about anything to do with this war, my country and how everything this administration is doing is so wrong
Linda, that is so true...
As far as out of the box... I have stated here before I do not agree with President Bush's stance on outsourcing and illegal immigration.
However it seems people can't or won't discuss those issues because it may place a negative spin on their own country... like HP sending jobs to Chiliwack Canada, people are losing thier jobs to Canadians.... why? because $8 ca is less than $10us
HP has decided that quality is not important and so is hoping that at least english speaking people won't have the backlash as sending the jobs to India...
I have friends that are affected by this move, and over 200 others as well.
As far as war goes, those that have never been in military have no real idea of how those soldiers feel, or what is even going on, "outside" their box is just every left leaning article that disparages this war and my President.... We will prevail and it will be good for the future of Iraq, for that I feel certain, and like Linda, I have 2 sources of ACTUAL information, they are not happy about having to stop the rebuilding process, they are not happy about not being able to just bomb the crap out of those cities... I can tell you this, if it were up to those soldiers there, they would sit back and watch the aircraft destroy each of those cities and everything in it.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
As far as you saying that I only post negative things about the war, I am posting articles from reliable news sources, actual daily happenings. You have an equal opportunity to step forward and post all the positive articles about this war. Fly at it.
[hint - he wasn't]
