Rumsfeld Faces Tough Questions from Troops.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-12-08 10:23am

Rumsfeld faces tough questions from troops
Defense chief speaks to soldiers heading to Iraq

CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) -- After delivering a pep talk designed to energize troops preparing to head for Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld got a little "talking to" himself from disgruntled soldiers.

In his prepared remarks, Rumsfeld urged the troops -- mostly National Guard and Reserve soldiers -- to discount critics of the war in Iraq and to help "win the test of wills" with the insurgents.

Some of soldiers, however, had criticisms of their own -- not of the war itself but of how it is being fought.

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly three years after the war in Iraq.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson said after asking again.

Rumsfeld replied that, "You go to war with the Army you have," not the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents' weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive device.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

Asked later about Wilson's complaint, the deputy commanding general of U.S. forces in Kuwait, Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, said in an interview that as far as he knows, every vehicle that is deploying to Iraq from Camp Buehring in Kuwait has at least "Level 3" armor. That means it at least has locally fabricated armor for its side panels, but not necessarily bulletproof windows or protection against explosions that penetrate the floorboard.

Speer said he was not aware that soldiers were searching landfills for scrap mental and used bulletproof glass.

During the question-and-answer session, another soldier complained that active-duty Army units sometimes get priority over the National Guard and Reserve units for the best equipment in Iraq.

"There's no way I can prove it, but I am told the Army is breaking its neck to see that there is not" discrimination against the National Guard and Reserve in terms of providing equipment, Rumsfeld said.

Yet another soldier asked, without putting it to Rumsfeld as a direct criticism, how much longer the Army will continue using its "stop loss" power to prevent soldiers from leaving the service who are otherwise eligible to retire or quit.

Rumsfeld said that this condition was simply a fact of life for soldiers at time of war.

"It's basically a sound principle, it's nothing new, it's been well understood" by soldiers, he said. "My guess is it will continue to be used as little as possible, but that it will continue to be used."

In his opening remarks, Rumsfeld stressed that soldiers who are heading to Iraq should not believe those who say the insurgents cannot be defeated or who otherwise doubt the will of the military to win.

"They say we can't prevail. I see that violence and say we must win," Rumsfeld said.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Suck it down, Rummy! Suck it down!

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-08 10:34am

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

What a moron.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-08 10:43am

They should also have asked him for more backup.

Question for all you millitary guys: how much does a decent suit of combat armour cost anyway?

Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, said in an interview that as far as he knows, every vehicle that is deploying to Iraq from Camp Buehring in Kuwait has at least "Level 3" armor. That means it at least has locally fabricated armor for its side panels, but not necessarily bulletproof windows or protection against explosions that penetrate the floorboard.

How are these armour levels defined, and how much do armour upgrades for a transport cost?

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2004-12-08 10:47am

Rumsfeld wrote:In his opening remarks, Rumsfeld stressed that soldiers who are heading to Iraq should not believe those who say the insurgents cannot be defeated or who otherwise doubt the will of the military to win.

"They say we can't prevail. I see that violence and say we must win," Rumsfeld said

Are the morals in Iraq that bad?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-12-08 11:00am

Way to make 'em feel good Rumy - "You go with the Army you have not the one you want."

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2004-12-08 11:06am

Moral getting steadily worse. No, this isn't like Vietnam at all...

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2004-12-08 11:30am

Superman wrote:Moral getting steadily worse. No, this isn't like Vietnam at all...

Not yet, but it could all too easily get there if the powers that be don't change their overall strategy. Such a devolution is avoidable even at this late stage.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-08 11:34am

Well that settles it. According to Rummy, since you can have all the armor in the world and still be blown up, we shouldn't have any armor at all!

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-12-08 11:40am

You know honestly - why didn't Rumy just say "You know what? Tough shit. Stop whining and do your fucking jobs. Armor or no you just might die over there." It sums up what he really felt from reading these blurbs. Inspirational leadership comes to mind.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2004-12-08 01:59pm

Is this what finally breaks the Republican strangehold on this country? I would hope so. It usually takes one person to be well spoken for what they think for, such as the guy who challenged Sen. McCarthy head on so many years ago "won." I beleive the quote was along the lines of "do you have any decency?"

Ronaldo · Post by **Ronaldo** » 2004-12-08 05:28pm

This was a stupid statement for Rumsfeld to make in my opinion. What a dumb thing to say in front of troops who are in more danger because of Rumsfeld's poor planning.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2004-12-08 05:31pm

Well, in light of the questions being asked of him, anything he could say short of tendering his resignation would be a bad answer. I mean, how do you answer a question that is, essentially, a specific version of 'Why are you blodoy incompetent?'

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-08 05:34pm

Stravo wrote:Way to make 'em feel good Rumy - "You go with the Army you have not the one you want."

Yeah I guess America's Army wasn't the one that Rummy wanted.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-08 07:40pm

White Haven wrote:Well, in light of the questions being asked of him, anything he could say short of tendering his resignation would be a bad answer. I mean, how do you answer a question that is, essentially, a specific version of 'Why are you blodoy incompetent?'

Apologise for it. Promise to bring them home as soon as possible. Cancel the stop loss policy. Resign.

It's evident that he doesn't really hold soldiers in very high regard, don't forget he had "better things to do" than serve in the military, even when there was a draft.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-12-08 08:03pm

Durandal wrote:
Stravo wrote:Way to make 'em feel good Rumy - "You go with the Army you have not the one you want."
Yeah I guess America's Army wasn't the one that Rummy wanted.

"But we didn't crush Iraq with Clinton's army, I swear!"

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-12-08 09:04pm

Lord Zentei wrote:
"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.
What a moron. :roll:

Can we get the calcs for having ALL the armour on every armoured vehicles in the world being bolted on layer after layer to a single vehicle and then determine the amount of KE required to make the thing even TWITCH from a hit?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-08 09:10pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Durandal wrote:
Stravo wrote:Way to make 'em feel good Rumy - "You go with the Army you have not the one you want."
Yeah I guess America's Army wasn't the one that Rummy wanted.
"But we didn't crush Iraq with Clinton's army, I swear!"

Oh, we crushed them. It's holding them with the military we have that's the problem.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-12-08 09:14pm

Ah hah! So the complete failure of the occupation was Clinton's fault! He never designed his military around the goal of occupying Iraq! That short-sighted son of a bitch!

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-12-08 09:15pm

There's no way I can prove it, but I am told the Army is breaking its neck to see that there is not" discrimination against the National Guard and Reserve in terms of providing equipment, Rumsfeld said.

Brian

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-12-08 09:18pm

Durandal wrote:Ah hah! So the complete failure of the occupation was Clinton's fault! He never designed his military around the goal of occupying Iraq! That short-sighted son of a bitch! :D

I thought everyone knew that it was Clintons fault for instating Saddam in the first place, supporting him through the Iran/Iraq war, not to mention leaving him in power after the first Gulf War. Then that liberal bastard saw fit to hamstring the occupational capacity of our armed forces - just so Saddam would be safe another day!

I mean, who have you been listening to? Surely not our great saviour Rupert Murdoch the Wise?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-08 09:19pm

brianeyci wrote:
There's no way I can prove it, but I am told the Army is breaking its neck to see that there is not" discrimination against the National Guard and Reserve in terms of providing equipment, Rumsfeld said.
Brian

He can't prove it, isn't he the SOD? Shouldn't he know?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-08 09:40pm

Durandal wrote:Ah hah! So the complete failure of the occupation was Clinton's fault! He never designed his military around the goal of occupying Iraq! That short-sighted son of a bitch!

No, it's not Clinton's fault (at least not in any main part) beyond the effect of his cutbacks. The modern military simply is not set up for or entirely capable of a long, hostile occupatio, it hasn't been capable of that since maybe WW2 or so.

Now on the other hand, the Clinton era certainly seems to me to have instilled an expectation in some of those joining the military that they would never have to fufill a really military role. Certainly the number of deserters and the like that have said they joined under the impression they wouldn't and couldn't be required to fight seems to be a direct result of the recruiting policies of the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-08 09:46pm

Stormbringer wrote: Now on the other hand, the Clinton era certainly seems to me to have instilled an expectation in some of those joining the military that they would never have to fufill a really military role. Certainly the number of deserters and the like that have said they joined under the impression they wouldn't and couldn't be required to fight seems to be a direct result of the recruiting policies of the Clinton and Bush Administrations.

Those guys were around during Gulf War I, I vividly remember a soldier on the news saying he didn't join to fight and he refused to go. So I don't Clinton and Bush had all that much to do with it. It seems more like a reflection of the American public than the Presidents actions.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-12-08 09:47pm

Durandal wrote:Ah hah! So the complete failure of the occupation was Clinton's fault! He never designed his military around the goal of occupying Iraq! That short-sighted son of a bitch!

I would've figured that you guys would've figured out that by the context of my comments before and the quotes that I do not agree with passing the buck to Bill.

I was mocking some right wingers' great irritation with the assertion that the military that crushed Iraq was, in fact, the Clinton military they had so long lamented as unprepared and languished (Al Franken in particular went at length to illustrate this point, in fact personally to Paul Wolfowitz

). However, now of course, its ok to pass the buck and imply they got stuck with a Clinton military problem they inherited rather than their planning incompetence.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-12-08 09:50pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I would've figured that you guys would've figured out that by the context of my comments before and the quotes that I do not agree with passing the buck to Bill.

Sense of humour. Invest in one.

Yes, Clinton cut back the military. But yes, as other's have said, Bush has had time to reverse the effects. Unless, of course, Clinton has eyebeams. He could be holding back the entire military with them, yanno.