In the Middle of a Perilous Peace

We still have troops in Bosnia. Granted not too many now, but how about bringing them home?

i love reading the accounts of the people who are actually there and are seeing things and not using the situation as propaganda. to hear what the average peron in iraq thinks of our nation, how they feel we have/hurt their nation. i trust that more than andrea mitchell reporting with obama’s campaign stop. i like to hear there are nations out there that love america more than the democrats do, it makes me have hope for not only our nation, but our way of life. thank you to all of the brave men and women who put on their unifroms everyday to defend our way of life.

(McClatchy) The military ignored steps before the invasion of Iraq that could have prevented the staggering number of casualties from roadside bombs, the Pentagon’s acting inspector general charged Tuesday.

The IG’s report says that the military knew years before the war that mines and homemade bombs, which the military calls “improvised explosive devices,” would be a “threat . . . in low-intensity conflicts” and that “mine-resistant vehicles” were available.

“Yet the military did not develop requirements for, fund or acquire” safer vehicles, the report says. The military invaded Iraq in 2003 “without having taken available steps to acquire technology to mitigate the known mine and IED risk to soldiers and Marines.”

Even after the war was under way, as the devices began taking a deadly toll and field commanders pressed for vehicles that were better protected from roadside bombs, the Pentagon was slow to act, the report says.

After the IG’s report became public the Pentagon announced it would order towards 10,000 more MRAPs for the Army and Marines. A further note that needs emphasis is this report is only looking at Marines, not the Army; notably the report for the Army will likely be even more scathing.

“What the author of this CNN article fails to explain is that you can have either mobility, or you can have armor; you can’t have both.” -C.Y

— false dilemma. There is disagreement over a lighter vs. heavier footprint, yet both are mobile. Furthermore, Marine commands even tired to have both: they started fortifying hummers with steel plating.

Additionally, not all MRAPS are the same:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/07/army_mrap_072808w/

Secondly, when welding plate steel to hummers didn’t work, the battlefield commanders asked for MRAP vehicles to replace Humvees– yet they were not given them. —”Odd” that they chose welding ‘armor’ to humvees over ‘mobility.’

Third, why is the Pentagon now giving Marines thousands more MRAPs for Afghanistan, a place where the terrain calls for them to be even more mobile?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/09/AR2008120901425.html

Fifth, listen to the DoD stuttering/stumbling on the question of Marine ‘neglect’ in the IG’s report:

My question is this: Could this report be used as kind of evidence of the secretary’s repeated complaints that this building focuses too much on the next war and not on the current conflict?

MR. MORRELL: Well, I — without sort of getting sucked into that, I would — I’d say this, Tony. That, you know, we — listen, let’s remember, this report was asked for by the Marines [It was actually demanded due to an internal Marine report that accused the leadership of "gross mismanagement"]. You know, it was — they had full cooperation from this department. And we welcome any report that helps us better understand how to meet the needs of the commanders and our troops in the field as quickly as possible. We clearly need to do — we clearly can improve on that. The secretary has been pushing that, but there’s still room for improvement. And so we welcome this report in that sense.

I just take issue with the notion that somehow there was negligence on their part of the department. I know that term wasn’t used, but that’s sort of the inference I draw from that one set of inflammatory bit that you quote from.

And it wouldn’t be the first — first time, though, Tony, in which this department has taken issue with something that the IG has written. I’m not breaking new ground here.

But I think that — I think that we certainly feel comfortable with the actions that have been taken since May of 2006 (sic2007) to get the MRAP to as many troops as need them. And now you see a huge effort being made to get more MRAPs to Afghanistan, where we’re seeing an increased need, including moving some that are no longer needed in Iraq to Afghanistan, including buying more.

Now we’re looking to build a lighter MRAP, to — so it’s ideally suited for our forces in Afghanistan. This is a challenge to physics, though, because you want a vehicle that’s just as strong, but lighter so it can deal with the terrain there. But that’s where we are.

Q You meant May ‘07, didn’t you? You said May ‘06.

MR. MORRELL: Yeah, I originally said May ‘06, then I corrected myself. But did I do it again? I’m sorry — May ‘07. Thank you for protecting me.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4329

In the end, CY doesn’t even mention the IG’s report; he’s more interested in straw-manning CNN’s peice and baiting the reader; CNN’s piece is similar to hundreds of other news organizations reflections on the IG’s report.

CY also doesn’t mention the Marine leaders “stopped processing” an urgent request in February 2005 for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles from combat commanders in Iraq’s Anbar province after declaring that a more heavily armored version of existing Humvee vehicles was the “best available” option for protecting troops. And it wasn’t until Gates arrived in ‘07 of june that he made MRAP’s his top priority.

By CY’s logic all news organizations and the IG’s report are demonizing the Marines. It may explain why Word could not find a reputable counter-argument to the IG’s report and had to hobble to CY’s blog to find his “answer”.

More here, with links:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-12-08-mrap_N.htm

It may explain why Word could not find a reputable counter-argument to the IG’s report and had to hobble to CY’s blog to find his “answer”.

Actually, I was too busy to care much, as I never quite know what the point of your comments are when all you do is paste news items. What was your point in relation to the topic, here? I skimmed your comment and saw you were reporting on the latest news item of the day, and knew CY had posted on this as well.

You might as well rehash old arguments regarding not enough body armor and Walter Reed. What’s your point? How does it relate to the battle in Iraq, winding down?