Reply
Wed 29 Dec, 2004 11:52 am
'Best trained, best equipped' baloney
Monday, December 20, 2004 Posted: 12:13 PM EST (1713 GMT)
WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- In the three years immediately after Pearl Harbor, the United States, a nation of 132 million people with a gross domestic product of less than $100 billion, produced the following to win World War II:
296,429 aircraft,
102,351 tanks,
87,620 warships,
372,431 artillery pieces and
2,455,694 trucks.
Compare those heroic achievements to the current, dismal supply record as the U.S. war in Iraq is fast approaching its third year and the United States, now a nation of nearly 300 million with defense spending in excess of half a trillion dollars:
Only 5,910 of the 19,584 Humvees U.S. troops in Iraq today depend upon are protected with factory-installed armor;
8,002 of the 9,128 medium and heavyweight trucks transporting soldiers and supplies in that war zone are without armor.
Because of the incompetence or indifference of this nation's civilian leadership of the war, Americans in Iraq are tonight living with an increased risk of death in Iraq.
All the official transcripts of White House signing ceremonies for every defense spending bill, all the presidential proclamations for Veterans Day and every prepared statement by the secretary of defense before a congressional committee include the same stock phrase.
U.S. troops are invariably referred to as "the best trained, best equipped" ever. Best equipped? To call today's American troops Iraq "best equipped" is more than a counterfeit exaggeration, it is bilge, baloney.
An America coming out of the Great Depression somehow found the leadership and the will to build and to deploy around the globe 2.5 million tanks in the same period of time that the incumbent American government has failed to get 30,000 fully armored vehicles to Iraq.
The Bush administration has appropriated $34.3 billion on a theoretical missile defense system -- which proved again this week to be an expensive dud in its first test in two years, when the "kill vehicle" never got off the ground to intercept the target missile carrying a " mock" bomb -- but has been able up to now, according to congressional budget authorities, to spend just $2 billion to armor the vehicles of Americans under fire.
Nobody has been more persistent in holding the Pentagon and the White House accountable than maverick Mississippi Democrat Rep. Gene Taylor, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee.
"When I visit Iraq," says Taylor, "I ride around in an armored vehicle, and I am sure the secretary (of defense) does, as well. That should be the single standard: If it is good enough for the big-shots, it is good enough for every American soldier."
The armor is truly a matter of life and death, as the Mississippi congressman explains: "Half of all our casualties, half of all our deaths and half of all our wounded are the direct result of improvised explosive devices [IEDs, or homemade bombs]." But when Washington officials visit Iraq, their traveling security includes not only heavily armored vehicles, but also radio-signal jammers, which can disable the IEDs.
What makes Taylor authentically angry is the inexcusable failure of the U.S. brass -- Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, he names -- to provide radio jammers (which cost $10,000 each) to the fewer than 30,000 U.S. military vehicles in Iraq.
How many U.S. vehicles are now equipped with jammers? The Pentagon insists the figure is classified. According to Taylor, the number is " miniscule." But because he is offended by visiting corporate CEOs and deputy assistant secretaries of weights and measures getting better protection than Marine lance corporals and Army privates, Taylor would not appreciate that funds for the jammers have probably already been dedicated to underwriting the next failed missile defense test.
"A jammer costs about $10,000, and it probably costs about $10,000 to bury a dead GI. I believe Americans would rather the spend the $10,000 to prevent the GI's funeral being held."
Gene Taylor is right. Every American has a moral obligation to make certain that the nation's troops are truly the world's " best equipped."
I would also add that in the main the National Guard troops in Iraq are far from well trained . Once a moth meetings and two weeks in summer camp hardly qualifies as being well trained.
Could not agree more.
A gross miscalculation by the leadership here.
Of course there are superior weapons in our arsenal that have not been used that would have drasticly reduced Coalition deaths and shortened the time of war. Yet, this Govt did not want to use them either.
Have we become so soft that we forgot how to fight and win a war???
woiyo wrote:Could not agree more.
A gross miscalculation by the leadership here.
Of course there are superior weapons in our arsenal that have not been used that would have drasticly reduced Coalition deaths and shortened the time of war. Yet, this Govt did not want to use them either.
Have we become so soft that we forgot how to fight and win a war???
no profit in quick decisive victory...long drawn out quagmires...that's where the money is....
I have questions regarding the source of the numbers given in that article that is not linked...
McG - the almost 90,000 (ninety thousand!) warships are almost as comical as the 300,000 airplanes. Maybe though the author included canoes and kites.....
Re: 'Best trained, best equipped' baloney
au1929 wrote:
I would also add that in the main the National Guard troops in Iraq are far from well trained . Once a moth meetings and two weeks in summer camp hardly qualifies as being well trained.
According to today's paper, they might just "volunteer" you for another 27 years though....
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1104325353194700.xml
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:woiyo wrote:Could not agree more.
A gross miscalculation by the leadership here.
Of course there are superior weapons in our arsenal that have not been used that would have drasticly reduced Coalition deaths and shortened the time of war. Yet, this Govt did not want to use them either.
Have we become so soft that we forgot how to fight and win a war???
no profit in quick decisive victory...long drawn out quagmires...that's where the money is....
Except the Kuwait conflict I suppose
perhaps not so many selfish pricks at the helm then....
McGentrix
Is that the only comment? Whether the number of warships were valid. We came for zero to mighty army in no time. We not only equipped our forces but those of every other allied nation. I remember when our draftees were drilling using broomsticks for guns.
The real question is why we could build military equipment for us for the whole world in the forties and we are unable or rather unwilling to adequately equip our force now.
I realize we weren't blessed with General Rumsfeld and Field Marshall Bush at that time. If we were we would probably have lost that war also.
"Best trained, best equipped". Yep. The regular U.S. military is indeed the best trained and best equipped military establishment in history. Even the Reserves and National Guard troops, whose training and equipment is not on the same level as the regulars, are better than most regular military in other countries.
Does that mean that all US troops are perfectly trained to the max, or that there isn't room for improving the equipment? Of course not. Having more armored transportation vehicles in the field is desirable. More and better communications equipment is desirable. Having more smart and reliable infantry weapons available is desirable. How about fielding remote controlled vehicles, or robotic infantry? Desirable? Sure, but not realistic. The DoD is moving to get more stuff into the field that circumstances have shown to be needed. Short of being able to perfectly foretell the future, how can anyone be faulted for not have perfectly forecast what surprises a chaotic thing like combat would reveal?
The US logistical leap in WWII isn't really a very good comparison. First, that was a war that was much easier for people to understand and react to. Many Americans opposed FDR, but united behind him to defeat the Axis Powers no matter what the cost, or sacrifice. Everyone looked for some way to contribute toward the war effort, and idle production units existed that only needed a spot of oil and willing hands. The increase in US war production was amazing. However, American troops still went into battle with Springfield rifles, and almost none of the transportation vehicles had any armor at all. There were a lot of jeeps (which tended to roll over), and trucks which weren't much different from those commercially available before the war. The Sherman was only one of many Allied tanks that was at a decided disadvantage to the Tigers and Panthers they met in France. The Zero could climb higher and faster than anything we could put in the air at the onset of war. We made up for shortcomings by making more, and as time went on we got better and better at making superior arms and equipment. A very different set of circumstances than we find today.
The idea that the U.S. is waging war against radical international Islamic terrorists for oil and profit is laughable. Of course, BPB is a comedian and a partisan of the extremes. There are folks out there who hate us, hate our prosperity, hate our values, and who want to kill as many who they disagree with as possible. Hate is their watchword. They are gangs of criminals armed with the surpluses of the Cold War.
I believe that all wars are fought because somewhere along the way someone wants something that isn't his, and that's no joke. I am a comedian though.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:I believe that all wars are fought because somewhere along the way someone wants something that isn't his, and that's no joke. I am a comedian though.
The American Revolutionary War was fought because "someone" wanted liberty that they didn't have?
no, it was fought because we didn't want to give King George his share of the country, it's resources and the riches it would bring forth....so we told King George to stick it up his ass...and then proceeded to slaughter the locals...for years and years.....but then to ice the cake we decided to import some people and remove their liberty, their lives, their dignity and their humanity...and then we fought a war over that....
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:no, it was fought because we didn't want to give King George his share of the country, it's resources and the riches it would bring forth....so we told King George to stick it up his ass...and then proceeded to slaughter the locals...for years and years.....but then to ice the cake we decided to import some people and remove their liberty, their lives, their dignity and their humanity...and then we fought a war over that....
Against that war too, were ye? Ever met a war you found acceptable to you?
No as a matter of fact. Necessary maybe, but never acceptable. A root canal is not acceptable but I've had one when necessary.
Ticomaya wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:no, it was fought because we didn't want to give King George his share of the country, it's resources and the riches it would bring forth....so we told King George to stick it up his ass...and then proceeded to slaughter the locals...for years and years.....but then to ice the cake we decided to import some people and remove their liberty, their lives, their dignity and their humanity...and then we fought a war over that....
Against that war too, were ye? Ever met a war you found acceptable to you?
and let me ask is the truth of the motives for these wars unacceptable to you?
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:No as a matter of fact. Necessary maybe, but never acceptable. A root canal is not acceptable but I've had one when necessary.
Hmm. To me, if a root canal were necessary, then it would be acceptable. I would accept it because it was necessary. What would be the point of finding it unacceptable? So I could whine and cry about it? That wouldn't be very productive.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:and let me ask is the truth of the motives for these wars unacceptable to you?
Rephrase, please.
BPB,
You seem to be saying that capital is the source of all wars, and that governments are only the puppets of the wealthy. An anarchist comedian?
WWII was a conspiracy between the wealthy elites of Germany and the the rest of the world? Hitler and Stalin were at heart a Capitalists who waged their wars to enrich Wall Street players? To blame WWI on the munitions makers is the correct interpretation as to why the Great War was fought? Was Ho Chi-min in league with Rockerfeller? Che and Castro were mere tools of the banana companies?
Is everyone who owns stock a war criminal? What about those folks who sell used cars, or insurance? I'm pretty sure our plumber is a Capitalist, and those kids of his that I'm sending through Harvard are plotting dastardly deeds as we speak. The local garden club might be just a convenient way to pull the wool over the eyes of those poor dumb sheep that haven't watched Fahrenheit 9/11 yet. I didn't realize that nightclubs were such a hotbed of anarchism.
Money is not the only motivator...and I don't think I said it was....the greed for more than your share...and the willingness to take it by force if necessary...is behind every war at it's lowest common denominator...also the need to be right..the need to be the alpha pack member....by hook or crook....all the same thing....
Still sounds like Anarchy to me, but perhaps you can point to a government/country that would beet your Utopian ideas about what they should be. Can you think of anything better than the United States at any point in its history?