Loading ...
Selective Soundbites Suspecious
Anytime you see someone selectively quoted without also giving you access to the actual quote you should retain a modicrum of suspecion.
Consider this quoted response attributed to Donald Rumsfeld and provided by the Associated Press:
“You go to war with the Army you have,” he said in a rare public airing of rank-and-file concerns among the troops.
If that’s all you had at your disposal, then you might agree with others who are calling this response a disgraceful one. And, you’d be right to think that.
But, that’s not all of the exchange. Let’s look at both the question and Secretary Rumsfeld’s entire response:
Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.
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. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.
As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe — it’s a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.
I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they’re working at it at a good clip. It’s interesting, I’ve talked a great deal about this with a team of people who’ve been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.
And General Whitcomb, is there anything you’d want to add to that?
GEN. WHITCOMB: Nothing. [Laughter] Mr. Secretary, I’d be happy to. That is a focus on what we do here in Kuwait and what is done up in the theater, both in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. As the secretary has said, it’s not a matter of money or desire; it is a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it. The 699th, the team that we’ve got here in Kuwait has done [Cheers] a tremendous effort to take that steel that they have and cut it, prefab it and put it on vehicles. But there is nobody from the president on down that is not aware that this is a challenge for us and this is a desire for us to accomplish.
SEC. RUMSFELD: The other day, after there was a big threat alert in Washington, D.C. in connection with the elections, as I recall, I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They’re not there anymore. [Cheers] [Applause] They’re en route out here, I can assure you.
Note the important part of the answer: “really a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.” How do I know it’s important? It was the point reiterated by Gen. Whitcomb: “As the secretary has said, it’s not a matter of money or desire; it is a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it.”
So the armor is going on the vehicles, but there’s a job to be done in the mean time.
Lesson learned: Try to find out what was actually said before assuming the media got it right.
MickC @ December 8, 2004
Actually, the job needs to be done with the armor. Period.
As for “finding out what was actually said,” your quotes did pretty much nothing to disprove the main thrust of my problem with our illustrious SOD’s comments which is the armor, vehicles, and such are not there now and the soldiers are basically being told to cope.
Sorry. I don’t like it one bit. If you can sleep peacefully with that, good on you.
The job has to be done, armor or not. Preferably with armor (and the Army is working in that direction), but it has to be done regardless.
The lack of armor on all vehicles is a problem that’s been known about for a very long time Vinny. That someone has asked Secretary Rumsfeld about it isn’t really even news. What’s news here is that the first sentence of the second paragraph of his response was taken out of context to make him sound more mean-spirited than his response warrants.
But to suggest that our soldiers should be there in smaller numbers that would fit the number of up-armored vehicles is irresponsible.
No, you don’t send less troops to match the number of armored vehicles. You ramp up production on the armored vehicles and send those troops over there.
In them.
Hey man, you know what? I think this philosophy is great. Let’s have cops get hired. We need more cops in NYC. Let’s not give them badges or guns, or even squad cars. Hey, we need the cops. Preferrably they should have guns and badges and squad cars, but you know what, law enforcement has to get done regardless.
We wouldn’t do it with police, we shouldn’t do it for soldiers either.
Vinny, you’re yelling at the wind. The fact is that production is already ramped up. They’re producing another 400 every month.
And remember, we’re not talking body armor. The question and the response dealt with “up-armored” vehicles.
At the moment, we have more soldiers than we have up-armored vehicles. Is the military working to fix that? Yes.
So, what do you suggest happens in the mean time?
Oh come on Mick, when the current administration stands up in front of the cameras for the American people and the world do they say anything that even remotely resembles “It’s a matter of production and capability….”?
No they do not.
Rumsfeld is ducking a very awkward [to put it politely] question – as of today the equipment he was asked about is 631 days late in arriving, soldiers are rummaging around in the garbage for protective equipment, and he and the president are not being truthful about the situation… end of story.
1. Soldiers have also been complaining since the beginning that they did not have body armor and parents are buying used surplus from police precincts because it’s better than nothing.
2. What do I suggest? I suggest we should’ve done significantly better planning before we went in, not tell them “use what you have and like it.”
Sorry; it smacks of sloppy planning and cya.
SL:
Given that there were cameras and reporters there to hear this, I’d say “Yes, they do.”
Certainly the question is awkward, especially when it’s posed by those who are needing to use that equipment. But that doesn’t lessen the response that he gave.
Vinny:
You’re still not answering the question. Saying that we coulda/shoulda done better before doesn’t answer the question of what should we do now.
There are two choices:
1) Reduce troop levels and bring them back up when optimally armored.
2) Keep levels where they are needed and equip as quickly as possible.
3: Hold our positions and not make any advancements until our troops are properly equipped?
You think?
I’m a firm and long time member of the Gen. George S. Patton school of tactics. When you have the upper hand you do not stop. Sitting tight is the same as retreat. That’s because it gives a psychological advantage to the enemy as well as giving them the opportunity to reorganize, retrench, fortify, and rearm.
I’m convinced that “holding position” would result in more casualties.