Comments on: Selective Soundbites Suspecious

By: Mickey

Mickey — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:00:56 +0000

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.

By: Vinny

Vinny — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 12:21:29 +0000

3: Hold our positions and not make any advancements until our troops are properly equipped?

You think?

By: Mickey

Mickey — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:22:30 +0000

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.

By: Vinny

Vinny — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:16:16 +0000

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.

By: stageleft

stageleft — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:10:37 +0000

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.

By: Mickey

Mickey — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:06:58 +0000

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?

By: Vinny

Vinny — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:02:58 +0000

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.

By: Mickey

Mickey — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 04:55:53 +0000

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.

By: Vinny

Vinny — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 04:49:21 +0000

So the armor is going on the vehicles, but there�s a job to be done in the mean time.

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.