Soldiers grill Rumsfeld; CIA says things not likely to get better

[Thomas Veil]

I don't know, I don't recall a time, even in the Vietnam War, where America had such a morale problem with its soldiers.


CAMP BUEHRING, Kuwait (AP) - After delivering a pep talk designed to energize troops preparing to head for Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. 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....

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.
TORONTO, Dec 6 (Reuters) - An American soldier who deserted because he opposed the war in Iraq appealed for asylum in Canada on Monday but faces an uphill battle to persuade a refugee tribunal that he has the right to stay.
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The situation in Iraq is unlikely to improve anytime soon, according to a classified cable and briefings from the Central Intelligence Agency, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

The assessments are more pessimistic than the Bush administration's portrayal of the situation to the public, government officials told the newspaper....

The cable, described as "unusually candid," cautioned that security in the country is likely to deteriorate unless the Iraqi government makes significant progress in asserting its authority and building up the economy, the paper said.
Now there's a cheery trio of articles, all from this morning's Netscape news.

Add all this to the fact that large numbers of soldiers are refusing to show up for return tours of duty, a death tally that's still way too high, no definitive "end date" for this mission, and the possibility that elections might have to be postponed, and you've got a grim picture indeed.

Beyond the simple issue of this war turning into another Vietnam (there's no question about it; it has), you've got to wonder how badly this whole thing is going to compromise our military for the future. Beyond the hardcore army types who'll fight any enemy, at any time, "my country right or wrong", will the military ever really be able to recruit soldiers again?

Personally, I think that this is going to negatively affect the U.S. for a long, long, long time. Just as we thought the nation's psyche was getting over Vietnam, we've become mired in something arguably even worse. I just don't see American men and women trusting the military ever again, knowing that they could go into the service under a guy like Clinton, and end up serving somebody like Bush.

Troops put tough questions to Rumsfeld (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-world-12-l2&flok=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041208%2F0710958584.htm&sc=1107)
US deserter seeks to stay in Canada, faces setback (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-RTO-PLS&idq=/ff/story/0002/20041206/1736822829.htm)
Report: CIA paints bleak Iraq picture (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/07/iraq.cia.reut/index.html)

[miloblithe]

I think the military will remain able to recruit soldiers from three groups at a fairly steady pace: the die-hard patriotic, especially from families with long histories of military service; the poor or semi-poor who need the military as a way to pay for college or a 'way out'; and immigrants who use military service as a path to U.S. citizenship.

All of those (overlapping) categories are taking hits, but they will never dissappear. It's in the other categories of people who join the military for less ideological or less need-based reasons that may suffer serious declines. On the other hand, such declines and problems may only encourage more of the die-hard patriots to join up, alleviating some of the loss, and a declining economy may force more, desperate poor people into the military.

Basically, I think the military will be able to muddle through.

[pseudobrit]

I predict brain-drain.

[blackfox]

I also believe the Armed Forces will have no problem with continued recruitment. In fact, I hope that we continue to keep our force-levels high (as a standing army).

The reason for this, is that every society has a certain crucial % of males driven to impulsive physical action.

One of the good purposes of standing armies has been to control and steer this violent element of citizenry towards a useful end.

A decline in a standing army, which may happen regardless, as our military becomes more specialized, smaller and elite, will probably result in more frustrated, action-prone young men with no acceptable outlet for this inclination. This will likely result in an increase of gang-activity and other forms of violent behavior.

Sorry to go OT a little, but there will always be this % of US society to draw upon for recruitment if necessary.

[IJ Reilly]

Also,

US troops sue over tours in Iraq

Eight US soldiers have begun legal action in an effort to stop the US army extending their tours of duty in Iraq.

With US forces stretched by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, many units have been ordered to stay on longer than originally expected.

Soldiers have been kept abroad even if the date they were due to leave the army has passed.

The soldiers, seven of whom have stayed anonymous, are believed to be the first active-duty personnel to sue the army.

Lawyers for the men have teamed up with the Center for Constitutional Rights, a liberal public interest group, to launch a class action lawsuit calling for an end to the practice known as "stop loss".

The plaintiffs say thousands of service personnel have been kept in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond their discharge or retirement date.

The army confirmed that about 7,000 soldiers at any one time are affected by the stop-loss policy, which can keep troops committed to their units for 18 months beyond their discharge date.

Last week the Pentagon announced that several units would have their tours in Iraq extended to cover the elections due in January.

At a news conference, Arkansas National Guardsman David Qualls, the only one of the group to reveal his identity, said he has been told that his one-year tour of duty, begun in July 2003, will not end until next year.

"What this boils down to in my opinion is a question of fairness," he said.

"I served five months past my one-year obligation and I feel that it's time to let me go back to my wife."

"I am not against the war," said Mr Qualls, who has been stationed north of Baghdad since March 2004.

"I spent the last nine months in that combat zone. I think I fulfilled my duty."

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4072467.stm

[skunk]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a9dtoXBQG2FI&refer=us#
Rumsfeld `Cavalier' on Iraq Gear, Dodd Says, Demanding Answers

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senator Chris Dodd demanded answers on military preparedness from Donald Rumsfeld, describing the defense secretary as ``cavalier'' in his response to a soldier who said troops in Iraq are reduced to scavenging for materials with which to protect their vehicles.

In a letter to Rumsfeld, and in comments yesterday to reporters, the Connecticut Democrat asked when the Defense Department will meet last year's commitment to ensure all military vehicles in Iraq are adequately armored. That pledge was to have been met by July 31, Dodd said in the letter, posted on his Web site. He also asked whether the Pentagon will be asking Congress for funds to address equipment shortfalls.

Rumsfeld yesterday told U.S. soldiers in Kuwait who are part of the military coalition in neighboring Iraq that ``you have to go to war with the Army you have.'' He was replying to Army Specialist Thomas Wilson, who asked, ``Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?''

The number of U.S. military members killed in action in Iraq topped 1,000 yesterday, according to a Pentagon tally. Half the casualties were caused by insurgent attacks on vehicles with homemade bombs left on roads or by rocket- propelled grenades, according to Representative Ellen Tauscher, a California Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.

The defense secretary's response was ``unacceptable,'' Dodd wrote. ``Our troops go to war with the Army that our nation's leaders provide. Our military should spare no expense to ensure the safety of our troops, particularly as they confront a hostile insurgency and roadside bombs throughout Iraq.''

Reimbursement Policy

Dodd, who last year wrote an amendment to a bill to require that the Defense Department reimburse soldiers and their families for buying their own equipment, questioned Rumsfeld on how that policy would be implemented.

``It is not our soldiers' responsibility to equip themselves with the protection they need,'' Dodd wrote. ``It is the solemn duty of the military's civilian leadership, members of Congress, and the commander-in-chief to outfit our troops with gear critical to their safety and combat effectiveness.''
Just to keep things up-to-date...

[Xtremehkr]

I also believe the Armed Forces will have no problem with continued recruitment. In fact, I hope that we continue to keep our force-levels high (as a standing army).

The reason for this, is that every society has a certain crucial % of males driven to impulsive physical action.

One of the good purposes of standing armies has been to control and steer this violent element of citizenry towards a useful end.

A decline in a standing army, which may happen regardless, as our military becomes more specialized, smaller and elite, will probably result in more frustrated, action-prone young men with no acceptable outlet for this inclination. This will likely result in an increase of gang-activity and other forms of violent behavior.

Sorry to go OT a little, but there will always be this % of US society to draw upon for recruitment if necessary.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Maybe we could empty our prisons into the military. Though there would have to be an effective way to control them. If they serve 5 years in a combat zone or 10 years of service without mishap they get to try things out in the real world?

[takao]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Maybe we could empty our prisons into the military. Though there would have to be an effective way to control them. If they serve 5 years in a combat zone or 10 years of service without mishap they get to try things out in the real world?

you mean like the voluntary service in the french foreign legion ?
when you sign up you have 2 chances to get out:
1.service the first 5 years and get the possability to start a new life afterwards
2.death

[Xtremehkr]

you mean like the voluntary service in the french foreign legion ?
when you sign up you have 2 chances to get out:
1.service the first 5 years and get the possability to start a new life afterwards
2.death

I guess so, I'm not familiar with them. But I am also guessing that those are the worst of the worst.

Your crime would dictate how long you serve.

[skunk]

Many of them were German ex-soldiers. The really nasty ones.

[atszyman]

Rumsfeld yesterday told U.S. soldiers in Kuwait who are part of the military coalition in neighboring Iraq that ``you have to go to war with the Army you have.'' He was replying to Army Specialist Thomas Wilson, who asked, ``Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?''


Slate's Take (http://slate.msn.com/id/2110818/) admittedly a biased website but a good point nonetheless.

Rumsfeld's answer was, first, unforgivably glib, reminiscent of his shrugged line about the looting in the days after Saddam's fall ("Stuff happens"), but more shocking because here he was addressing American soldiers who are still fighting and dying, 20 months after Baghdad's fall, as a result of Rumsfeld's decisions.

More than that, his answer was wrong. If you're attacked by surprise, you go to war with the army you have. But if you've planned the war a year in advance and you initiate the attack, you have the opportunity—and obligation—to equip your soldiers with what they'll need. Yes, some soldiers will get killed no matter the precautions, but the idea is to heighten their odds—or at least not diminish them—as they're thrust into battle.

[Xtremehkr]

Many of them were German ex-soldiers. The really nasty ones.

I had heard they were a mean bunch though, didn't they wear Butchers Aprons into battle?

[Thomas Veil]

Well: now the issue is clouded because it appears the questions were planted (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/09/rumsfeld.reporter/index.html).


(CNN) -- The question a U.S. soldier asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Wednesday about the lack of armor on some combat vehicles in Iraq was planted by a newspaper reporter embedded with the soldier's unit, the reporter told colleagues in an e-mail.

Edward Lee Pitts, Chattanooga Times Free Press military affairs reporter, said he wanted to ask the question himself but was denied a chance to speak to Rumsfeld at what the Pentagon called a town hall meeting for GIs in Kuwait.
I say "clouded", because while it is questionable journalistic ethics for a reporter to "rig" a question that way, we also know that the Bush administration is very good at controlling, even cowing, the press. So I guess while it's dubious behavior on Pitts' part, you could also argue that Rumsfeld left him few options.

As for whether the question itself, no matter where it came from, has any real legitimacy:


"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.

The question prompted cheers from some of the approximately 2,300 troops assembled in a hangar to hear Rumsfeld.
Seems so. I just wish it hadn't been asked in this suspect manner.

[zimv20]

so long as the soldier was not paid or coerced, then i'm fine w/ it. whether the reporter's actions are in violation of his newspaper's ethics guidelines, i don't know.

[mactastic]

I don't think the response by the other soldiers to said soldier's question was planted.

[skunk]

Anyway, he wouldn't have risked his career prospects if he didn't believe it himself.

[Thomas Veil]

Both of you (skunk and mactastic) are right. But even a hint of impropriety is all that professional liars like Limbaugh and Hannity need to twist the story around and call it a "liberal media" setup.

FWIW, I did see the clip of the first soldier's question on The Daily Show, and after a moment's hesitation (I think the soldiers couldn't believe someone had the balls to ask Rumsfeld that question), there was loud approval and applause. So obviously the issue is on a lot of soldiers' minds.

[3rdpath]

regardless of who asked the question, the point remains valid. and fwiw, it's not like the reporter was the first person to bring up the issue of ill-equipped soldiers.

its about time rummy gets called to task...this administration has left much of the armed forces in iraq swinging in the wind. and rummy's flippant response about the armed vehicle factories operating at maximum levels has now been proven false. i wouldn't doubt that every soldier is aware of the convoy that refused to mobilize because their vehicles were unsafe...word gets around quickly about such things.

regardless of rank, if you're on the ground in iraq, you're a grunt and you're expendable...that's what this administration is saying.

[Xtremehkr]

The US military alone has about half the worlds military budget to play with. What are they doing with all of that money?


Seems that they are forgetting the fundamantals in order to develop futuristic weapons systems when terrorism is our biggest problem.

Do we need robot satellites to kill brown people in turbins?

[skunk]

More than half.

[blackfox]

The US military alone has about half the worlds military budget to play with. What are they doing with all of that money?
I, like most people, can only guess. I would imagine much of it is wasted by bureaucratic ineffiency and ill-conceived long-term projects that become obsolete even before completion (at least tactically or strategically).

OTOH, The US military also has to maintain functional presences all around the globe, which while often small in nature cannot be cheap to maintain. There is also some expansion of these facilities, such as into Mongolia (and perhaps elsewhere).

There is also perhaps quasi-legal financing of governments and/or rebel groups that support our strategic interests. This, I imagine, is in the form of equipment, loans, weapons etc.

There are also low-level direct engagements, such as continued presence in the Balkans and Special Forces interventions. In 1996, for example, the SF were responsible for 2,325 missions in 167 countries. I can only imagine that this figure is typical of today, if not a little low.

Seems that they are forgetting the fundamantals in order to develop futuristic weapons systems when terrorism is our biggest problem.

Do we need robot satellites to kill brown people in turbins?

Could be. OTOH, perhaps we are just not privy to some of the nature modern military strategy. Despite the horrendous civilian planning and equipment, the military has performed rather well in difficult and novel fighting conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is not a validation of our presence there, or the decisions made hence, as those are matters of civilian policy, which are crap.

You could also wonder about the realization that a higher-tech army might be attractive to a democratic country, as it potentially decreases both the potential casualties (on our side) and makes coverage and discussion of the war more abstract (and palatable) in nature. Both make War an easier prospect for Politicians who are ultimately tied to public opinion.

There is also the fact that the US is the sole remaining superpower, and probably would like to keep it that way.

All just guesses, mind you.

*EDIT* As a case in point, for my first assertion, there is now argument over the now-not-so-secret $9.5 Billion Spy Satellite system that is only able to take photos in the daytime and/or when it is clear-skied. I'd laugh, if I wasn't paying for it...

[stubeeef]

Not to address the mistakes and victories in Iraq, but in every war there are those in the military who dissent, flee, and rage at the slow to move "war department". There are a lot of wounded looking to get back to their units and fight by their kindred too. So while some of these stories do bring up valid, and urgent issues, I believe it to be a mistake to think they are a true indication of any massive difiance.

As far as who and why the question was asked is somewhat irrelavant. That soldier is no innocent child, he is capable of making his own decisions. By the response of his compadres, it sounds like a valid issue, maybe one that has been surpressed on the way up the chain and has not made it to the proper people and channels. That is a problem with bureacracies.

[Xtremehkr]

I'm not being critical of the troops on the ground BF, I just want to know where all of that money is going. It's ridiculous that the troops are being imperiled when there is more than enough money to make sure they have what they need, that's all.

I realize the need for a military, but I would like an efficient one that can take care of its troops.

[stubeeef]

I'm not being critical of the troops on the ground BF, I just want to know where all of that money is going. It's ridiculous that the troops are being imperiled when there is more than enough money to make sure they have what they need, that's all.

I realize the need for a military, but I would like an efficient one that can take care of its troops.

Agreed!

[Xtremehkr]

There are plenty of things that we are going to agree on Stu, peoples needs and wants transcend current politics. Getting beyond that is the challenge.

[Les Kern]

so long as the soldier was not paid or coerced, then i'm fine w/ it. whether the reporter's actions are in violation of his newspaper's ethics guidelines, i don't know.

He was not, and it was not. The paper supported the reporter. And just WHY do reporters have to get soldiers to ask Rumsfeld questions?? Rush Limbaugh called it a "set-up". Rush shows his true colors here, that supporting the administration is more important than getting to the truth.
They need to fire Rumsfeld, impeach Bush, and put Limbaugh in the insane asylum. Let Hannity and Coulter be his cellmates. Bastards.

[Les Kern]

I just wish it hadn't been asked in this suspect manner.

Because the current administration refuses to have real press conferences, and the ones they do have are scripted. This isn't a "suspect" manner, but rather the only way we can get any info out of the neo-cons. We need to do it more. I have one: "Since the defense industry just delivered 100,000 JDAM bombs to the army, why couldn't they see the need for armor and make that instead?"

[Les Kern]

As a case in point, for my first assertion, there is now argument over the now-not-so-secret $9.5 Billion Spy Satellite system that is only able to take photos in the daytime and/or when it is clear-skied. I'd laugh, if I wasn't paying for it...

No profit in chunks of metal. Gotta keep them defense industries humming on the big-ticket items. Look who is involved with this project on the defense policy board. Then look at where they CAME from before entering politics. Follow the money, dude, and the truth will set you free.

[pseudobrit]

Because the current administration refuses to have real press conferences, and the ones they do have are scripted. This isn't a "suspect" manner, but rather the only way we can get any info out of the neo-cons.

I'll help fund any effort to have an upper WH official replaced with an intelligence gathering cyborg look-alike.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Its pathetic and shows how the top brass is full of spin and lies and BS when it comes to the troops. Everyday another roadside bomb kills our boys and after all this time Rumsfeld response is you go with war with the tools you have and make do. More crap out of a poor administration who backs the troops only when forced by politics.Billions spent in Iraq but they cant weld on some protective armor??? Rumsfeld answers to the soldier sucked as bad as the administration he is part of. I guess our soldiers are a expendable commodity. I have no confidence in rumsfeld or his spin.

[stubeeef]

As most of you that have worked with and or for big brother know, it is a slow and often stupid bureaucracy.

I think most here will understand that there is always a learning process. Have a lot of open to the world press conferences, doesn't go well enough, stop having them. So right or wrong that will be the way it will work with Iraq.

There are always Strategic and Tactical blunders (http://www.2worldwar2.com/mistakes.htm) in every war. That link will provide some great examples. There will be many in Iraq, as there will be in the next one and the one after that. The real difference as I see it, is the fact that these blunders are not only exposed quickly now, but in an embarrassing, worldwide manner. Up until possibly Korea, and certainly Vietnam, this was not the case. Censorship was the rule, exposure was treason-esck. So don't be silly enough to think every blunder is of a major magnitude.

I know many here will say to be there is a blunder to begin with, while I disagree, I understand your reasoning. That has been hashed over 1000 threads here is seems. That being what you would call a Strategic Blunder, the discussion here is a tactical one. I am not aware of many press conferences prior to Vietnam discussing openly our lack of ability.

Well off to Church, got up late this morning, see ya during the games!

Go Panthers!!!!!

[Dont Hurt Me]

These are different times yet we see a common theme, the people dont trust what our govts says or do because of the lies and spin of the past. Our own Govt is capable of almost anything and without the press on their arses constantly they would be doing more bad things such as sending our soldiers to war in non protective humvees only to get blown up by roadside bombs. Yeah im sure the stupid beuracracy known as our govt and the military will figure this out given enough time and lots of dead bodies. we can do better and if it calls for a soldier to ask a beuracrat politician what the hell they are doing then so be it.

[miloblithe]

Rumsfeld, like many before him, was completely incapable of understanding the war ahead of him. At almost every turn, he did not prepare the military for this war in terms of equipment, planning, and personel. And he seems woefully incapable of learning from reality on the ground because, like before, he is committed to an ideological vision rather than a practical mission.

On the other hand, the military isn't just fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we can't spend all our resources there and gear our armed forces entirely towards those ends. We also have to prepare to fight China, Russia again, North Korea, and prepare to conduct peacekeeping missions in Nigeria, Haiti, Sudan, Congo, Georgia and train for counterinsurgency missions in Columbia and Uzbekistan and Indonesia while increasing our advantage in satellite intelligence gathering and....

[Dont Hurt Me]

My point is there are some very easy common sense issues that a beauracracy is incapable of dealing with because govt has no common sense if you will. Mandatory armor vehicles running around a hostile country should be one. Reminds me of WWII when are Navy brass had submarines running around with torpedoes that didnt work and the brass kept pushing that the torpedoes were just fine when they were not. It took someone with big balls to stand up to these armchair idiots who were loosing men and subs because of ridgid thinking. We could have been using faulty torpedoes for another year or more because these clowns didnt want to perform a real world test.