View Full Version : Grinding down

11-07-2007, 12:56 PM
Good read. web page (http://) http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7283781

11-07-2007, 01:07 PM
did you read the comments?

by somebody with the handle 'line_doggie'

When we aired our concerns up the chain of command, post “Mission Accomplished,” that the situation was quickly deteriorating in Iraq, our concerns went unheard. The situation began to go south shortly before the three contractors were brutally murdered and hung out on the bridge. The insurgency had begun in earnest.

We were left with insufficient boots on the ground and insufficient material to wage a MOUT counter-insurgency operation. Our HUMMWV’s were insufficiently armored – we had cloth as our only defense, for example, from enemy fire and IED’s. We had severe shortages of common ordnance and were forced to place our weapons on semi-auto.

As a response, the ROE was modified. We had to rummage through landfills to obtain the metal in order to improvise.

In December, 2004 Spec Thomas Wilson confronted DefSec Rumsfeld with a question why we were not receiving sufficient supply of combat ready vehicles and the lack of body armor.

When the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh got wind of the criticism, let us recall that Sean Hannity over his radio show criticized the Specialist and made claims that the Liberals had put him up to it.

Limbaugh also joined the chorus and called for Specialist Wilson to be busted for “borderline-insubordination”

However, the Specialist was correct in his assessment. We did not have sufficient material to combat a growing insurgency. In fact, the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh first denied the existence of the insurgency, then he just as quickly applauded efforts made by Bush to combat the growing insurgency almost within a day of each other.

Many of us over there were very aware of the words spewed by Hannity and Limbaugh, because Limbaugh is heard over Armed Forces Radio. We also discovered just how out of touch with reality, Hannity and Limbaugh were and still are. They are the mouth pieces for this administration and an indicator just how out of touch this Administration was at the time and still is.

We were simply reacting to the situation for a good two years as the mouth pieces and pundits were defending a failed policy instead of proacting to the situation. We lost valuable personnel, time and material in which to sufficiently respond. Instead, the Administration and the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh continued to defend the policy to the detriment of our national security and our mission in Iraq.

To win, we need more boots, at least 500, 000 personnel on the ground now. At a ratio of 4 to 1. We also need additional material on the ground, now. This is the responsibility of the President, not Congress, as the POTUS is CIC. This is the leadership vacuum at the top. Without competent leadership, we will not win in Iraq – whatever that looks like, now.

And, now, with this same leadership, we are probably going into Iran. I shudder to think how this is going to turn out.

11-07-2007, 01:14 PM
Maybe these facts will help.

You Go to War with the Press You Have
The Washington Times

30-Dec-04 —
"You go to war with the press coverage you have. It's not the press coverage you might want or wish to have."

Related Content
Research and Commentary
Stability in Iraq: A War We Just Might Win
Kenneth M. Pollack, The New York Times, July 30, 2007
Research and Commentary
It's the Story, Not the Storyteller
James M. Lindsay, Brookings Daily War Report, 1-Apr-03
Research and Commentary
Powell's UN Presentation Has Positive, Yet Marginal, Effect on U.S. Newspaper Editorials
Stephen Hess, The Brookings Institution, 6-Feb-03
More Related Content »
"Perhaps Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should have said that in response to Spec. Thomas "Jerry" Wilson's famous question about scavenging for scrap metal to armor his unit's Humvees. Actually, the episode's press coverage could have used armor plating. A careful examination suggests the media uproar was shot full of holes.

First, it turns out the question did not originate with Spec. Wilson, of the Army's 278th Regimental Combat Team. He was prompted to ask Mr. Rumsfeld about armor plating by a reporter, Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press. The reporter's role was rarely mentioned in subsequent coverage, although on a few occasions Mr. Pitts was praised for using a soldier to get information from Mr. Rumsfeld that he didn't think he could get directly.

Second, press coverage—particularly on television—provided a misleadingly truncated version of Mr. Rumsfeld's full answer to the Pitts/Wilson question during a "Town Hall Meeting" in Kuwait as the soldier's unit was about to ship out to Iraq.

This is the only portion of Mr. Rumsfeld's answer that was — and is still being—quoted endlessly in newspapers and broadcast on television and radio:

"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."

Mr. Rumsfeld's response has been repeatedly characterized as an insensitive, brusque, disrespectful, insulting putdown. And that description might be fitting if that was all the secretary said in response to the Pitts/Wilson question.

Actually, here's Mr. Rumsfeld's full answer:

"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 where they are needed. I'm told that they are being ... 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 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 Gen. Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly Gen. 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." And so on for another 117 words.

The full quote gives quite a different impression of Mr. Rumsfeld's attitude than the oft-repeated mini-quote, "You go to war with the army you have," doesn't it?

But the worst shortcoming of media coverage of this controversy was failure to report virtually all the unit's combat vehicles had already been up-armored by the Army and the rest were completed the day after Mr. Rumsfeld's Town Meeting comments to the troops in Kuwait.

Maj. Gen. Stephen Speakes was asked about the armoring controversy at an hourlong media briefing at the Pentagon on Dec. 15. He said: "When the question [to Rumsfeld] was asked, 20 vehicles remained to be up-armored at that point. We completed those 20 vehicles in the next day. And so over 800 vehicles from the 278th were up-armored, and they are part now of their total force that is operating up in Iraq."

A reporter asked, "When you say they're 100 percent up-armored does that mean 100 percent of their requirement or 100 of their vehicles?"

The general responded, "[A]t this point the vehicles that they're operating, that they're driving, are all up-armored."

Did you see that quote on TV? Hear it on the radio? Read it in most newspapers? Me neither.

Why did the media, except for The Washington Times and a few other papers, ignore the readily-available information?

Perhaps, we would guess, it reflected the critical attitude toward conduct of the war among many reporters. No doubt it reflected anti-Rumsfeld sentiment among much of the media.

And it may also have reflected that staple of journalism that reporters, editors and producers don't like to talk about in public—a story that's Too Good to Check.

Reporters then, and since, have ignored Mr. Rumsfeld's full quote. And the media generally suppressed the Pentagon's detailed explanation that the 278th's Humvees were virtually all up-armored at the time. Why?

As the saying goes, you go to press with the story you have. And you don't want a good story ruined by the facts."

It is always better to look at the liberal Main Scream Media's coverage of the war with skepticism.

11-07-2007, 01:28 PM
Thought you didn't like opinions Bam.
Quote LWW "what are we?"

11-07-2007, 01:46 PM
That was full of facts and not opinions.

Here is how you tell the differences:

1-Journalism. A recounting of the facts as they happened.

2-Editorialism. An opinion based on one person's interpretation of those facts that may or may not be biased and/or accurate.

3-Propaganda. An article full of misleading innuendo, half truths, deletion of "inconvenient" data, and outright lies.


11-07-2007, 01:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Thought you didn't like opinions Bam.
Quote LWW "what are we?" <hr /></blockquote>

Sorry, I never said I didn't like opinions.
But unlike you, I know the difference between opinion and fact.

11-07-2007, 06:32 PM
Not that it can be noticed,but carry on.

11-08-2007, 04:46 AM
Have you ever added anything to any thread?


Gayle in MD
11-08-2007, 08:18 AM
Brookings Institute, LMAO! Might as well be the Heritage Foundation, or better yet, The American Enterprise Institute! Or even Faux News, the POTUS, personal propaganda station. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

BWA HA HA HA. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
11-08-2007, 08:32 AM
From the article,

The Army reportedly has a shortage of 3,000 captains and majors this year, and recently began offering them bonuses of up to $35,000 if they'd agree to remain on duty for an additional three years. The shortage was forecast to rise to 6,000 by 2010 as the Army tries to grow by 65,000.
Even with the offer of the cash bonus or free graduate school or their choice of assignments, the exodus of young officers continues to grow at a pace that worries commanders. The U.S. Military Academy at West Point was founded to educate career officers for the Army, and upon graduation each officer owes Uncle Sam five years on active duty. The hope is that most will remain for a full career, and historically just 28.8 percent have opted out after five years.
A total of 35 percent of the West Point Class of 2000 left the Army in 2005; 46 percent of the Class of 2001 left in 2006, and a staggering 58 percent of the Class of 2002 left active duty when their obligation expired this year.
Those figures are mirrored among officers who are commissioned through university ROTC programs, with attrition rates now at a 30-year high. The Army Reserve reports that the situation is even worse for critical ranks and specialties: The Reserve has only 58 percent of the sergeants first class it needs, 53 percent of the needed captains and 74 percent of needed majors.

These are the same numbers reported by Generals in testimony to the Senated Armed Services commitee. I suppose they all lied under oath.

This is why we should really just completely ignore the posts from these, shall we say, uninformed "Sheep" since no amount of documentation penetrates their block heads. A State Of Denial, is impenetrable. Hence, why bother? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.

11-08-2007, 09:17 AM
Is that the best you can do,ask a question more suited to your short term memory loss? Get help my friend,get help.

11-08-2007, 09:37 AM
Not at all.

I just have never seen you make a post that actually added anything to the topic.


11-08-2007, 12:33 PM
You do understand that these numbers are a result of the depletions that occurred during thhe Clinton Administration.
The Army is attempting to grow now, that is why those mid ranks are still undermanned in relation to overall strength.
You don't just wave a wand and get a Captain or Major to appear.
Think Gayle

11-08-2007, 12:40 PM
You beat me to it Dawg.

The same thing is true about Blackwater.

We RIF'ed our NCO corps and the neoleft can't understand why we don't have an experienced NCO staff right after we fired them.

But, neoleftists never take the blame for the aftermath of their insanity, they just point the finger at someone else.