Rex Kickass Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 So Rumsfeld addressed the troops today, gave them a chance to ask him questions directly. The questions seemed to have an aggressive or angry tone towards the government - not a great sign two years into a war. But what puzzles me is whether or not this kind of event is extraordinary to begin with. Is this kind of thing common for Defense Secretaries to do? I got my opinions on the questions and answers - a lot of you can figure out what they were - but if this Q&A is as strikingly unique as it seems to me, I gotta give Rumsfeld some props for having it - as much as it may pain me for doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 It sounds like he was blindsided by the questions - I don't think he meant for it to be an airing of greviances, Festivus season though it may be. The story made it sound like Rummy was appealing to the troops in Kuwait to help project the "it's going well, no really" message that the Administration verey desparately wants us to believe back home. Unfortunately for him, he was in front of a packed room of primarily reservists taking issue over stop loss policies and the perception that they are not getting the same caliber gear as the regular military units are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Next up for Rumsfeld is defending JR at Soxfest I am really shocked and intrigued that they let something like this happen. The Bushies are usually pretty tight about this kind of stuff and perception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 FWIW, Drudge is reporting that the people asking the tough questions of Rummy were planted.... http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcp.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 9, 2004 Author Share Posted December 9, 2004 I think the important question is to that: so what? These are valid concerns that the soldiers have expressed to a member of the media to begin with? If this creates better conditions for reservists fighting in Iraq, what's the harm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 I think the important question is to that: so what? These are valid concerns that the soldiers have expressed to a member of the media to begin with? If this creates better conditions for reservists fighting in Iraq, what's the harm? Ah, the ends justify the means... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 9, 2004 Author Share Posted December 9, 2004 If the ends equal troops getting the protection they deserve before going into battle - and the means include an embedded journalist getting a soldier who expressed his frustration to said journalist to do the same to his boss - where is the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 If the ends equal troops getting the protection they deserve before going into battle - and the means include an embedded journalist getting a soldier who expressed his frustration to said journalist to do the same to his boss - where is the problem? It is just an interesting way of looking at this, when everyone is so upset by Bush using an ends justifies the means answer for this whole war. Just doesn't seem right to me. Plus as usual it flies in the face of journalistic integrity, and it also means that the Bush admin will be even less forthcoming with the press. I just don't like it personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 How many lives will it cost the US to uparmor military transport in a battlezone? There's a big difference between forcing a hand to make a policy change with a nonresponsive bureaucracy and putting military in harms way by means of armed conflict. You're comparing Apples to Rutabagas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 How many lives will it cost the US to uparmor military transport in a battlezone? There's a big difference between forcing a hand to make a policy change with a nonresponsive bureaucracy and putting military in harms way by means of armed conflict. You're comparing Apples to Rutabagas. How many Iraqi lives did the US save by ending Saddams torture chambers? How many more Kurds would Saddam have killed? How many more countries would Saddam invade? I could go on, but the point is, I don't know how it is different when you use that kind of logic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 That argument only holds water to me if the US government was willing to go after any government for the same reasons. Yet we're allied with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We are not going after China for human rights abuses. In the broader sense, if our government truly had the viewpoint of protecting the world from tyranny - I'd agree with you in this respect. But the cold, hard truth is that the American government doesn't care about doing the right thing when it comes to protecting non US residents and citizens. We only care to protect our own. And that has nothing to do with who's in power. Clinton sat by and let Rwanda chop themselves in half literally. Reagan helped to fuel the Iran Iraq war by arming both sides. Carter stood by and allowed one million Ethiopians to starve because it didn't fit US interests. I could go on and on.... But to answer your questions more directly - probably thousands, not that many, and none. I'm not going to get into an argument about what kind of justification necessitated regime change in Iraq here. Because this whole argument kind of takes away from the point. Our soldiers feel like they got a raw deal. And they oughta get what they need. Including armored transport. And they sure as hell don't need a guy who never served telling them that even if they had a fully armored tank, they might still get blown up instead. We have had 18 months to react to new realities and we just aren't doing it. And the thing that's most disturbing about all of it is that in order for anyone important to notice, a reporter had to arrange for a soldier to ask a question of the defense secretary yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 So are you telling me that the media is willing to blindside every politician who does supply sufficent funding to people who put their lives in danger? Come on. This was all a self-serving political move. It was for a good cause, once again, this is an ends justifies the means move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 Well, if you read the email, its more of a self serving save my ass move. This guy was an embed for the unit that was scheduled to take those unarmored Humvee up north. When he found out what was going on, he filed two stories about it. Nobody noticed. I think it had more to do with him being scared to have his own ass blown up by an IED than anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 the spin last night was amazing on this. All of the Conservative Commentators decided to talk about how great it was that our military could engage in a conversation like this with a cabinet member rather than talking about why after nearly 3 years, the soliders still don't have what they need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 FWIW: Turns out we weren't armoring vehicles at full capacity after all. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...efer=news_index Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 The Daily Show did a segment on this Q&A session. Rummy got pwned. After more people kept pounding him on poor supplies: "AH hold on a sec Im an old man and it's early for these questions" Also, troops shouldn't b**** about not having armor because armor is worthless. "You can put all the armor you want on a a a tank and it can still be blown up" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 How many Iraqi lives did the US save by ending Saddams torture chambers? How many more Kurds would Saddam have killed? How many more countries would Saddam invade? I could go on, but the point is, I don't know how it is different when you use that kind of logic? we've clearly proved that american lives are far greater than any other countries lives...so don't pull those stunts on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 14, 2004 Author Share Posted December 14, 2004 FWIW, this was not the first time that soldiers have brought this issue up before Rumsfeld. It happened May 13, 2004 too. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/200...secdef0747.html Q How you doing, sir? (Inaudible.) I have force protection questions, sir. SEC. RUMSFELD: You have what? Q Force protection. SEC. RUMSFELD: General Myers. (Laughter.) Q Sir, my unit, the 2nd Brigade -- (inaudible) -- Cav, we have five out of the six red zones in this country. And with the up- armored humvees, the new -- (off mike) -- humvees they're bringing over with the -- (inaudible) -- those doors are not as good as the ones on the up-armored humvees -- (inaudible). We even lost quite -- we lost some soldiers due to them, and we're trying to make a change -- (inaudible). The question is, are we going to get more up-armored humvees? And the second question I wanted to ask is, they have the new -- (inaudible) -- vests out that covers your -- (inaudible). We need those because we have taken some casualties due to the shrapnel from IEDs going through the side. The front parts are good, but the sides are not. Thank you. GEN. MYERS: Good points. Excellent points. You can imagine we spend a lot of time on force protection, and our responsibility, I think, is to ensure we have the resources and protection lines and all that cranked up to get the equipment we need. You mentioned the vests and now the part for the armpits and the sides that are not covered with the SAPI plates and not covered adequately by the vest. They're -- we producing them and sending them over here as fast as we can. You do not have all the up-armored humvees you need. You got about -- around 3,000 out of the 4,400 roughly that they want over here, that your leaders want. Production is ramping up this month. I think it's around 220, 225 per month. We've gathered them from all other services that had them except for a few we held back for a nuclear security role back in the United States. The rest of them shipped over here. We're trying to get them to you as fast as we can. We understand the difference they can make, and for that matter we're shipping some armor over as well. You know, some of the units came over lighter, and you're probably one of them, and so you're going to get some of your stuff back to do the job that you have to do. But that's something that I have a chance to talk to Congress about a lot. Congress is -- will provide any amount of resources. They've been very good about this issue, in fact about all issues when it comes to our efforts here, (also) in Afghanistan, and in the global war on terrorism. But specifically on force protection, many members of Congress are very, very serious about this. It's not a matter of resources, it's a matter of how fast can we build these things and get them over here. And I review that probably daily, the status of those machines and that equipment that can help. And we've got to do better. I mean, we've got a lot of folks looking at the improvised explosive device problem. And to date we have not found any magic remedy for those devices, but I'm not convinced there's not something out there. So we've got a lot of money going towards that effort. I think there are 130-some different organizations that are looking at it from all different angles, led by the United States Army. So we're trying. We're trying hard. And we understand -- I understand exactly everything you said, and we'll do our best. And that's our responsibility. (Applause.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.