the army you want...

[Magyar]

I was just thinking about Rummies BS about you go to war with the army you have not the army you want.


Lets just buy into the myth that there actually was a legit reason to go to war in Iraq.

Was there any real, clear and present danger which required the start of the war when it happened?

It's obvious that rummie pulled his answer out of his ass, not being prepaired for REAL questions, but his answer clearly implies that according to him the army isn't as good as it could/should be so why DIDN'T they get the army ready and get it to the point where they wanted it to be?

The only answer is that they either don't care about our soldiers
or they are wholy incopetent.

[Mr Manifesto]

I think people have mis-read Rummy's comments. He wasn't saying 'like it or lump it', he was trying to articulate a cynical attitude that all technocrats like himself have: That they know more about what the military need than the military.

I saw a doco where a General (he had a Japanese-like last name, can't remember who it was) was telling Congress that the military would need a deployment of some two-hundred thousand troops to deal not just with the war in Iraq, but with the aftermath. Rumsfeld dismissed his testimony out of hand. It obviously didn't match up with the figures, charts, and projections that he had that were more correct.

Rumsfeld's response to the chaos after Saddam's fall was also telling. He pretended it wasn't happening.

What I think he's trying to say now is that the troops would never be satisfied with anything they had. Give them BattleMechs with unlimited Arrow IV's and they still would want air support. He just can't seem to face the fact that, on top of starting a dumb war in the first place, the forces that have been deployed are improperly resourced.

[AtheistArchon]

Quote:

It's obvious that rummie pulled his answer out of his ass, not being prepaired for REAL questions, but his answer clearly implies that according to him the army isn't as good as it could/should be so why DIDN'T they get the army ready and get it to the point where they wanted it to be?

- Two things here. First, I don't think many of the Bush-admin folks actually ever expected troops to begin asking tough questions. Second, who here believes that Bush, Rummy, Condie, or any of the other 1st-term people actually thought we'd still be fighting a war in Iraq right now? It's possible I'm wrong, but I hear lots of 'armchair warrior' type chickenhawk conservatives talking much smack about how much ass we should kick and how we're the strongest military in the world, yadda yadda yadda... I get the distinct feeling that he thought it would be another Kuwait. You know, where we didn't have to actually maintain law and order or worry about occupying the territory.

- That being said, it's not terribly surprising to me that Rummy didn't have anything but hot air to give the troops... I'm still wondering why Bush keeps referring to the war in Iraq as a part of the "war on terrah", terrorists being the people who actually attacked us on 9/11.

Quote:

I saw a doco where a General (he had a Japanese-like last name, can't remember who it was) was telling Congress that the military would need a deployment of some two-hundred thousand troops to deal not just with the war in Iraq, but with the aftermath. Rumsfeld dismissed his testimony out of hand. It obviously didn't match up with the figures, charts, and projections that he had that were more correct.

- General Teguma, wasn't it?

(Google)

- Nope, that's not his name, but it's close.

Quote:

Rumsfeld's response to the chaos after Saddam's fall was also telling. He pretended it wasn't happening.

What I think he's trying to say now is that the troops would never be satisfied with anything they had. Give them BattleMechs with unlimited Arrow IV's and they still would want air support.

- I'll take a Marauder, please. PPC on top. Who needs air support?

[Anathema]

Republicans control the House.
Republicans control the Senate.
Republicans control the White House.

We went to war in Iraq "at a time of our choosing" (direct quote from GWB), apparently to indicate that we were not going to war in a reactive posture, but well-prepared.

Now, please tell me --- if the factors listed above can't field "the army we want" --- whose fault is it?

No extra credit for fanciful delusions, sophistry or rhetorical flourish.

[clk]

Quote:

Originally posted by Anathema

Now, please tell me --- if the factors listed above can't field "the army we want" --- whose fault is it?

It's Clinton's fault. The Republicans never make mistakes.

[AtheistArchon]

Quote:

Republicans control the House.
Republicans control the Senate.
Republicans control the White House.

We went to war in Iraq "at a time of our choosing" (direct quote from GWB), apparently to indicate that we were not going to war in a reactive posture, but well-prepared.

Now, please tell me --- if the factors listed above can't field "the army we want" --- whose fault is it?

No extra credit for fanciful delusions, sophistry or rhetorical flourish.

- The thing is, it's not the lefties complaining here, it's the troops. That's why I believe Rummy was saying "Gee, things are tough all over, I sure wish I could miracle you some vehicle armor, but eh, whatchagonnado? Don't blame me."

- Don't blame me.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by Magyar
The only answer is that they either don't care about our soldiers
or they are wholy incopetent.

Or that shortages are a part of war.

I don't think it's possible to field an army if you wait until you have every last peice of equipment you want.

[Anathema]

Quote:

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- The thing is, it's not the lefties complaining here, it's the troops. That's why I believe Rummy was saying "Gee, things are tough all over, I sure wish I could miracle you some vehicle armor, but eh, whatchagonnado? Don't blame me."

- Don't blame me.

Which illustrates the scale of delusion Donnie "The Madhatter" Rumsfeld lives under. He took for granted that the troops (you know, the finest examples of American patriotism any TV spot could hope for) would go along all gung-ho with his pipedream. He expected fawning adoration from them; instead, someone pointed out the emporor's lack of attire.

I wonder if Dickie "They'll Welcome us with Music and Flowers" Cheney is making any progress on his own Iraq delusions...

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by Anathema
Which illustrates the scale of delusion Donnie "The Madhatter" Rumsfeld lives under. He took for granted that the troops (you know, the finest examples of American patriotism any TV spot could hope for) would go along all gung-ho with his pipedream. He expected fawning adoration from them; instead, someone pointed out the emporor's lack of attire.

I wonder if Dickie "They'll Welcome us with Music and Flowers" Cheney is making any progress on his own Iraq delusions...

Did he? Here is another report of that speech.

http://www.missick.com/

Quote:

Rumsfeld Grilled By Soldiers?
Almost immediately after returning to camp yesterday after the visit by the SECDEF, I did a google news search and read the AP Wire article and noted that, although the piece was fairly accurate, there was definitely a sense of exaggeration in the tone that presented the townhall meeting as a gripe session. As one of the soldiers in the audience, I felt that presenting the morning in such a fashion was misleading, and with such negative connotations, I wondered how long it may be before the MSM ran with the story and turned a pleasant morning with the Secretary of Defense into a scenario that resembled a defendant being cross-examined by the prosecution in a court room. I knew the story was generating heavy circulation when I saw it headlined on Drudge today (click here for story).

Before I dig in, I want to address one item in particular from the story linked above that I think was not made clear enough. When it stated:

Spc. Thomas Wilson had asked the defense secretary, "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Shouts of approval and applause arose from the estimated 2,300 soldiers who had assembled to see Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

I believe Secretary Rumsfeld hesitated because it was difficult to hear the first part of the question Spc. Wilson asked. Perhaps because of nerves, he spoke at first very quickly, and the acoustics of the hangar were hardly concert-hall quality. The Secretary asked others to repeat parts of their questions as well apparently because of difficulty hearing the question in its entirety. I do think Spc. Wilson is justified in asking such a question. It is a serious issue, and if logistics or "physics" is the obstacle from accomplishing the tasks of up-armoring vehicles to add to soldier safety, then we need to do our best to overcome that obstacle. The Secretary concluded with an anecdote in which he spoke of the recent terror warning surrounding the election. He said he looked out the windows of the Pentagon one day and saw 6-8 up-armored HMMWV's perched at the perimeter of the building. He then said, "Guess what, they aren't there any more."

I also want to express that as a person who has worked in politics for years, I was very surprised when we were told there would be the opportunity to ask questions without first having them screened. I would have assumed there would have been some process where those who had questions submitted them prior to asking the Secretary, and had them approved. Instead, everyone in the room was given the option to stand, motion for one of the soldiers holding a microphone, and ask anything they desired. There was no particular order of what kind of questions were asked and the soldiers who asked questions ranged in rank from Specialists to Lieutenant Colonels. When I say I was surprised that this part of the event was not micromanaged, I want to ensure you that I was pleasantly surprised. In my opinion, it shows the attitude that this Secretary has towards the soldiers he is sworn to represent. It shows those in uniform that he does not see us or our concerns as "below his level," but instead sends a signal that we are his concern, and ensuring we can accomplish the mission is his highest priority.

One more thing I would like to add is this, not one soldier present asked questions about why we were here, or expressed the sort of anti-war sentiment that Michael Moore led some to believe was prevalent in the military. Rather, the concern was about ensuring we would be supplied with all necessary equipment to accomplish the mission and return home safely. Let there be no doubt, this was not a hostile crowd eager to catch the Secretary of Defense off guard by grilling him with questions he has never had to answer. This was a group of truly admirable American's and patriots, receiving confirmation from the man who controls the Department of Defense, that we have the full fledged moral, financial and logistical support, to accomplish the mission.

[Daylight]

Don’t you guys know Rummy has the ability to bring Marines back to life and raise ships from their watery grave, and force the bad guys to stop fighting when he will’s it.

From before the invasion of Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...786992,00.html

[AtheistArchon]

Quote:

Or that shortages are a part of war.

I don't think it's possible to field an army if you wait until you have every last peice of equipment you want.

- That's true, but then again we're not talking about creature comforts or even MRE's. Urban combat in areas where vehicles are frequently targetted by mortars/RPGs need suitable armor, as do the troops themselves.

[Ladyhawk]

Quote:

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- Two things here. First, I don't think many of the Bush-admin folks actually ever expected troops to begin asking tough questions. Second, who here believes that Bush, Rummy, Condie, or any of the other 1st-term people actually thought we'd still be fighting a war in Iraq right now?

I agree with you, AA. I don't think it's an issue of money ....in fact, there was one guy on FOX news last night, (former Assistant Secretary of Defense, I believe?) who said that planning and production were the problems. We can't seem to get enough of the armored vehicles over there fast enough. And we've been over there how long now? Sounds like Donnie and Dubya never thought this would go as long as it has....

[hgc]

Fighting with the army you have rather than the army you want makes good sense when the war is thurst upon you. But when you fight the war you want, you should at least make sure you have the army you want.

[cbish]

Mr.Manifesto wrote:

Quote:

Rumsfeld dismissed his testimony out of hand. It obviously didn't match up with the figures, charts, and projections that he had that were more correct.

coupled with the fact that Rumsfeld's "rational thought" is deeply entrenched in a form of evangelicalism.

PBS's Frontline did a documentary in the late spring of '03 called Why We Went to War that showed the rift in the Bush administration: Powell & Rice not wanting to go to war; Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz on the other. One thing that was brought up was the deep 'evangelical' style of Rumsfeld et. al. Basically, it comes down to this;

I'm right, you're wrong. I have to save you. Let me save you, it's for your own good. You don't understand that I have to help you, even if I have to kill you, you'll thank me later.

[Eleatic Stranger]

Quote:

Or that shortages are a part of war.

I don't think it's possible to field an army if you wait until you have every last peice of equipment you want.

Let me see if I can reconstruct this as an actual point:
1. It's not possible to field an army if you wait until you have every last peice of equiment you want.
2. Therefore, it's similarly not possible to field an army if you wait till you have every last peice of equipment you need to insure reasonable safety for your troops.
3. Therefore... it's ok to field an army equipped only with boxer briefs and the occasional water balloon.

Got it. Good point there.

[RussDill]

And of course now its known that the questions did not come from actual concerns from soldiers, but a planted questions from a reporter.

I don't think there has been any army or any war that has included as much armor as we have in iraq now, both personel, and vehicle. We are sending as much more as we can everyday. Also, I'm not sure what the deal is about taking scapmetal, up-armoring your own vehicle in war with whatever you can find that has been discovered to work well is very common.

[Magyar]

[quote]Originally posted by RussDill
[b]And of course now its known that the questions did not come from actual concerns from soldiers, but a planted questions from a reporter.

OK, Let me get this straight - According to you this reporter bamboozzled this soldier to ask a question he didn't believe in in front of HIS superior officers who have the power to send him into dangerous situations (like take the point etc) and depending on how they viewed his question, possibly bring him up on charges for questioning a superior officer. All this for a left wing cunspiracy that he participated in to get shipped off to Iraq so that MYABE he might get to ask this question?

Do I have the jist of your conspiracy theory?

Oh and the other ( I don't know how many) soldiers that were there who all cheered and clapped, they were in on it too, right?

Oh and by the way the BS from Rummy about how they're doing everything possible to get the armor to the troops and how it's NOT a question of incompetence, lack of concern or money was SOUNDLY disputed by the sole company that makes the armor for the Humvees who came out today stating that
they could INCREASE production by 22% at a moments notice
WITHOUT any additional investment IF they received the orders for the equipment from the pentagon!

[crimresearch]

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill
And of course now its known that the questions did not come from actual concerns from soldiers, but a planted questions from a reporter.

I don't think there has been any army or any war that has included as much armor as we have in iraq now, both personel, and vehicle. We are sending as much more as we can everyday. Also, I'm not sure what the deal is about taking scapmetal, up-armoring your own vehicle in war with whatever you can find that has been discovered to work well is very common.

In any extended engagement, the less well equipped forces can find lo-tech ways to exploit vulnerabilities in the high-tech forces, and those troops from the high-tech army who want to survive, learn to cumshaw (a phrase with which keyboard commandos may be unfamiliar) improvised fixes for the vulnerability.


And troops have been griping at those little get togethers with the brass since time immemorial...the imbedded reporters is a relatively new touch, but when you tell enough GIs to speak up, sooner or later, one of them is going to ask questions like that.

[RussDill]

Quote:

Originally posted by Magyar

OK, Let me get this straight - According to you this reporter bamboozzled this soldier to ask a question he didn't believe in in front of HIS superior officers who have the power to send him into dangerous situations (like take the point etc) and depending on how they viewed his question, possibly bring him up on charges for questioning a superior officer. All this for a left wing cunspiracy that he participated in to get shipped off to Iraq so that MYABE he might get to ask this question?

Conspiracy? Bamboozled? The reported was embedded in their unit, he asked a friend to do a favor, he did it. These types of meetings where soldiers are encouraged to question their superiors have gone on for a long time, this is just the first time (that I'm aware of) that the press were allowed to attend.

Quote:

Do I have the jist of your conspiracy theory?

Yes, I'm an absolute crackpot, that's why I used my mind control rays to tell the reported to write a memo that shows that I'm right.

Quote:

Oh and the other ( I don't know how many) soldiers that were there who all cheered and clapped, they were in on it too, right?

Then why did it require prompting by a reporter to ask the question? I'm sure that the amount of armor on vehicles is a concern of all soldiers. I'm just pointing out that it is the media that has made it some kind of central issue.

Quote:

Oh and by the way the BS from Rummy about how they're doing everything possible to get the armor to the troops and how it's NOT a question of incompetence, lack of concern or money was SOUNDLY disputed by the sole company that makes the armor for the Humvees who came out today stating that
they could INCREASE production by 22% at a moments notice
WITHOUT any additional investment IF they received the orders for the equipment from the pentagon!

Thats great, but at what cost? Reduced armor kits for other vehicles?

[daredelvis]

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill
And of course now its known that the questions did not come from actual concerns from soldiers, but a planted questions from a reporter.

You have to back that statment up with a source.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
Or that shortages are a part of war.

What shortages????? This war has been going on for more than a year and a half. Other then money and gas prices there have been no shortages due to this war.... Oh... you were talking about the TROOPS having to deal with shortages.... That is another thing.

There has been no real sacrifice on the home front for this war other than that of the troops and their families. If we are going to ask others to die for what some people think is a just war there should be some sacrifices at home. There is not excuse for the government not taking the steps necessary to properly supply the troops (armored trucks and hummers) 21 months after this mess started! Look at what we were able to do in the 40s for Ed’s sake.

The only reason that these issues that have not been taken care of is that the people (idiots) that started this mess are not willing to spend the political capital to take care of the problems. By that I mean spending the money to start up new or expand existing assembly lines. That would be an admission that this war is a total mess. Instead these jack***es are starting up star wars again and planning more tax cuts.

I get too mad about all of this to be reasoned in any way.

Put a yellow ribbon on your car, that will make it all better.

Daredelvis

[Silicon]

A reporter from a right-wing news source, the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Owned by conservative Walter Hussman, and run by executive editor Tom Griscom, Reagan's communications director.


Put way the tinfoil hat, Rusdil. This isn't a vast left-wing conspiracy.




Here's my question, why do all those cheering troops hate America and want to embolden our enemies?

[RussDill]

Quote:

Originally posted by daredelvis
You have to back that statment up with a source.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcp.htm

[RussDill]

Quote:

Originally posted by Silicon
A reporter from a right-wing news source, the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Owned by conservative Walter Hussman, and run by executive editor Tom Griscom, Reagan's communications director.

Put way the tinfoil hat, Rusdil. This isn't a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Here's my question, why do all those cheering troops hate America and want to embolden our enemies?

What is this obsession with the conspiracy crap? I'm just saying that the troops don't have the same obsession with up armorment that the media does. As far as things the troops need, it seems to be all the media talks about. What about better intelligence, more UAV's, better incentive pay, improved situational awareness (CDA's, additional squad radios, etc).

BTW, are the CIA brain waves making you spell my name with no double letters, they really get my confused sometimes too.

[Silicon]

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill
What is this obsession with the conspiracy crap? I'm just saying that the troops don't have the same obsession with up armorment that the media does.

Which is why hundreds of troops hooted and cheered the question, because it wasn't very important to them?


Listen, the media are a-holes. But that doesn't mean the soldiers aren't pissed.

[daredelvis]

Quote:

Originally posted by Daredelvis
You have to back that statment up with a source.

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcp.htm

I will repeat... You have to back up that statment with a CREDIBLE source. I was originally going to flippantly suggest that Rush did not count as a source. I see you had to dig even deeper than that.

Daredelvis

[Regnad Kcin]

Quote:

Originally posted by daredelvis
The only reason that these issues that have not been taken care of is that the people (idiots) that started this mess are not willing to spend the political capital to take care of the problems. By that I mean spending the money to start up new or expand existing assembly lines. That would be an admission that this war is a total mess.

Yup.

Quote:

Instead these jack***es are starting up star wars again...

Really? My, my.

Quote:

...and planning more tax cuts.

Too much money in the kitty? Tax cuts. Too little money? Tax cuts. Ring-around-the-collar and the heartache of psoriasis? Tax cuts.

Quote:

I get too mad about all of this to be reasoned in any way.

Put a yellow ribbon on your car, that will make it all better.

Indeed.

[geni]

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill
[b]I don't think there has been any army or any war that has included as much armor as we have in iraq now, both personel, and vehicle. We are sending as much more as we can everyday.

During one battle during WW2 (kursk) the soviets depolyed 7,000 tanks. Around 35000 T34/76 tanks were produced between 1940 and 1944 although of course a consdirable number were lost. Around 30,000 T34/85s were produced. You sure you've got more armor? The soviets also had the IS series and varius other amored vehicles including something like 12,000 su-76s built.

Quote:

Also, I'm not sure what the deal is about taking scapmetal, up-armoring your own vehicle in war with whatever you can find that has been discovered to work well is very common.

Yes the italian army tried it back during world war 2. Didn't exactly work.

[Silicon]

I wouldn't argue armor with a guy who has a tank as his avatar.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill
What is this obsession with the conspiracy crap? I'm just saying that the troops don't have the same obsession with up armorment that the media does. As far as things the troops need, it seems to be all the media talks about. What about better intelligence, more UAV's, better incentive pay, improved situational awareness (CDA's, additional squad radios, etc).

Considering that IEDs (improvised explosive devices) are the leading cause of death and injury to coalition forces, I would expect the line soldiers to have a greater obsession with armor than the media does. Furthermore, I consider the cheering to be evidence of the concern(?) that the soldiers have about armor.

cite: First Infantry Division website

Better intelligence and better incentive pay are irrelevant if one stands a chance of being killed by an enemy that plants bombs near roads and buildings.

But I see your point. I, too, wish the media would point out how short the military is falling in these other areas also.

Quote:

BTW, are the CIA brain waves making you spell my name with no double letters, they really get my confused sometimes too.

Here we agree. All posters should put the effort into spelling names correctly. If it was a deliberate mispelling, then I chastize the poster.

[Zep]

I believe a follow-up comment came from Spc. Wilson's CO, who actually backed up Wilson's situational assessment, and didn't move to reprimand him (at least, not in public). That is, he provided tacit agreement and thus support for his men. Perhaps this will filter through to the higher echelons, who knows. But I reckon Wilson's unit at least will have its armour pretty darn soon.

I'm sure the soldiers here on this forum will confirm that modern weapons can hit hard, accurately and over long distances. And they can be unconventional too. If your enemy can see you, he can hit you. So it makes sense if you are going to put yourself in his sights to have as much protection as you can get. Otherwise you are simply target practice, and a bad-ass news item looking for somewhere to happen. The USA is spending $85+ billion on this Iraq expedition this year, so a million or so more on vehicle armour and the like is but a tiny extra drop in this great big ocean.

My sympathies rest with the soldiers in this - regardless of the reasons they are there, if they are going to go into action, at least give them a fighting chance.

[cbish]

RussDill wrote:

Quote:

I'm just saying that the troops don't have the same obsession with up armorment that the media does.

Wasn't there a group of soldiers that refused their assignment (and were disciplined) to transport material because they felt unsafe due to poor armorment?

That's where your "obsession" came from. The soldiers brought it up, not the press.

I'm afraid, Russ, you're losing the argument on both threads.

[Mr Manifesto]

RussDill is no stranger to losing arguments.

[Ranb]

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill
And of course now its known that the questions did not come from actual concerns from soldiers, but a planted questions from a reporter.........

I think you are really putting your foot in your mouth here. I have no problem believing that a reporter got a soldier to ask the question for him. I find it harder to believe a soldier would ask a potentially inflammatory question in public to one of his higher-ranking superiors if he were not also concerned about the lack of armored vehicles. If I was still in the service and getting shot at, I would want "state of the art" everything, if it was available in sufficient quantities.

You have a source that says the soldier was not actually concerned about the lack of armored humvees?

Ranb

[BPSCG]

Apropos of, well, almost nothing.

During the American Civil War, Union General George McClellan was notorious for delaying combat until every last "i" was dotted and "t" crossed. It exasperated Lincoln no end, prompting him to refer to the Army of the Potomac as "McClellan's private bodyguard" (or somesuch). At one point, when Lincoln pressed him to engage Lee, McClellan replied that his horses were greatly fatigued. Lincoln telegraphed back, "Pardon me for inquiring what the horses have done recently that would fatigue anything."

Lincoln finally fired McClellan. He had to cast about for a time before finally finding Grant, who was less concerned about whether everything was in place before attacking Lee than doing what he'd been hired for, which was to destroy Lee's army.

Yes, armor for vehicles is important. Should we have waited to attack Iraq until, like McClellan, we had dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" and the horses were all well-rested? Should we have waited until we had achieved the unattainable 100% perfection in our equipment? Or should we have gone in when we knew we had overwhelming force anyway?

Those of you who would argue we had no reason to liberate Iraq in the first place need not answer.

[Leif Roar]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Yes, armor for vehicles is important. Should we have waited to attack Iraq until, like McClellan, we had dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" and the horses were all well-rested? Should we have waited until we had achieved the unattainable 100% perfection in our equipment? Or should we have gone in when we knew we had overwhelming force anyway?

That's not really a fair question, though, as nobody has said that everything should be perfect. Nobody has asked "has everything been done" but rather if "has enough been done."

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Leif Roar
That's not really a fair question, though, as nobody has said that everything should be perfect. Nobody has asked "has everything been done" but rather if "has enough been done."

Enough for what?

[Leif Roar]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Enough for what?

Enough to be able to say that the leaders and planners have done a good job instead of a bad job in conducting war and keeping their men alive.

[AtheistArchon]

Quote:

Should we have waited to attack Iraq until, like McClellan, we had dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" and the horses were all well-rested?

- Is that a trick question?

Quote:

Those of you who would argue we had no reason to liberate Iraq in the first place need not answer.

- Aha, I see it was not. It's good to see the bigger picture isn't lost on you, even if you care not to address it here.

- As for the preparedness of soldiers: body armor and vehicle plating isn't above and beyond our capability to mass produce. As I said above, it's not like waiting for creature comforts. This also isn't a war being fought within our domain or to defend U.S. territory - we have the luxury, with the exception of a few movements and battles here and there - of being able to strike when we are best prepared to do so (corresponding with the Powell Doctrine, coincidentally).

- It boils down to this:

1. Body armor saves lives.
2. The U.S. being what it is, there is just no reason to go to war without it.
3. We're at war without it.
4. Why? Did we outsource it to India?

[BPSCG]

Quote:

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Enough to be able to say that the leaders and planners have done a good job instead of a bad job in conducting war and keeping their men alive.

Our armed forces overthrew Saddam in three weeks and have since occupied the country against a guerilla force while simultaneously trying to train the locals to defend themselves from those guerillas. At a cost of, in about two years, roughly a thousand U.S. soldiers killed. I think even George McClellan would have considered those to be exceptionally light casualties.

Again, I think you're demanding we sacrifice attainable excellence to the cause of unattainable perfection.

[Leif Roar]

Quote:

Originally posted by BPSCG
Again, I think you're demanding we sacrifice attainable excellence to the cause of unattainable perfection.

I'm not demanding anything - I'm just saying that the original question is valid, and doesn't necessarily constitute a pointless "search for perfection."