| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/17 |
| 2005/6/21-22 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:38216 Activity:moderate |
6/21 Boy, it's a good thing Bush knows how to support the troops!
"Marine Units Found To Lack Equipment"
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/06/21/marine_units_found_to_lack_equipment
\_ I'm glad you rely on the fourth estate for all your military
information. You'll make a fine draftee because you buy into
the lies much easier than way. Don't let reality get in the
way and believe that under a Republican President the military
has more supplies and more of what they want.
\_ Yeah, it pisses me off when the press goes to people who know
nothing about the situation for their information. I mean,
c'mon.. The Marine Corps Inspector General... What a liar.
\_ So you think missing Humvees and tanks that don't work while
hundreds of billions are siphoned from the taxpayers wallets
is normal and acceptable?
\_ Um.. there's a war going on. But even before that, ask
any soldier serving under Clinton, things were scarce.
\_ How many soldiers were killed in their un-armored
humvees by roadside bombs under Clinton?
\_ How many engagements did Clinton start w/o UN
approval also? Don't know? Ever wonder?
Your argument is like gun control. Blame anyone
else but the crook.
\_ Other than kosovo? dunno.
\_ Bush has gotten every cent he's asked for on Iraq.
It doesn't take 5 yrs to backorder flak jackets
and humvees. Hell, it doesn't even take 2 years.
If supplies were low at the start of the war, why
not send up an appropriations bill to pay for them?
Don't pass the buck. It stops @ Bush.
\_ Actually, it's probably more accurate to say it
stops at Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is the highest up
guy who is a believer in the 'leaner military.'
I would be interested if anybody did any homework
on WHY on earth there would be shortages in the
military. It might well not be a money issue at
all. Blaming Bush might be satisfying, but it
doesn't really explain anything. -- ilyas
\_ Didn't we already have this discussion? The
suppliers of vehicle armor came out after
Rumsfeld said they were producing armor at
full capacity and said "Uh, no. We could
boost output if the Pentagon ordered it."
They tried to do this on the cheap and have
failed because of it. In WWII domestic car
sales were stopped so the factories could be
repurposed to provide new war vehicles.
Have we been asked to sacrifice? At all?
No. We were told to go out and shop.
They don't want us to notice that there's a
war.
\_ So I don't understand. The
\_ This article does not imply the shortages
the Marines are experiencing has anything
to do with fundamental industrial capacity
issues, but with poor planning regarding
replacements. Is there actually an
insufficient production problem, or a money
problem? -- ilyas
\_ Sorry, I sort of talked against myself
there. I believe it's poor planning,
period. I don't think it's a production
capacity problem, and for money, Congress
has been more than willing to loosen the
purse strings. I think it's the civilian
authority not listening to their military
which I think stems from political
concerns.
\_ I agree that it's a poor planning
problem, and I am interested to learn
where the problem actually lies.
I wouldn't be surprised if a part of
it was just large bureaucracy overhead
the military always seems to incur.
I think the military just has the
same kinds of horrendous inefficiency
issues which plague NASA, for much the
same reasons. I am not sure if this
can explain all shortages though.
I would be interested if there was,
indeed, the tradeoff between sacrifices
the civilian population makes and
sufficient stuff for the military.
I am guessing not -- the US isn't
that poorly off. -- ilyas
\_ But it's all systemic. I think
the administration under-requested
because they're trying to keep the
costs low. I think they're trying
to have their cake and eat it too,
what with taxcuts in wartime and
big pushes of war dollars to
private contractors. If the war
had been necessary, we could have
accomplished it without going
far deeper into debt, by asking
the people to tighten their belts
for the good of the nation. Instead
we're heading for a point where we
can only afford paying interest
on our debt.
I wouldn't be surprised at the
level of inefficiency in the
military. But I think looking at
the troops as a bottom-line item
that can be squeezed is disgusting.
\_ As I said, I am not at all sure
this is a real tradeoff (troop
supply vs belt-squeezing). We
aren't Russia, we have mind
boggling industrial capacity.
-- ilyas
\_ What do you suspect is the
problem then?
\_ I think the real problem
is inefficiency and
corruption, not any
particular conscious
evil ploy. -- ilyas
\_ What would you say
to a Truman-like
commission
\_ Creating oversight
is good, but I would
be more interested
in what is it about
the military
structure that caused
this sort of thing
to happen.
Commissions might be
a good short term
solution, but I am
more interested in
building a government
robust to corruption
and inefficinecy
is good. -- ilyas
\_ You're correct, but what pp
is saying is that it's a
politically motivated trade-
off, not an economically
motivated one. -!pp
\_ So we agree there's a planning problem.
That makes it Rumsfeld's problem. I hold
the view that Bush should be held
accountable for poor planning that's
been ongoing for 2 years.
which I think stems from political
concerns.
been ongoing for 2 years. -!pp
\_ Bush? Naw! He's a good guy. He can't
help it if some hardworking Americans
under him make mistakes now and again.
What's important is that they're good
people working hard for America.
\_ You can blame Bush for almost
any given thing that went wrong
during his tenure, and be right.
But, again, it's not a helpful
thing to point out because you don't
explain any particular failure --
usually a complex affair. -- ilyas
\_ Bush changed 80% of his cabinet for his
second term. He declined to change Rumsfeld.
You're argument is like blaming the Director
of IT for a 5 year IT systems debacle while
exculpating the CEO.
\_ Nice diversion. Now let's talk about "support the troops"
Bush. -tom
\_ God, that was classic Bushie: if you haven't got a point,
blame Clinton. |
| 5/17 |
|
| www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/06/21/marine_units_found_to_lack_equipment -> www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/06/21/marine_units_found_to_lack_equipment/ The Boston Globe Marine units found to lack equipment Corps estimates of needs in Iraq are called faulty By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | June 21, 2005 WASHINGTON -- Marine Corps units fighting in some of the most dangerous t errain in Iraq don't have enough weapons, communications gear, or proper ly outfitted vehicles, according to an investigation by the Marine Corps ' inspector general provided to Congress yesterday. The report, obtained by the Globe, says the estimated 30,000 Marines in I raq need twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to operate in a region the s ize of Utah. The Marine Corps leadership has ''understated" the amount and types of gr ound equipment it needs, according to the investigation, concluding that all of its fighting units in Iraq ''require ground equipment that excee ds" their current supplies, ''particularly in mobility, engineering, com munications, and heavy weapons." Complaints of equipment shortages in Iraq, including lack of adequate veh icle armor, have plagued the Pentagon for months, but most of the report ed shortages have been found in the Army, which makes up the bulk of the American occupation force. The analysis of the Marines' battle readiness, however, shows that the Co rps is lacking key equipment needed to stabilize Al Anbar province in we stern Iraq. The province is where some of the bloodiest fighting has occ urred in recent months between American-led coalition forces and Iraqi i nsurgents aided by foreign fighters who have slipped across the border. Marine Corps forces and newly trained Iraqi soldiers battled insurgents i n Al Anbar province for the fourth straight day yesterday as part of Ope ration Spear, launched last week along the Syrian border. The Marine Corps' mission, among the most difficult of the 140,000 Americ an troops in Iraq, is to help stabilize a huge swath of Iraq where popul ar support for the insurgency is highest and where more sophisticated en emy tactics have been introduced, including larger and more effective im provised explosive devices, the roadside bombs that are the single bigge st killer of American troops in Iraq. But the report says that about a quarter of the Second Marine Expeditiona ry Force's Humvees lack sufficient armor to protect troops against roads ide bombings, including 1,000 vehicles that have yet to be fitted with a rmor plates to protect the undercarriage. The report also says that if the current demands in Iraq continue, the Co rps will need another 650 Humvees, which have been logging an average of 480 miles a month, mostly over rough terrain. And despite an agreement with the Army to repair broken vehicles at a maintenance facility in Kuw ait, the Marine Corps had not scheduled any repairs as of last month. Meanwhile, those Humvees that have received full armor -- which the repor t says have significantly improved the safety of troops -- are suffering excessive wear and tear because they were never designed to carry the a dditional weight. The report also found that Abrams tanks and other combat vehicles are bei ng so overused that replacements are needed quickly. It found that all o f the Marines' battle tanks in Iraq have passed the normal criteria for replacing them. The units also need more M240G machine guns, a heavy gun used in battle, and more of the lighter MK19 machine guns, used at checkpoints to thwart insurgent attacks. The Marine Expeditionary Force head quarters, known as Multinational Forces-West, ''has command responsibili ties that far exceed any level contemplated by organizational and equipm ent planners," the report said. Radio and satellite tracking systems are ''in critical demand and constant use." After interviewing commanders, staff members, and unit leaders, the inspe ctor general's office concluded that the Marine Corps' current strategy to meet its communications needs in Iraq ''is not sufficient to meet the current and future needs of the force." The inspector general also determined that even with recommended changes, including replacing damaged armaments, the war will continue to take a toll on the Marine Corps' equipment, from having nearly all of its fight ing gear ready for combat this year to having less than two-thirds of it in battle shape by the middle of 2008. The Marine Corps' equipment shortages are expected to be the focus of a H ouse Armed Services Committee hearing today, where lawmakers will hear t estimony from General William Nyland, the assistant commandant of the Ma rine Corps and Major General William Catto, commander of the Marine Corp s Systems Command. Officials at Marine Corps headquarters and the Systems Command declined t o comment on the inspector general's report, saying they were not yet fa miliar enough with its findings to respond to questions. |