War On the Cheap

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

I'm surprised that this topic hasn't shown up on this august forum.
"60 Minutes" did a segment on an Oregon National Guard Unit that has had to operate without the necessary vehichal armor to defend against roadside bombs. At present they reinforce the sides of their Humvees with sheets of plywood with sandbags in between. They are in line to get the newer safer models but will probably not receive any until next March. The general in command admitted that the criticisms were true and said that improving the situation was beyond his capability.
It seems the folks in charge of the war were looking at a walk-over campaign and discounted the possibility that suicide bombers and other insurgents could upset their dreamy prognostications.
The reason for the lack of reinforced humvees, platoon level radios (the troops buy theirs from Radio Shack),spare parts for trucks ,helicopters and a lot of other wartime necessities is not because John Kerry voted against the appropriation. The appropriation was passed by both houses of Congress. A Republican run Congress. And the bill was happily signed by our wartime C in C, George Bush.
But the bill was full of pork that transfered billions from war fighting accounts to tree-snake eradication in Florida and similar world shaking imperatives.
Too bad the troops in the field didn't get to see this unhappy TV essay before they cast their absentee ballots. But then, they may already know the extent of the mess they've been thrown into.
'Ten hut!
Charlie

[George.]

War on the cheap is the only kind that made sense for the Iraq (mis)adventure. No one had any doubt that if it devoted all its resources the US could conquer and remake Iraq. What the Neocons wanted to prove was that the US could do it with an arm tied behind its back - without overtaxing its economy, resorting to a draft, or weakening its commitments elsewhere.

Of course, what they ended up proving is that the Powell doctrine was right...

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Oh, George! The Neocons are going to pummel you around the head and shoulders for suggesting that HE-WHO-CANNOT-BE-NAMED is anything but a reincarnation of Joshuah/Alexander/Sulieman/whoever.
Charlie

[High C]

CBS 60 Minutes?

War on the Cheap?

Spending too much on the war?

You guys should get your story straight.

60 Minutes?

[George.]

Originally posted by Cuyahoga Chuck:
Oh, George! The Neocons are going to pummel you around the head ...

That's OK, I have a thick skull.

[Meerkat]

I think the neocons are about to reach their "sell by" date!

[Bob Smalser]

The reason for the lack of reinforced humvees, platoon level radios (the troops buy theirs from Radio Shack),spare parts for trucks ,helicopters and a lot of other wartime necessities is not because John Kerry voted against the appropriation.

Blame the Army and Marine Corps for not having armor on transport vehicles or inadequate spare parts stockages....not Congress.

None of this is anything new.

Armor on utility and cargo vehicles was always limited to gun jeeps and other combat applications....and it didn't pass the Service common sense test to do all of them that way. Cobbling together additional protection by sandbagging the floors and bolting on steel plates isn't anything new, either.

[Shang]

As I've mentioned before, I teach at a women's college. Ten former students from the school are in the service, several in Iraq. I've been corresponding with one of my best student photographers, who is stationed near Bagdad.

This morning there was a huge send-off rally in the college auditorium for the local National Guard unit which is shipping out today.
For Pete'sake...most of them are kids just out of high school!

[John of Phoenix]

I saw that piece. That General looked like he wanted to cry. Or puke. Maybe both.

McCain's comments were telling. "I don't think that this war has truly come home to the Congress of the United States," McCain says. "This is the first time in history that we've cut taxes during a war. So I think that a lot of members of Congress feel that this is just sort of a business-as-usual situation."

When I was in Vietnam, we had so many spare parts in my unit that we had to give a ton of stuff away just before an inspection. That, or some of the supply guys would have gone to the stockade for grand theft. Back stateside in the '80's, my unit had to borrow toilet paper for the barracks and hydraulic fluid for the helicopters, but that wasn't during a war.

[NormMessinger]

I have a grand nephew in Iraq who's units job is to add armer to humvees. I suppose that reinforces the lies 60-minutes if foisting on us liberals. So what is the truth about this HighC. What is you source the disproves them?

[Meerkat]

You should have seen the 60 Minutes piece Bob. Operational and maintence funds are being diverted to congressional pork projects.

Also, even the factory armoured Hummers that are beginning to show up do not have floor armour. This is a failure to honor the new threat of improvised explosive devices going off under the vehicles.

Everybody talks about the new face of war (suspect in it's own right), but nobody seems to be updating equipment to fight it (this is not unusual - most militaries prepare to re-fight the last war, not the next one).

[paladin]

over a thousand armored hummers have left pennsylvania in the past few months...I dunno where they izz going but it is expected that another 1000 plus will be run through in the next few months. The bottoms and sides are farmed out...the group that I am associated with does the transparent armor....and jammers...

[High C]

Originally posted by NormMessinger:
So what is the truth about this HighC. What is you source the disproves them?

I have made no claim about this story at all. I'm just surprised that anyone watches 60 Minutes any more, much less considers it a news source.

It's rather like quoting the National Enquirer. Expect people to laugh.

[cs]

Sand bags, improvised armour, and radios from Radio Shack are nothing new. I have even had classes in adding sand bags to HMMWV.

As alluded to above a highly armoured vehicle is limited in what it can or can't do. I've never liked the HMMWV as a convoy escort vehicle.

When I ran convoys in the Air Force we used a vehicle called a PeaceKeeper.



This is a 1-1/4 ton Dodge frame with a armoured body by Cadillac. Powered by a carbourated 318. While they said it could stop a 7.62 it was worth a flip on hilly terian or off road or on hot days (tend to vapor lock).

Disadvatnges to armoured vehicles is weight and the ability to keep cool. All the armour doesn't allow a good circulation of air, thus the reason the would always vapor lock. I have heard folks call the Peacekeeper the North Dakota national monument, because you always would see one broken down on the side of the road in ND.

Chad

[George.]

Sand bags and improvisation is an ordinary feature of War.

Too few troops and money for the job is an ordinary feature of Defeat.

The issue is not that a lot of soldiers are having to use improvisation and good old American ingenuity to protect themselves and their vehicles. It is that there were not enough soldiers to begin with, and not enough money to end with. It is that the neocons wanted to prove that America is so strong it can kick a country's ass and then remake it in its own image without feeling the load, and ended up proving that America still needs allies, but alienated them all.

[Bob Smalser]

My point is that it's simply got nothing to do with either Simpering Chimps or Jane Fonda ThinkAlikes.

Just telling you how it all works....takes years to make a procurement, and all those decisions that have a negative impact now were made 5 or more years ago based on a different, more conventional war scenario.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Bob, if you know, how come Rummy & Co. don't know?
If I'm not mistaken the US spends big money to teach our military bigwigs an important science called LOGISTICS.
More than one good general has postponed a campaign because he knew his guys couldn't be "fustest with the mostest".
I think Rummy & Co. intentionally overlooked a lot of sage advice including the first rule of warfare; "every battle need not be fought".
Charlie

[JimBob]

[LeeG]

Bob,,you're working from reality,,this is a reality free zone.

CS..makes sense that there would be compromises armouring a vehicle that's not originally designed for it.

[LeeG]

how about one of these?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/asv-pics.htm

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by Cuyahoga Chuck:

If I'm not mistaken the US spends big money to teach our military bigwigs an important science called LOGISTICS.

The principle problem was/is trying to do it on the cheap....the planning assumptions called for 6 months, not 24 months, of combat.

Powell as SecDef woulda put 500,000 troops in there after a year-long buildup. We'da attacked last summer (and after the UN dance was done)...not the summer before. I know his thinking well, and can probably recreate all his arguments within last year's inner circle.

Rumsfeld is a modernist who rejects most conservative military planning estimates in favor of lightning-fast cutting-edge hi-tech stuff. He had a valid case, as all that worked well in Afghanistan, and his success there probably beat down Powell's more traditional argument.

But it didn't come off as anyone expected. I suspected one if not two of the southern Iraqi corps would be turned ala The Northern Alliance to come over to our side...if not to actively join us, to sit tight and intact for the reconstruction and border work. And frankly, I still believe the right guys up there at the right time coulda pulled that off. That woulda doubled the coalition troop strength for the reconstruction. Same coulda been done in the north, with more help from Turkey....but I don't know the north like I know the south.

But as it was, the borders weren't sealed because there weren't the troops to do it, allowing every militant from anywhere in to join the resistance. That, plus not having enuf troops to aggressively root out and totally crush the initial resistance a year ago just encouraged more resistance.

Now we have shot our bolt. No real reserves left and we are probably way past consumption outpacing our existing war stocks. The contractors and defense industries are working unbelievable hours, I'm sure. Having shot your bolt means the kids over there having problems are the lowest priority units on the totem pole...

...yeah, I know...but everybody can't enjoy first priority and those late-deploying Guard and Reserve outfits rushed over there without the training I'd like to see are where the discipline problems...like Abbu Graib Prison...and the logistics problems...mostly are.

Bottom line is IMO, we have to crank it all up a few notches and get enough trained people in there to get the job done.

But there are no more trained people..so all that has to be cranked up by pulling back retired and inactive reserve, a massive recruiting and defense industry effort, and splitting many stateside units in half so as to make two units using fillers. We have a plan for that.

And yeah...I know that, too....but while these resistance groups may have the courage of the north Vietnamese, but they don't have the logistics or the massive and unhindered Soviet and Chinese support needed to sustain the fight. Once Saddam's old stockpiles are gone, however large, there won't be any more.

[ 11-01-2004, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[John of Phoenix]

Rumsfeld is a modernist who rejects most conservative military planning estimates in favor of lightning-fast cutting-edge hi-tech stuff. He had a valid case, as all that worked well in Afghanistan, and his success there probably beat down Powell's more traditional argument.

Colonel S., you were there. How did a General with Powell's experience, get so shut down by Rumsfeld?

[TimH]

Originally posted by LeeG:
how about one of these?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/g round/asv-pics.htm

I wonder what keeps those tires from popping

[LeeG]

John, I wonder if it's because Powell is outside of the circle that guides GW. Who appointed Armitage,,was that Powell or GW?

[High C]

Originally posted by Bob Smalser:
..But there are no more trained people...

Bob, whenever I hear the complaint that we didn't have enough troops, i think of what you've said here. I know that the number of active duty troops was cut n the 90s, and you say yourself that there are no more trained people. So didn't we pretty much use all that we had? So many reserve and guard units deployed. It doesn't look to me like we did this on the cheap, in terms of numbers of troops.

What am I missing?

[LeeG]

[quote]Originally posted by High C:

What am I missing?

Careful High,,once you start asking questions you might get answers.

"The principle problem was/is trying to do it on the cheap....the planning assumptions called for 6 months, not 24 months, of combat"

this is where you can chose to enter faith based or reality based analysis.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...070804,00.html

[ 11-01-2004, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

[Bob Smalser]

What am I missing?

I'd hoped to have this long behind me and not so known, as I'm suprisingly happy in my second life, and this stuff ain't good for my blood pressure any more....but here goes:

Personnel numbers are meaningless because treaties, etc required many overseas HQ's to remain in place even tho all their teeth were removed.

In the late '80's we had 20 Regular Army Combat Divisions ready to go to war on between 18 hours and 7 day's notice. Also 10 ARNG Divisions on a 6-12 month or so string, along with a division-equivalent or so of combat units and the bulk of the Theater Army support units in the Army Reserve, also on a long string.

By 1992, that combat power was down to less than 10 divisions of Regulars (at one time I know 6 was discussed, and compared the old divisions, today's number in 1989 terms is probably closer to 8 than 10), and little change in the reserves.

The Marine Corps has stayed at 3 Division-equivalents Regular and one Reserve, throughout.

There are how many Division-equivalents in Iraq now, including the Marines...maybe 3? Think what 10 divisions there could do, with another 10 gearing up elsewhere to relieve them.

How did a General with Powell's experience, get so shut down by Rumsfeld?

Dunno...."there" for me was the last war, not this one.

But Rumsfeld is a smart, cutting-edge, risk-taking guy looking toward the future of the miltary in the 21st Century with flashes of brilliance...and pulled it off superbly in Afghanistan when most of us would have gone a bit slower there, too.

But "risk-taking" means exactly that.....whether your resume is complimented or you are shot at sunrise depends on your success....or lack of it...

...and I'll offer Rumsfeld a blindfold and his last cigarette tomorrow morning if asked, as batting .500 as an infantryman as opposed to a cabinet secretary meant you were long, long dead.

But even then I'd have to wait in a long, long line of guys who outrank me. You think Crowe, Clark, Zinni, et al voted Democratic very often in their lives? Hell, for those guys to publically support a slimeball like Kerry tells me just how much they must hate Rumsfeld.

[ 11-01-2004, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[LeeG]

http://www.active-duty.com/MI_Korea_...sfer062904.htm

[LeeG]

Bob, is the deployment of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment a significant indicator of the Army being stretched?

[Bob Smalser]

One Brigade.

Reading my numbers above, you need to understand that those 10+ missing Cold War Divisions had a minimum of 3 or 4 brigades each.

11ACR?

No. Normal cavalry compliment to an Army Corps...and we curently have one corps in Iraq.

[ 11-01-2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[LeeG]

HighC, you aren't missing anything that hasn't been said. There are assumptions that can make a 6mo war seem plausible,,or a 24mo. war seem plausible.
If you don't allow the assumptions behind a 36mo war to be considered you solve a lot of problems.
Cheer leading speeches saying the glass is half full doesn't help much if you need a quart and your cup holds a pint.

[LeeG]

I read somewhere that the Blackhorse Regiments deployment is significant because they train soldiers. I'll look around for it.

[High C]

Bob, thanks for that. Having no military experience of my own, I find the terminology hard to understand, and still don't see how we could be both "out of trained people", and sent too few to Iraq. I certainly do understand that we are spread thin accross the world. Perhaps it's time to shut down a few of those operations at long last.

Lee, I have no idea what you're trying to say...oh never mind... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[LeeG]

HighC, getting 'blond' all of a sudden?

the key word Bob gave was "assumptions".

Is this understandable ?

[ 11-01-2004, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

[LeeG]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bob Smalser:
..But there are no more trained people...

Bob, whenever I hear the complaint ......What am I missing?</font>[/QUOTE]At this late stage in the game you need to characterize the manner of the description of low troop levels as a complaint.
If you need 20lbs of nails to build a fence and I hand you 10lbs is it a complaint to say "I need 10lbs more to finish the job" or simply a statement of fact that it takes 10more pounds to finish the job?
To acknowledge that the troop levels were too low to secure the country would be to aknowledge that Rumsfield/Wolfowitz's assumptions were incorrect,,OR that given the other intel/analysis at the time Rumsfield and gang willfully chose to plan using best case scenario.
GWs presidency was worth the risk,,turning Iraq into another Lebanon was worth the risk,,all that mattered is that they got in,,let the details sort themselves out.
GW has faith.

[George.]

[quote]Originally posted by Bob Smalser:

Rumsfeld is a modernist who rejects most conservative military planning estimates in favor of lightning-fast cutting-edge hi-tech stuff. He had a valid case, as all that worked well in Afghanistan, ...

Worked well in Afghanistan? It managed to overthrow the weakest government on the planet, but it failed to secure the country - to this day Afghanistan is not secured and has an insurgency going on. Hell, even the Taliban are still around in the hills, launching occasional attacks. It seems to me that Afghanistan is just more proof of Rumsfeld's incompetence.

Your description of Rummy reminds me of Hitler - he too was a risk taker who overruled his conservative generals and launched bold and swift campaigns using "lightning-fast cutting-edge hi-tech stuff." It looked like it was working, too - until Stalingrad.

[JimBob]

Hitler.....

Keep the insurgents coming to Iraq....thank you!

Kerry is a slime ball.....I don't know how anyone that served in the military can cast a vote for him. Frankly, I don't know how anyone who served or NOT could cast a vote for him. I'm embarrassed at the lack of understanding about Kerry. [img]redface.gif[/img]

In roughly 14 HOURS (not days, or weeks) he won't be heard from on anything of importance again, like the last 20 years he spent in the Senate.....his last media covered event will be when he congratulates W.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Just don't forget to vote, tomorrow, Jim Bob.

[George.]

Hey Stan, guess what? Your vote is totally irrelevant.

Bush will carry Texas no matter who you vote for, and will not get any extra electoral votes thanks to your little vote. Your vote will not serve to counterbalance Kerry's votes in one of the disputed states.

So you might as well stay home and brood about your silly little indirect election system.

[ 11-02-2004, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: George. ]

[JimBob]

I know, silly little indirect electoral system, that the world is watching.

You know some dictators are hoping Kerry wins. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Russell Sova]

When I want the truth I watch 60 minutes.

[George.]

When I want the truth I listen to Bush.

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by George.:
Worked well in Afghanistan? It managed to overthrow the weakest government on the planet, but it failed to secure the country - to this day Afghanistan is not secured and has an insurgency going on. Hell, even the Taliban are still around in the hills, launching occasional attacks. It seems to me that Afghanistan is just more proof of Rumsfeld's incompetence.

Your description of Rummy reminds me of Hitler - he too was a risk taker who overruled his conservative generals and launched bold and swift campaigns using "lightning-fast cutting-edge hi-tech stuff." It looked like it was working, too - until Stalingrad.

As if you knew diddly squat about any of it.

Enjoy your opinion. Bye.

[ 11-02-2004, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[LeeG]

which dictators JimBobob? I betcha most of our dictator allies would prefer GW, regarding our favorite terrist GW is preferable as the war in Iraq confirms OBLs prognostications to his followers.

[George.]

Originally posted by Bob Smalser:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by George.:
Worked well in Afghanistan? It managed to overthrow the weakest government on the planet, but it failed to secure the country - to this day Afghanistan is not secured and has an insurgency going on. Hell, even the Taliban are still around in the hills, launching occasional attacks. It seems to me that Afghanistan is just more proof of Rumsfeld's incompetence.

Your description of Rummy reminds me of Hitler - he too was a risk taker who overruled his conservative generals and launched bold and swift campaigns using "lightning-fast cutting-edge hi-tech stuff." It looked like it was working, too - until Stalingrad.

As if you knew diddly squat about any of it.

Enjoy your opinion. Bye.</font>[/QUOTE]

What's your problem, Bob? Ran out of valid arguments?

[High C]

Originally posted by LeeG:
HighC, getting 'blond' all of a sudden?
...Is this understandable ?

No, Lee, it's not. Almost nothing you write is understandable. Take a poll of the membership here. You're a mosquito, buzzing away mindlessly with snippets, soundbites, and run-on sentences.

If you're going to insult everyone who doesn't understand you, you're going to isolate yourself almost totally.

I'm sorry to pick on you, Lee. You're one of the good guys here, but you really shouldn't be surprised or get so exasperated when someone doesn't understand you. One does not have to be a blond dingbat to have trouble deciphering your writing.

And I was asking Bob....

[LeeG]

High,,you too are one of the good guys around here.
Bob answered your question as to why "people are complaining",,,the keyword as to why there aren't enough troops in Iraq are the assumptions made by Rumsfield/Wolfowitz and our president who doesn't need to think about the tasks below his level.
It's worth looking at because GW is the one responsible for acting on those assumptions.
Just as I would be responsible for starting a boat construction without adequate funds or planning.

[High C]

Originally posted by LeeG:
...Bob answered your question as to why "people are complaining",,,the keyword as to why there aren't enough troops in Iraq are the assumptions made by Rumsfield/Wolfowitz and our president....

Thanks, but I still haven't heard this squared with Bob's comment that "we are out of trained personnel". That's my question, how could we have sent more, if we are out? Do we have hundreds of thousands of trained and ready troops who were not sent?

[cs]

I think what Bob is refering to is the fact that were are sending National Guard and Reserve troops and that we don't have that many active duty guys to send. He is showing his active duty roots and not beleiving that NG and Reserve troops have the proper training. Not faulting Bob on this, all active duty guys think that us NG guys don't know what we are doing. This is a common misconception.

True we don't have as much time and resources to train like active duty guys, but we make up for it in intesity of training. As an artillery unit in the Guard we have proven time and time again that we can outshoot regular army. Where active duty has the advantage is that they have more time to train on other task (ie convoy and checkpoints), but do they spend this time training?

The 278th Armoured Calvary Regiment is a guard unit from the state of TN that has been activated for duty in Iraq. Instead of loading up and heading over right away, they are spending a few months training up in the specific task that are needed in Iraq. These task are specific to Iraq and no unit (active or guard) is sufficiantly trained in these task. Each and every day the army re-writes its doctorine on the task being performed in Iraq. We are learning by experiance.

Chad

[High C]

Thanks Chad, that's very helpful.