AP Scoop: 'Gross Mismanagement' Killed Marines

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: Editor&Publisher/AP

By Richard Lardner, The Associated Press
Published: February 16, 2008 8:45 AM ET

WASHINGTON Hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps bureaucrats refused an urgent request in 2005 from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, an internal military study concludes. The study, written by a civilian Marine Corps official and obtained by The Associated Press, accuses the service of "gross mismanagement" that delayed deliveries of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks for more than two years.

Cost was a driving factor in the decision to turn down the request for the so-called MRAPs, according to the study. Stateside authorities saw the hulking vehicles, which can cost as much as a $1 million each, as a financial threat to programs aimed at developing lighter vehicles that were years from being fielded.

After Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared the MRAP (pronounced M-rap) the Pentagon's No. 1 acquisition priority in May 2007, the trucks began to be shipped to Iraq in large quantities.

The vehicles weigh as much as 40 tons and have been effective at protecting American forces from improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the weapon of choice for Iraqi insurgents. Only four U.S. troops have been killed by such bombs while riding in MRAPs; three of those deaths occurred in older versions of the vehicles.

The study's author, Franz J. Gayl, catalogs what he says were flawed decisions and missteps by midlevel managers in Marine Corps offices that occurred well before Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld in December 2006....

Read more: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003711909

[Hekate]

1. "Cost was the driving factor"?! COST?! @#$!%^&*@#!

:cry:

Hekate

[DeepModem Mom]

2. I know -- I couldn't believe what I was posting. Where the hell are the billions going???

On second thought, I think we have an idea where they go.

[barbtries]

17. profiteers

corrupt motherfucking homicidal greedy bastard bushies

[Auntie Bush]

72. Can't buy armored trucks and still afford to pay all the mercenaries those exurbanite wages.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

41. Can't we use Star Wars to take out IED's?

:banghead:

[Hekate]

3. Kicking this to the Greatest page

:kick:

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I ranted on this yesterday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2877420

[Recursion]

5. Rule #3 of the Corps:

3. You will always be turned down for reasonable materiele requests. Always.

[Supersedeas]

65. Despite the Rovian rhetoric, looks like the Bushies were adhering to the rule

[speedoo]

6. This vet angrily K&R.

"Gross mismanagement"?

How about something a lot more harsh. Like court martials for every General or Admiral who was part of that failure, and trials for manslaughter for Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, etc.

[AwakeAtLast]

33. This vet wife angrily agrees w/ you.

:grr:


When can we start those trials?


:grr:

[Recursion]

7. And a semper fi K&R from a Marine vet... nt

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. When you add this report...

To the recent "The Nation"(I might be mistaken here...) report about the way Uncle Sam's Misguided Children are treating Marines with PTSD and what a sham the "Wounded Warrior" program is, when it comes to those Marines, I would say that there is quite the case of institutional sickness in The Crotch.

Sounds like it's time to cycle out a few hundred Generals and Colonels. Quite a few hundred.

[countmyvote4real]

9. If the US were not in Iraq then we wouldn't need the expensive MRAPs.

At least that's how I'd count the beans.

[mopinko]

10. .

[jeff30997]

11. Next thing you know...

They will be forced to go back to horses and muskets.:puke:

[0007]

43. ....how about axes and swords?

[jeff30997]

68. Lol.

Or stones and clubs like the cavemen. :rofl:

[autorank]

12. Excellent find. K*R

How interesting this is. Now the sory gets some traction. It's only been around the whole war.

Lets see where it goes from E&P, which has been the best news source for years.

[Make7]

13. Solider in the movie 'Gunner Palace' (2004) showing their "armored" HumVee:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beiuzKDA3rA  (1:17 - 1:32)

- Make7

[Norrin Radd]

14. kr.

[Window]

15. ..

Peace:thumbsup:

[Royce]

16. None of this makes sense

To everyone who has posted so far, you all seem to have an awful lot of misguided views. For one, I don't exactly know what the idea behind our troops needing to resort to muskets means, it makes no sense...logically or even has a shot at sarcasm. Also, for a group of people who are against war, violence and torture (the first two which are natural and inevitable, the latter being a terrible consequence of the the 1st two issues) I see a lot of calls for the execution of bush or rumsfield, ect. So am I now to assume that exceptions can be made from your party. Lastly with regards to the article and the last comment, as to where the billions of dollars go. One must remember that to keep the "war machine" moving it requires equipment. Logically that equipment must be manufactured, since manufactures require contracts and contracts cost money. Since manufactures are composed of civilians and jobs a lot of that money is going into the peoples pockets isn't it? But hey, you can all just call me a dumb conservative, I'm just interested in both sides of this. This is my first post here, and I am a conservative (voted Romney); and I have never been able to understand this liberal way of thought. Most of it seems way too idealistic and hypocritical to actually run a country. You all mock the administration and blame them for this war, but if I remember your party helped put us there. Not to mention, that most of the world did too. Everyone hates war, even bush and the republicans...we just don't feel that by wishing it wasn't so that it will go away. War is sorry to say an ultimate means of political policy and will always be in society....Sorry for getting off topic a little bit here

[stanwyck]

18. I'm going to have to call you on

the "calls for the execution of bush and rumsfield" comments. Where? Easy to say. But you have to backup your statements. And you are off topic. This is what conservatives do when they know they don't have an argument. Read the original post and respond to the specifics. Do you really think anyone here doesn't know that "war costs money?" Why do you think the infrastructure of our country is crumbling? We're pouring billions -- every month -- into Iraq and Afghanistan. Our deficit is at all-time record high. You have so many errors it's hard to address them all. "Most of the world" did not help put us into Iraq. You can't just make blanket statements which are untrue. We had a small coalition of limited support which has quietly evaporated. Turn off the talk radio. Pickup up a newspaper, or several newspapers, and learn about what is happening in the world. The only statement you've made that is correct is that war makes money. I'd suggest you get a copy of Eisenhower's famous speech on the military industrial complex. Maybe then you'll understand the real reason we're in Iraq.

[Royce]

21. I presume you're refering to

Eisenhower's famous farewell speech that addressed the military industrial complex. My assumption and I may be wrong is that your extensive knowledge on that speech came from a particular movie called "why we fight". However as insight full as his speech was, and granted he knows more on the topic of military and politics than either of us; that was only one opinion as to how military should be addressed. If one was to read Clauswitz's "on war" there is another view point entirely. Although the term "military industrial complex was first coined by the late great republican president, that issue has been one debated in politics well before him. Clauswitz believe that the military could help positively fuel the economy. Prussia was said to be "a military with a government attached". I'm sure that everyone here knows war cost money, that wasn't what I was trying to portray. As what all liberals tend to do when they have not facts is to spin my point and what I said. Many people don't have a clue as to where that money goes. I simply tried to explain that a lot of that money gets poured internally back into the economy and helps supply jobs. Assuming again you have seen "why we fight" I would assume you should know that. I will revoke my previous statement on the execution as I now realize I miss read SPEEDOO's input as he asked for the "trials for manslaughter" not just "manslaughter of bush...". At any rate the initial Coalition what was of course more than 90% american was composed of soldiers and civilian support from the UK, Poland, Australia, Italy, Japan, Spain, Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, South Korea, Denmark, Czech Republic and the netherlands. Technically you may be right in saying that's not "most" of the 194 countries. Yet, still harder to argue that your party backed the war one way or the other. Lastly, I thought I apologized initially for falling off topic. It seemed that one thing lead to another for me, and it seemed that although the topic is on the Humvee's we all know it's really about "where the money goes". One other stated that if we weren't there we would have the expense, now I tried to address where it went simplistically. As well as stating the fact that it wasn't only the republicans that put us there. Lastly, I have no intention to side step an issue, and by no means am I trying to offend anyone here. I'm simply doing my best to get both sides of a situation for my own knowledge.

[Ganja Ninja]

20. "I see a lot of calls for the execution of bush or rumsfield"

:wtf: are you talking about? I see one person that has called for them to stand trial for manslaughter.

"I have never been able to understand this liberal way of thought." Perhaps you should read what people are writing and not just assume what they think.

"You all mock the administration and blame them for this war,"
Rightfully so. They were planning this war before 9/11.

"but if I remember your party helped put us there. Not to mention, that most of the world did too."
Yes to the first part but only after they were presented intelligence that was cherry picked for them by Dick Cheney.
And a definite NO to the second part. Most of the countries that went along with this did so only out a sense of obligation to us. Others did so because they were bribed or it simply was of no consequence for them to sign up.
This war belongs to your beloved conservative party, the Republicans. Buy the way what's so "conservative" about them?

[Royce]

23. As said before

I misread the statement you pointed out. As for everything else you said it's all conspiracy theories. That is a topic in which I'd rather not talk on. Not so much as to fear of the topic, rather than an inevitable ending where neither one of us gains. You may wish to deposit your trust in online websites about the pre 9/11 conspiracy. I wish to put my trust in the government; because in all honesty neither your nor I can say with 100% certainty that we're our concretely factual. That is why I can not address that. As for the Intel being cherry picked, I'm very curious where you acquired that information. As well as the fact that other countries like the british had verified. The french did too, until some documents were found in iraq leading to modern corporate affiliation. I say modern because if I don't you may throw at me our prior military affiliation. As to why we're called conservative geez good question, what's so democratic about your party, you just want government control of everything.

[Ganja Ninja]

29. Conspiracy theories?

OK the conspiracy part I'll concede and it's all laid out here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ by these clowns, Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz. See any Democrats?

"I wish to put my trust in the government;" Funny I thought you guys hated government.

"As for the Intel being cherry picked, I'm very curious where you acquired that information."
Does the name Richard Clarke ring a bell? You can go here and refresh your memory or catch up if you missed it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/interviews/clarke.html#4

"what's so democratic about your party, you just want government control of everything." But wait didn't you just say "I wish to put my trust in the government"??? Which is it?

[Royce]

36. Your mixing it up

To put faith in the government is not the same as wishing it to control everything. I'd rather my faith in the U.S. government which to an extent has certain amount of validity in it rather than online conspiracy. I never said republicans hate government where did I say that. In fact the majority of men and woman fighting in the armed services are Republicans, and they're fighting for their government.
Not to say that democrats love their country any less, but that should disprove Republican hatred for government. We are not anarchists, we believe in the facility of government, the classical differences between the two parties (although not the traditional original differences) is that Republicans tend to favor less taxes, more privatization, and a stronger Military.
As for the intel comment, before I talk out of line, I'll have to read up a bit more. It would just seem illogical to me that Cheney fooled the entire combined nations of the Coalition. Unless of course your theory stands that we bullied the other nations into doing it by making them feel obligated.

[Ganja Ninja]

50. Explain something for me.

How does tripling the national debt during Reagan's term and doubling the national debt over the last 7 years of W's term, how is that supposed to lead us to lower taxes?

Leaving the bill on the table for future generations to pay isn't cutting taxes. It's stealing the future prosperity of our children and grand children so we can live the high life today.

[kitkat65]

73. You need to read the Downing Street memos - the brits didn't have it verified.

And turn off Fox news.

The latter is just an assumption on my part. My bad.

[tanyev]

28. Is your party opposed to paragraph breaks?

[mwb970]

42. Well OK, you're a dumb conservative.

But hey, you can all just call me a dumb conservative,

(* Heaves heavy sigh *)

Your post was as hard to read as a Hannity rant is to listen to. If you were to organize your thoughts into paragraphs and present them in a logical way, we could at least make out what you are trying to say. Make sure that each paragraph has a topic sentence and that the rest of the sentences in the paragraph support the topic. You know, like most of us learned how to do in sixth grade.

Here is my best attempt at summarizing your scattershot post:

• I don't understand the people on this board, so they are "misguided."
  
• I don't get the satirical comment about muskets.
  
• I don't realize that calls for "executions" are rhetorical but bush's killing is real.
  
• I believe that all of the money handed to corporations in Iraq goes directly into "the peoples pockets," not corporate profits.
  
• I voted for Romney.
  
• I do not understand liberal thought.
  
• I believe that liberals and Democrats started the Iraq War.
  
• I believe that bush and the Republicans "hate war."
  
• I don't know how to write a coherent post on a discussion board.

Gee, it turns out that your post says a lot more about you than about the subjects you think you are commenting on! Pathetically, you give us a poorly written, laughable combination of Fox News talking points and ignorance, with a pinch of humorlessness and a dash of cluelessness thrown in for good measure. I think you would be happier at Free Republic.

[Royce]

49. I am very sorry for the misunderstanding.

I really do apologize, as I read many other posts I concluded this was discussion for politics not grammar. However, I will reiterate just for you mwb970. It was my fault for assuming you could read my opinions and give me some honest feed-back. Obviously I was wrong in that thought.


Honestly I have been on this back and forth for a while. Mostly for the sake of learning another sides view to an issue. Yet if you want to lower yourself to a level of mocking me so be it.

My reiteration is as follows:

I presume you are referring to Eisenhower's famous farewell speech that addressed the "military industrial complex". It was recently talked about in a movie titled "why we fight". However insightful as his speech was it was only one opinion as to how military should be addressed. If one was to read Clauswitz's famous book "on war" there is another view point entirely. The term "military industrial complex was first coined by the late president Eisenhower. That issue has been one debated in politics well before him. Clauswitz believe that the military could help positively fuel the economy. Prussia was said to be "a military with a government attached".

I'm sure that everyone here knows war cost money, that wasn't what I was trying to portray. Many people don't have a clue as to where that money goes. A simple explanation is that a lot of that money gets poured internally back into the economy and helps supply jobs. Assuming again you have seen "why we fight" I would assume you should know that.

The initial Coalition, what was of course more than 90% american, was composed of soldiers and civilian support from the UK, Poland, Australia, Italy, Japan, Spain, Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, South Korea, Denmark, Czech Republic and the netherlands. Technically you may be right in saying that's not "most" of the 194 countries supported us. With the vast size of the U.S. military it is impossible to accurately place blame on anyone for shortcomings in military decision; as well as the execution of orders. War is never isolated from politics, war is the ultimate means of policy. It is an unfortunate inevitability. When politics plays a role in such action, it slows the pace of war from it's theoretical haste. This can never be ignored. It is hard to argue however that your party backed the war one way or the other. Neither the Republicans or Democrats are entirely to blame or accuse of sending us to Iraq. It was a decision we as a nation made, and we as a nation should resolve.

Conspiracy theories and the likes are of a waste of time to discuss in this forum. The fact is, it will always come down to whom you place your trust in. Either it be the U.S. government, or a third party source such as an activist group. I personally will place trust in the U.S. as it has at least some credentials to validity. Not only do I believe that, I also find it highly illogical that the U.S. can lie about anything they want and get away with it. This seems absurd in an era of the information super highway. With many countries who do indeed hate us, it seems that they would do all they could to cause unrest in this country by shedding light on any lie it tells its people. This is of course unless you believe in media censorship, which then leads us to a conspiracy theory and a paradox.

My faith in the government is not to be confused with a yearning for it to run my life. I believe in a vast private sector in business. That includes medicare, and social security. I like having control over the money I earn. Rather than to hand it to a politician to spend for me.

To directly compare him to Bill Clinton I can reason Bush was a better president. Our current unemployment rate is lower than it ever was in Clintons first term. Clinton did also send a preemptive strike in his first term to a foreign country. Somalia ended with what is now know as black hawk down, with the battle of Mogadishu. The NAFTA freed trade agreement only bolstered the economy briefly, as we are now seeing its destructive wake. Although, unemployment is low, many skilled labor jobs are being sent over seas. Clinton also had the all time lowest approval rating of any president. Ever. Bush on the contrary had one of the highest. Clinton was not only impeached, he lied under oath while amidst the trials. I have no concern for what happened with Monica, however what happened with China-gate and or missile technology was treason. Not to mention his questionable campaign funding, which is happening again with Hilary.


I hope that was clear enough and that you understood me. Some how I feel that no matter how I type it for you, you will pick it apart for lack of your own substance.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

59. "Clinton also had the all time lowest approval rating of any president. Ever."

No.

http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm

This took less than two seconds on Google. And if you look carefully you'll see that his approval never dipped below 40%

Here's Wikipedia's take on it. Hrm...looks like Clinton's aproval rating never dipped below 40% here, either. In fact, it increased the longer he was in office.



And here's your boy. What kind of idiot squanders a 90% approval rating? (I was produly one of the 10% who still thought Bush was a horrible president. Even on 9/12.)



How's that for substance?

The economy's in the crapper, they LIED about the WMD, the primary reason for invading Iraq, Bush has no interest in catching bin Laden, and thanks to sycophantic people like you over four thousand US soldiers are dead, along with countless thousands of Iraqi citizens. ALL. FOR. A. LIE.
Still want to say that Bush has done a better job than Clinton?

[mwb970]

62. Your images didn't show up for some reason.

Here's the one for Clinton's approval rating:



And here is bush's:



The big spike for bush came when we were attacked on 9/11, and a later, smaller spike came when we attacked Iraq. No wonder the guy likes war so much!

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

63. Thank you very much.

I've had massive difficulties with getting images to show up on DU lately.

Besides, your post was much more coherent than mine. (And your graph better illustrated the point I was trying to make)

[mwb970]

64. Thanks! I had trouble with images too.

Until I discovered PicOodle. Download the image to your PC then upload it to PicOodle. Copy and paste the last URL given into your DU post. So far, this has worked every time for me.

[mwb970]

60. You have written an unmockable post, Sir.

It's hard to believe the same person wrote this post who wrote the dense, single-paragraph screeds elsewhere in this thread! I still don't agree with every statement (bush is a better president than Clinton? Yikes!) but at least I know what you are saying now.

You must realize that conservatives tend to be angry and overemphatic in their public pronouncements, in which I include radio programs, calls to C-SPAN, letters to the editor, blog entries, discussion board posts, and so on. Time and again, public figures report receiving e-mails from both sides, with the ones from the right often comprising a single, pages-long talking-point "paragraph" CONTAINING MANY F*CKING OBSCENITIES AND MISPELED WERDS, WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS, AND WITH MANY EXCLAMATION POINTS AT THE END!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!! This is the written form of the loud, spittle-flecked outrage that you hear from the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity day after day.

My assumption, because of your earlier single-paragraph style and some disorganization, was that you were one of "those" conservatives. But this last post suggests that I may have "misunderestimated" you, for which I apologize.

Despite all that, there is definitely a taste of Kool-Aid in your remarks. Like this one:

Clinton also had the all time lowest approval rating of any president. Ever. Bush on the contrary had one of the highest.

Your implication is that Clinton was an unpopular president and that bush is a popular president. Well written or not, this is simply nonsense. Clinton had a 65% approval rating the day he was impeached. bush's rating shot up from an anemic 55% or so to 90%+ the day after the 9/11 attacks, as if they somehow instantly made him a better president. They didn't. And have you seen a graph of bush's popularity ratings over his whole presidency?

Here's a graph of presidential popularity polling in the post-WWII period, taken from the Wall Street Journal:



You said "Clinton also had the all time lowest approval rating of any president. Ever." Is that what you see in this graph? Where?

You also said "Bush on the contrary had one of the highest." Well yes, briefly! The spike you refer to was due to 9/11 fear, not approval of bush. Can you honestly look at this graph, in which Clinton's popularity shows a definite increasing trend and bush's shows a definite decreasing trend (he hasn't been above 50% since 2004), and say that Clinton was unpopular and bush is popular? This seems to me to be a deliberate misreading of the data and of the mood of the public.

This post is already longer than I meant it to be, but I must ask you, are you honestly saying that Somalia and Iraq are equivalent military adventures? You must be able to see that this is a deeply silly comparison. Don't you?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

74. Questions

Eisenhower's was "only one opinion"? The fact that he was an extraordinarily successful General in the field, AND the POTUS for eight years gives him no weight over other opinions? Or, are all opinions created equal, kind of like Marxism?

Since you've seen this illustrative movie "Why We Fight", please tell, where is the money going? How is it enriching the economy? Please tell.

So, now PRUSSIA, should be our benchmark government?

You assert that war is nothing more than an unfortunate inevitability? I guess Switerland better mobilize, then.

Here's what we in the nation REALLY thought of going to war.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/BleedingHeartPatriot/46

Why do you say we all supported it, when millions protested?

The rest of your stream of consciousness offers nothing of true substance, except your :wtf: statement..."To directly compare him to Bill Clinton I can reason Bush was a better president." :rofl:

You know, you are very entrenched in your views, and harbor some kind of illusion you can come here and change minds from open to closed.

BTW, you've been afforded much more courtesy and posts here on DU, than any DUer who tried to engage your freeper buddies in that little corner of the world.

At least your spelling's decent.

And, I will feed you no more chum. :hi:

[mdmc]

47. First, allow me to welcome you to DU

I am a pro-choice practicing catholic, so I know what it is like to have your opinions differ from everyone else.

Second, I am a liberal. By this I mean that I think government is beneficial to its citizenry.

As a liberal, I want the troops to have the best equipment, training, and support. Anything less is uncivilized.

The hatred you see here is against the conservative ideal that cheaper and smaller is better. Instead of giving the troops what they need, we sent them into harms way without the right equipment, training, and without a clear mission. This is a failure of our government.

I disagree that everyone hates war. Hermann Goring (the nazi) said it best - the workers in all countries hate war - the military industrial complex does not. One controls the other. We go to war.

I hope that I was able to offer you a glimpse into the mind of a liberal.

If you are a conservative, you may want to check out FR. It is like DU, but for conservatives.

[jpak]

66. Your party lied, put those marines in harm's way and did not protect them

Your party will be out of power this November.

bye

[LeftHander]

19. Ever increasing armor requirements does not say "Progess in Iraq"

That is why the Republicans continuously stonewalled acknowledging the need for armor.

[Royce]

22. Really

and why is it the republicans openly pushed for the use of the Buffalo Truck systems. Designed to counter road-side bombs and it was postponed in congress. I wouldn't be so quick to assume they cared about the message it may send more than the lives. Even from a Cynics POV one could say we republicans would rather have the headline "Republicans need more armor, struggling to survive" rather than "100 marines died from roadside bomb"

[LeftHander]

67. Only after constant hammering about the lack of poor planning ...nt

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

75. Please provide these links to this information you claim is true.

Who postponed this legislation?

Who sponsored it?

When did this occur?

Or are you just going to say,"Because I say so" and demand people prove it isn't true? :shrug:

[riverwalker]

24. Bush disregarded warnings

The administration was aware of inadequate supply during war planning, but sent troops to non-urgent, unnecessary war anyway.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/international/middleeast/26armor.html?pagewanted=print

"Nearly a decade ago, the Pentagon was warned by its own experts that superior vehicles would be needed to protect American troops. The Army's vehicle-program manager urged the Pentagon in 1996 to move beyond the Humvee, interviews and Army records show, saying it was built for the cold war. Its flat-bottom-chassis design is 25 years old, never intended for combat, and the added armor at best protects only the front end from the heftier insurgent bombs, military officials concede."

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[baldguy]

26. In 1996 there was no urgent need.

In 2003, after two years in Afghanistan and on the eve of an unnecessary, aggressive, imperialistic adventure in Iraq the Bush regime created an urgency - UNLIKE Eisenhower in WWII. But the introduction of the MRAP was delayed and the need for it was ignored. Standard military doctrine says we would need 350,000 troops to police Iraq after the invasion; Bush put in only 130,000-160,000. (Did they really believe their own propaganda about the Iraqis greeting the infidel invaders with flowers?) They didn't plan on having ANY uparmored Hummers or ANY MRAPs. They still don't think ground troops need body armor that actually works.

The fact is neocons don't give a shit about our troops - especially if they can't make any money.

[Royce]

32. As a pretty

astute military buff, and self-educating myself on strategy for years, but obviously by no means a general. I would like to ask where the figure 350,000 came from. I have read that the standard amount of troops required to police a nation is from 2-10 troops per 1000 in population. This is know as the Quinlivan ratio, used to determine policing force. 2.2 troops per 1000 was around the base standard of what our troops numbered in during the post-war germany. Granted germany was a fallen nation and not of the same style of conflict. However, we are currently at about 6 troops per 100 in iraq. An in key areas like Baghdad we're at 11 to 1000. Apparently military doctrine sets us in the right.

[baldguy]

46. I guess your self-education is limited to GOP propaganda sheets.

In 10 min on Google I found -

In an article from The Military Review on the US Army Combined Arms Center website:
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/JulAug07/ClarkINSIGHTS.pdf

To maintain security in peaceful countries, the proper ratio of policemen to population is somewhere between 1 and 4 officers per 1,000 citizens, with cities needing higher levels than other areas.

So your figure would NOT apply the situation created by Bush in Iraq.

By contrast, analysis of successful 20th century nation-building and stability operations suggests a much higher ratio - between 13.26 and 20/policemen per 1,000 civilians - is necessary to establish security in strife torn countries.

That's 350,000 to 535,000 troops for the whole country. By contrast the current troop level is 132,000. There have never been more than 180,000 in Iraq ever - nowhere near the numbers that the US Army's own doctrine says are needed. (Note that neocon propaganda requirements imposed on the military by the Bush Regime force the same report to go on and contradict these figures. They become more like Stalinist Russia every day.)

Gen Eric Shinseki looked at the Iraq mission given to the US Army by the Bush Regime and proposed that post-conflict troop levels be toward to higher end of the scale at 500,000 troops; 140,000 for Baghdad itself. He was promptly fired by Rumsfeld.

[Royce]

57. What

I don't see how 1-4 troops per 1000 is not in comparison to the 2-6 per 1000. Although not exact. the quinlivean numbers range higher, and therefore stronger. The estimates of 13-20 came from England's military presence in Northern Ireland to stop the IRA. Aside from both Al Queda and the IRA being terrorist groups, the tactics used are hardly comparable and therefore many analyst argue the "stage II phase" of quinlivean holds. That so named "stage II" is at the approximate 6 per 1000.

As it is, I don't see how this is argued still with a definite impact on Al Queda. It's been in the news that woman and children have no been used as human bombs. The woman in particularly is interesting because they can not par take in a Jihad. Therefore it can be concluded that if religious fanatics are using them, their power must be dwindling.

[baldguy]

70. Simple: By the Army's own doctrine 6 troops/1000 people is not enough.

If you look at N Ireland as a model - and apparently the Bush Regime is - 13-20 troops per 1000 is the MINIMUM for an occupying force to secure a hostile civilian population & restore peace & order. And that only applies if its done properly.

At no point has the Bush Regime handled the invasion & occupation properly.

Again your self-education has failed you & you've fallen for neocon propaganda. We are not fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. We are fighting Iraqi patriots who are defending their homeland from an invading infidel army. Their tactics are quite similar to that of the IRA, especially in Ireland proper from before the Easter Uprising in 1916. Using women & children to attack an occupying army has been a tactic of insurgent fighting forces throughout history.

And I've got some news for you - the IRA beat the British Army in 1916.

[baldguy]

71. I guess the troll has been 'stoned

[Sam Ervin jret]

31. then BUSH should have PLANED and waited and not had his lied about, unneeded, oil driven preemptive

STIKE
And it was CLINTON in office at the time. The one that left us with a great economy, a budget surplus, a positive world image, and action in Kosovo that WORKED, KILLED no AMERICANS, saved millions of others, and the UN rebind it. Remember now? I know you Bush Co's have your own reality state, and I hear it even has voting rights, but even you "all" must keep some sort of check on reality now and again. Even if just to see if the bank account is still in balance.

Go back under your rock, or where ever you Bush Co's hide from their realities of this world.

Or I'll hold up some anthrax to show you how serious we are around here at DU. (now that was sarcasm for those few who do or can not see it due to their lack of time from under that rock or in this reality)

[Royce]

34. I wasn't aware

that a different opinion made me ignorant and closed off to the world. As for my bank account, its rather low in funds being a college student. But we all know how that is.

As for Clinton, I do recall though that a certain Somalia ended in disaster. I know you can't compare the Iraq to Somalia in lives lost, but I was iterating the point that preemptive strikes were done by other countries with out the act of congress.
I don't know that we had a really great image at the time because as a matter of fact clinton at one point had an all time low approval rating for any president. Ever. Obviously due to his impeachment, however I wasn't to here to argue about clinton at the moment. I would like to point out his involvement with monica lewinski did not concern me in the least. If i was married to Hillary, well let's say I don't blame him. My problems was the questionable origins of his campaign funding, lie under-oath, and the very questionable China-gate. So let's not talk about Clinton giving us a positive view in world eyes. You can say I'm under a rock but at least I'm still on planet earth, if you want to forget about all that you had your head in the clouds. A lot of what clinton did with our economy with free trade agreements only set us up for a recession. Not to mention, our housing market is down due to the banking problems with mortgages. Our jobs are sent to china, yet still our unemployment rate is lower than is ever was in clintons first term.

[KansDem]

53. Sorry, pal. The other Bush put us in Somalia...

With only weeks left in his term as president, George Bush responds to the UN request, proposing that US combat troops lead an international UN force to secure the environment for relief operations. On December 5, the UN accepts his offer, and Bush orders 25,000 US troops into Somalia. On December 9th, the first US Marines land on the beach.

Bush assures the American people and troops involved that this is not an open ended commitment; the objective is to quickly provide a secure environment so that food can get through to the starving Somalis, and then the operation will be turned over to the UN peacekeeping forces. He assures the public that he plans for the troops to be home by Clinton's inauguration in January.

Another Bush lie...

PBS

[Royce]

56. NO! My apologize bud!

You are referring to operation restore hope. Which did in fact start with Bush senior involved the U.N. That all started to deteriorate and fall apart but mid 1993. Clinton engaged in operation Gothic Serpent after pakistan soldiers within the U.N were killed during peace negotiations. Which was a strike that was orchestrated by the U.S. military.

[Phred42]

27. Republicans talking care of the Troops again

Incompetence has become an art form under republican control of our government.

and the rest of us are paying for our inaction

[L. Coyote]

30. AND, who is the Military "Commander in Chief?" Where does this buck stop?

[mwb970]

35. Why didn't they just give the money directly to the corporations?

This business of routing corporate welfare and free-money giveaways through Iraq causes some of the loot to slip away due to either corruption or people actually using it as intended, both of which eat into profits. Can't have that!

I say pull out of Iraq and give the trillion dollars we save as a result directly to Blackwater and Bechtel. It's the American Way.

[Greylyn58]

37. They were freakin worried about COSTS!!!

My father served 30 years in the Marines. He served in Korea and during Vietnam and he will be the first to tell you that problems always happen in the service, but this....

"Oooohhh, these vehicles are expensive!!"

These people are sitting behind cozy, safe desks, making critical decisions about the lives of people they don't give a crap about.

May all of them who lied and schemed and plotted us into this damned nightmare never have a moments peace. May the ghosts of all the souls they helped to kill and mutilate, haunt them every day of what is left of their miserable lives. These people are evil...evil to the core!!


:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Royce]

39. Seriously

If you have any knowledge of the VAST infrastructure that is the United States Army it is impossible to place blame on the upper crust of it all. Yes, for the president the buck stops there, or it should, but you have droves and droves of politicians that decisions get held up on. Bush could not have just issued an order like that, its against the laws the come with executive office. War is a means of political action, not isolated from itself. As long as politics plays part with war which it always will, you will have delays in things like this. And it is impossible to separate war from politics and policy. It is one of the unfortunate consequences of war, its an intrinsic trait and it can not be erased. There will always be delay with issuing orders.

[Greylyn58]

52. That doesn't excuse this

Since the very first day of this mess, all that the Repugs have screamed at the rest of us is:"Support the Troops!" or "We support the troops"

Yet, time and time again, we get stories like this were it is very clear, these people do not support the troops. If they did, they would have outfitted and supplied the troops with absolutely everything they needed to get the job done. And if the need arose, they would push through bills containing the monies necessary to get them what was needed.

They don't give a rat's ass about any of the troops. To them this war has become a business.

I loath this war, but I support the men and women we sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, and we should make sure they have everything they need to protect them and bring them home safe to their families.

[Royce]

55. I should hope all of us living comfortably at home or in or dorms

support our troops. Just as I'd be sure that many of our congressmen and senators do to. In WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam ect. There has always been short comings with gear. I mean my god, in the pacific during WWII, everyone knew going into that our planes were no match, it took several years to finally get a new plane to face them. In germany the panzer tanks were known to be superior in almost every way. As morbid as it is to say, human life is nothing but a resource in war.

That's the cold hard truth, no two ways about it. It is the job of the president, and chiefs of staffs to minimize the lost. I believe they do to the absolute best of their abilities. If they were only concerned with cost they would still be forced to be frivolous with our troops. I last remember reading the figure of about $22,000 to train on marine out of boot camp. That does not include gear, further food and transport, or job training.

[stanwyck]

69. Your complacency "there has always been

short comings with gear" is the reason we'll have regime change this year. As the mother of a Marine with three tours to Iraq, this is unacceptable. "I believe they do the absolute best of the abilities". Well, that much is true. Clearly, their abilities have set the bar very low. This administration lied about WMDS, characterized Iraq as attacking us on 9-11, let Rumsfeld go in on the cheap -- costing thousands of lives for America and Iraq, failed to listen to the generals who warned about troop levels, and failed to foresee the sustained occupation that would be needed for what we have now, a stalemate.
You may refer to my son as a "resource". That's better than Bush's reference to American deaths in Iraq as a mere "comma in history". No doubt you're "pro-life". But my son is not a life, he's a resource. Ah, the smell of conservative hypocrisy. It's positively emanating from your post.
As far as being "frivolous with out troops", you need to find out how our troops are treated when they return to America, grievously wounded. You really stepped into with that statement.
You would feel differently if your experience was empirical. And not culled from tired rightwing talking points which no longer resonate with the American public.
We're taking the presidency and upping our numbers in Congress for a clear majority. Your complacency with not supplying our troops with what they need will not be part of our agenda.

[TheCowsCameHome]

38. And no one - NO ONE - will be held accountable in the end.

Pathetic.

[HelenWheels]

40. Gross mismanagement responsible for all deaths in Iraq invasion

It's not limited to any group, we should never have gone into Iraq.

[indepat]

44. Why the hell do occupying liberators have to be protected in a 40-ton vehicle

when moseying down the road? :shrug:

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

45. Defense Secretary Robert Gates

Somebody has to do the job and it appears Robert Gates has way more concern for our troops than Rumsfeld or Bush ever had.

After Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared the MRAP (pronounced M-rap) the Pentagon's No. 1 acquisition priority in May 2007, the trucks began to be shipped to Iraq in large quantities.

and btw, what is this guy Royce doing here?

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

[Royce]

51. Hmm

So are you saying that I do not have the right to ask questions and possibly provoke thought in these forums?

[Octafish]

48. What's another phrase for ''gross mismanagement'' in a time of war?

"Dereliction of Duty."

When it becomes a documented pattern, it's better called "Treason."

[KansDem]

54. WHAT DID WE EXPECT??!!! WHAT DID WE FUCKING EXPECT??!!!

We sat by and let the Coup of 2000 proceed unabated. We allowed the loser to be installed in the White House. We permitted a military deserter to assume command of the United States armed forces, the most powerful military force in the world. And we assumed he knew what he was doing on 9/11, even though he sat on his butt and did nothing! We sat by and watched his buddies in Saudi Arabia kill 3,000 of our citizens and did nothing when he responded by invading Iraq!

ARE WE REALLY THAT SURPRISED WHEN STORIES LIKE THIS ONE COME TO LIGHT?????

[SpiralHawk]

58. "Those vehicles could have cut into republicon homelander profits." - Commander AWOL

"So it was a No Brainer (Smirk) to deny your sons and daughters in uniform the equipment they needed to, um, 'spread freedom and stuff.' Otherwise, we republicons could not have afforded (smirk) our tax cuts for the wealthy. Smirk."

- Commander AWOL

[tuckessee]

61. No big deal.

Happens all the time with the military. See Mark IV torpedoes or Peleliu or wood carrier decks or the early M-16 rifles.

When a man signs away his rights and becomes a mindless killing automaton what does he expect?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

76. What a hateful thing to say.

[baldguy]

77. Before the Bush Regime the military always wanted very smart killing machines.

A lot of specialist jobs required college-level education to carry out.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

78. Indeed. Nice response.