US Troops Ask Rumsfield Million Dollar Question, Get Answer

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up."

Published on December 9, 2004 By Solnac In Politics

The question, of course, being 'why do we have to scrounge around for armor for our trucks?' Rumsfeld to his question, did in fact answer the question, although he did have to ask to have it repeated to him.

Rumsfeld's Answer: From CNN

What bothers me about Rumsfeld's reply is not the fact it's not true, it doesn't answer the question in it's complete pretext. The soldier is also asking if it will get better; or why isn't it better. Now, it's true you go to war with what you've got, but why haven't things picked up considerably? Why didn't we plan for worse case scenario, us being there for years and made production to suit the times? Why should soldiers in the country with the largest economy in the world be worried about keeping defense up for their trucks? The Secretary of Defense's comment about tanks was cute in the way that it solved nothing and alleviated absolutely no fears. (It didn't even answer the question.) Why isn't he showing and strutting his stuff to all these military contractors we have? I'd be on the phone shouting at people saying, "Hey, you made me look like a jackass! Pick it up down there!" And have we, as a country, exhausted all opportunity to make this situtation better?

Killing Two Birds With One Stone: Solution #1

The unemployment rate is still pretty high, and while I've not looked at underemployment, it's probably high too. We've spending lots of money in Iraq already, and while I groan to mention this because I can hear the replies of, 'that'll create more decifit spending! What a horrible idea!', bear with me here for a second. Theoretically, under the Army's supervision, the government could start factories to produce things like armor for vechiles and hire people off the streets and train them. Granted, it'd be a temporary job, but with the skills they learn, they could write their own check to other companies that will hire. More people hired, more jobs. More jobs means more people spending money. More people spending money will make the US dollar more valuble and the economy boom again. We discuss welfare to work all the time in the privatization sector: if we paid them enough, they wouldn't necessarly need it. "You teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime..."

Recycling: Solution #2

Scrap metal, while probably nowhere near the same grade as armor could possibly be used in layers to serve. We could always borrow a book from World War 2's page, ration metal and use it for the fitting of vechiles and other weaponry the military uses, but I'm almost convinced we could recycle some that's sitting around our landfill or from the people. While I think it's eerie I'm proposing we're recycling metals for things that will be used to kill people, I'm also reasonably sure that Iraq isn't going to be resolved overnight, and if we can find a peace and plan it adqueately, it will take some time to progress. "One man's junk is another man's treasure..."

Transparency in the Military Budget, Or Watching Exactly Where Our Money Goes: Solution #3

Then again, it could be the simple fact that we're not using what we've got monetarily well. I don't think we've been ready for this kind of ground conflict since the 60's, when Vietnam happened. We may still be spending it on cluster bombs when our primary fighting these days seems to be on the ground. While I'm sure cluster bombs are important in their own way, do we really need them for an enemy that seems more enamored with guerilla tactics than anything else? Plus, was our military budget geared toward invasion or more towards containment, like during the Clinton years? Those are very two different kinds of ways of fighting. "After the government takes enough to balance the budget, the taxpayer has the job of budgeting the balance."

Getting Our Fix From As Many Sources As Possible: Solution #4

Not too sure about this, but if the military is only using one company for all their armored needs, why not more? Are there countries not at war we can trade with for some military hardware we might be missing? Is there anything else or anywhere else we can get and service our need ready made? It's something to look into. "You often find soda money between the couch cushions."

There's a few suggestions I have. The things I'm slightly angry about: did no one realize this would take almost two years? Holding a country is a pain in the ass, that's why most people gave it up during the Imperalist Age when all the countries they had predictably revolted. I cite India protesting against British rule as an example of this. Did they not think they would not be Iraqis that would fight back? Did we forget what holding and securing a country temporarly would be like? And this quote makes me angry for perhaps another reason that won't make sense to you right away:

"They say we can't prevail. I see that violence and say we must win," Rumsfeld said.

Is this really about Iraqi liberation or our pride? Because, seeing that quote, it almost seems like our need to win is more important than maybe addressing the issues that exist and making sure Iraq has a future. I never favored this war, it seemed started on a unreasonable premise, but now we're in it...I want to make sure we're out to secure what should be our goal if we're truly serious about this: the freedom and care of the Iraqi people to determine their destiny.

Trying to understand the unfathomable, the AWM/wolf dragon,

Sol

Comments (Page 1)

T_Bone4Justice

on Dec 09, 2004

Solnac....We just did it again!

Posted similar articles...and I think we posted them almost exactly at the same time! I think I am going to start specifically checking your blog before posting an article of my own...

Solnac

on Dec 09, 2004

Solnac....We just did it again! Posted similar articles... I think I am going to start specifically checking your blog before posting an article of my own...

Ehh, but there's enough difference between ours to get some good issues going, and some good replies. And while you're at it...you might wanna check Col. Gene's too....we kinda published similar to what he did.

kingbee

on Dec 09, 2004

you go to war with what you've got,

thats the problem. we got bush in the whitehouse. we got cheney in an undisclosed location. we got condileeza rice in charge of the state department. we got rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle and abrams runnin the war. and if you're willing to take this kinda thing on faith, we got god on our side.

it aint like we hadda deadline. we coulda waited to go to war with our ducks in a row.

dabe

on Dec 09, 2004

I think if Halliburton made military armor, the troops would have plenty. Maybe that's what they're waiting for. Do away with the one contractor who makes it, though obviously not enough, and give the contract to Halliburton. They do such a better job. NOT.

I'll post a more appropriate comment later. I've got to get ready for work.

thatoneguyinslc

on Dec 09, 2004

I find it disgusting that they send these kids to war without sufficient body and vehicle armor. The current administration should be ashamed of themselves. The blood of every soldier and marine who died from lack of armor is on their hands.

kingbee

on Dec 09, 2004

The blood of every soldier and marine who died from lack of armor is on their hands.

moral values was the most important issue of the 2000 and 2008 elections disregard all the other failures and foolishness & extend the benefit of doubt in connection with just about everything else to the widest latitude in favor of the administration; sending those men and women into combat without adequate armor is unconscionable criminal negligence/reckless disregard. those who enabled/permitted/contributed/ordered it should be indicted and prosecuted. forget minds, this administration is utterly devoid of hearts and morals.

COL Gene

on Dec 09, 2004

I agree with your post. The problem is the Bush administration was unwilling the to build a military force that was large enough to succeed in Iraq because the cost was more than the public would have tolerated. Bush found himself at odds with his desire to remove Saddam Hussein and to grant the huge tax cuts to his supporters. We have created a structural deficit whereby we spend far more than we collect in revenue. This is the very same thing we did in 1980 with the huge tax cuts Reagan got through the Congress together with the increased spending on both our military and social needs.

The truth is this country is digging a huge hole for itself. People who say the deficit does not matter do not understand that the deficit will require larger and larger amounts of the federal budget to be spent one interest. The reason Bush has been able to get away with the increase in the federal deficit to date, is because interest rates have been at a 45 year low. That will not last forever and when interest rates return to their historic norms, the amount of interest we will be obligated to pay on the spiraling national debt will take the money we need for all other things such as education, Social Security, Medicare, defense etc. What is even more disturbing is that the Bush administration has no plan to balance the budget and then begin repaying the huge debt. Their stated objective to reduce the deficit in half by 2008 is a joke. George Bush and his Republican cohorts have adopted a policy of charge and spend. We have now created a problem that will take generations to resolve once we have the guts to stop spending more than we take in. We need to either cut spending, increase revenues or a combination of both to balance the federal budget and then begin generating a surplus to repay our debt. That will not take place under the policies we are following at the present time.

drmiler

on Dec 09, 2004

Reply #8 By: COL Gene - 12/9/2004 8:20:40 AM
Their stated objective to reduce the deficit in half by 2008 is a

I just don't get you at all. First you complain that the administration is making the deficit bigger, yet they come up with a plan to reduce it by half in 4 years and you say it's a joke. Are you an economist that you know these things to be true?

Madine

on Dec 09, 2004

#1 is a good solution for things that are not as difficult to make and security sensitive as humvee armor.

#2 is what soldiers are currently doing, scrounging for stuff. The problem isn't a global metal shortage, so rationing won't do much.

#3 is the long-term solution currently being developed. There is certainly room for improvement though.

#4 My guess would be that there aren't any companies outside the US that manufacture significant quantities of Humvee armor.

COL Gene

on Dec 09, 2004

drmiler

I have B.S. in Finance/Economics and an MBA. I know that reducing the deficit in half means the deficit continues to grow at half the current rate. That does not stop the growing deficit nor do anything to repay the debt and lower the interest required. We will pay the interest until we REPAY the debt. How can we repay something that our policies from the top allow to keep growing? Face it, the Bush policies are not solutions but continuations of the existing mistakes "Stay the Course" even though we are going in the wrong direction! We as taxpayers have dug deep and over the past 24 years have paid $6.5 Trillion in interest on our debt which has bought us NOTHING. More of the same under the Bush fiscal policies!

drmiler

on Dec 09, 2004

Reply #11 By: COL Gene - 12/9/2004 11:13:43 AM
drmiler

I have B.S. in Finance/Economics and an MBA. I know that reducing the deficit in half means the deficit continues to grow at half the current rate. That does not stop the growing deficit nor do anything to repay the debt and lower the interest required. We will pay the interest until we REPAY the debt. How can we repay something that our policies from the top allow to keep growing? Face it, the Bush policies are not solutions but continuations of the existing mistakes "Stay the Course" even though we are going in the wrong direction! We as taxpayers have dug deep and over the past 24 years have paid $6.5 Trillion in interest on our debt which has bought us NOTHING. More of the same under the Bush fiscal policies!

So you *finally* admit that it's not just Bush? And to be perfectly honest just *what* do you expect? That the deficit just disappears? It ain't going to happen overnight now is it? So that means starting somewhere. Like reducing the deficit in half in 4 years. You know for all your intelligence and learning sometimes I think your not overly bright.

LadyCleve

on Dec 09, 2004

they send these kids to war

My only comment here: enough with the fucking kids comments. I'm not married to a child.

COL Gene

on Dec 09, 2004

drmiler

I do not think you have a clue. First, you need an objective to solve the problem. If you been following the Bush plans for a second term you would see that he has no intention of meeting his stated objective of reducing the deficit by half. He's talking about converting Social Security to a partially privatize plan which will require trillions of dollars to implement. He has not come up with one cent to do that but intends to move forward with his plan. You cannot allow people under 35 to remove part of their Social Security payments into a private accounts without replacing the money given the fact it is being used to pay current benefits. Look at the prescription drug plan he and Congress passed. A half $1 trillion new expense over the first ten years without a nickel to pay for it. He supports making the tax cuts permanent. Because of the way they were phased in during the second ten years making the tax cuts permanent will cut three times revenue as it does during the first 10 years. And that is going to help balance the budget.

Anyone who believes the policies we are following are going to bring this country into fiscal sanity is crazy. I've been faced with balancing budgets, meeting payrolls and I can tell you that the policies we are following have no chance in reducing the deficit by half much less bring us to a balanced and a surplus to repay the huge indebtedness that we have established. You are like so many who simply ignore the issues in front of us with no real solutions. The irony is that the way we are going with our fiscal affairs and deficit, our trade deficit and loss of jobs as well as our foreign entanglements will ultimately and adversely impact both the wealthy in the not so wealthy in this country. Even people like you who blindly follow will finally understand the msitakes we have made and it will either be too late or much more difficult to correct.

I have no idea about your background but I know by reading what you have written you do not a clue as to what is happening with this country and its economic condition. As a nation we are hopelessly in debt and grow more so every day. As individuals we are doing the very same thing. We are not saving for our future we expect that somehow things like Social Security and Medicare are going to take care of themselves. We are using up the infrastructure in this country some of which is over 100 years old. We have no plan to replace it so that the ensuing generations will be able to utilize it. We're like someone who waits until the house is a raging inferno before we even call the fire company. The Bush policies are not working and will not work and in time even you will find it impossible to ignore the truth.

drmiler

on Dec 09, 2004

Reply #14 By: COL Gene - 12/9/2004 1:45:17 PM
drmiler
First, you need an objective to solve the problem. If you been following the Bush plans for a second term you would see that he has no intention of meeting his stated objective of reducing the deficit by half. He's talking about converting Social Security to a partially privatize plan which will require trillions of dollars to implement. He has not come up with one cent to do that but intends to move forward with his plan. You cannot allow people under 35 to remove part of their Social Security payments into a private accounts without replacing the money given the fact it is being used to pay current benefits. Look at the prescription drug plan he and Congress passed. A half $1 trillion new expense over the first ten years without a nickel to pay for it. He supports making the tax cuts permanent. Because of the way they were phased in during the second ten years making the tax cuts permanent will cut three times revenue as it does during the first 10 years. And that is going to help balance the budget.

Anyone who believes the policies we are following are going to bring this country into fiscal sanity is crazy. I've been faced with balancing budgets, meeting payrolls and I can tell you that the policies we are following have no chance in reducing the deficit by half much less bring us to a balanced and a surplus to repay the huge indebtedness that we have established. You are like so many who simply ignore the issues in front of us with no real solutions. The irony is that the way we are going with our fiscal affairs and deficit, our trade deficit and loss of jobs as well as our foreign entanglements will ultimately and adversely impact both the wealthy in the not so wealthy in this country. Even people like you who blindly follow will finally understand the msitakes we have made and it will either be too late or much more difficult to correct.

I have no idea about your background but I know by reading what you have written you do not a clue as to what is happening with this country and its economic condition. As a nation we are hopelessly in debt and grow more so every day. As individuals we are doing the very same thing. We are not saving for our future we expect that somehow things like Social Security and Medicare are going to take care of themselves. We are using up the infrastructure in this country some of which is over 100 years old. We have no plan to replace it so that the ensuing generations will be able to utilize it. We're like someone who waits until the house is a raging inferno before we even call the fire company. The Bush policies are not working and will not work and in time even you will find it impossible to ignore the truth.

No I have a tendency to either ignore Bush bashers ( which you are a big one) or call them fools. And BTW, saying and doing are two different things.

And just where would you like him to come up with the money to fix SS? We don't fix it soon, there won't be *anything* to fix. Either way you cut it, it's going to cost trillions. You anology sucks! "A raging inferno"? You think the fire started in 2004? Guess again.

COL Gene

on Dec 09, 2004

drmiller

No, the fire did not begin in 2004 or even four years earlier in 2000. However, we have done nothing to fight the fire or prevent new fires from starting. Like you, George W. is ignoring the issues facing us such as Social Security and Medicare, trade, jobs, the deficit, rebuilding our roads, schools, dams, water/sewer systems and the electrical grids. All these issues will not go away. If you want to look at my suggestions to resolve some of the issues facing us, please read my Blog, "Policy Changes for a Second Bush Term" posted Dec 1st. For example, if we can not find the money to alter Social Security, we can not make the Bush changes. In addition, there are other ways to insure the solvency of Social Security however, Bush choose just one answer and than ignored the funding to implement his solution.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!