The problem with thinking like that is the fact that these people are not afraid to die like many of us from “western civilization”. The fear of more Arabs dying would seem to have much less effect in light of that.
There are 1.6 million (roughly) of us in the military who are, of course, afraid of dying, but are willing to pay the ultimate price in support of our country. Obviously I don’t speak for everyone but other than the odd conscientious objector I think everyone in the military realizes our main mission is warfighting.
when F-16s bomb your village or AH-64 Apaches fire Hellfire missiles into your grandfather’s tiny home (as happened to one of my best friends), its hard to not assign a little bit of the blame onto the US.
This has got to be one of the most pathetic, blame the US statements I have ever seen on this site. So once we sell something to another country we still have responsibilty for how it is used? So if the terrorist use a Mercedes to car bomb one of our bases should we assign a little bit of the blame to Germany? If the Palestinians want to further their cause they should stop targeting civilians and have someone do some serious accounting of where all the aid they recieve goes. Because it is clear that Arafat kept huge sums for himself and his cronies. Or is every Palestinian able to afford villas in France?
when F-16s bomb your village or AH-64 Apaches fire Hellfire missiles into your grandfather’s tiny home (as happened to one of my best friends), its hard to not assign a little bit of the blame onto the US.
This has got to be one of the most pathetic, blame the US statements I have ever seen on this site. So once we sell something to another country we still have responsibilty for how it is used? So if the terrorist use a Mercedes to car bomb one of our bases should we assign a little bit of the blame to Germany?
are you REALLY trying to say that the US is not the primary backer of Israel?!? give me a fucking break! comparing the use of a mercedes with the use of sophisticated US military hardware is, at best, ludicrous. check your history before you say stupid things.
no one, least of all myself, has defended suicide bombing. but, in the absence of any other options (as is the case in palestine), drastic methods are the REALITY. pull your heads out of the sand and deal with it. arabs hate us for a REASON and its not that they “hate freedom.”
and don’t fucking call me anti-US. I’m trying to productively discuss a REAL solution to a REAL problem that cost us over 3000 people in 2001 (remember that?) instead of blindly subscribing to foolish policies.
Why don’t you ask the families of those Israelis killed in a cafe while eating lunch, or on a bus going to school, or in church worshiping to put aside Hamas, or Arafat, or any of the other jack-booted thugs responsible so much innocent blood shed?
first off, I asked ya’ll to “put aside…etc” in hopes of having you think critically and honestly about the problem. you disrespect me by equating my statements with an apology for suicide bombing. thanks!
If Palestine were truly “a powerful symbol for the arab world”, why don’t they support them with more than lip service?
hey…good question! might it be US military might that keeps them from doing anything else other than pay lip service?
Why is it that the only land suitable for a Palestinian state happens to belong to Israel? There is far better land for them if those that see the palestinians as such a ‘symbol’, would just give it to them. Instead, the Arab world wants it to come from Israel.
well, have you ever read anything about the history of the region? since the answer seems to be no, let me recap: during the 1920s and 30s socialist, jewish settlers began moving into palestine to set up a socialist and jewish community that functioned peacefully side by side with the arabs who had lived there for, oh 2000 or so years (more when you consider that genetically, palestinians are related to the isrealites). during the later part of the 30s and 40s, orthodox jews began moving to the area and launching terrorist attacks against the arabs, then with the establishment of the state of israel in 1948, the arabs were driven from their land into refugee camps in the gaza strip and west bank. do you see why palestinians might want their state to exist in palestine? mind you, there are many palestinians who don’t want to eliminate Israel, they just want to have a stake in the government also (a one state solution). I strongly recommend that you do a little more background research on the Israel problem: its the fundamental issue in the middle east.
now, to further clarify: I’M TALKING ABOUT THE REALITIES OF THE SITUATION! THERE ARE REASONS WHY TERRORIST HATE US! I’M NOT ADVOCATING TERRORIST ATTACKS! I’M NOT PEEING ON YOUR RUG!
[/quote]
There are 1.6 million (roughly) of us in the military who are, of course, afraid of dying, but are willing to pay the ultimate price in support of our country. Obviously I don’t speak for everyone but other than the odd conscientious objector I think everyone in the military realizes our main mission is warfighting.
[/quote]
Being willing to die and being convinced that by dying (and taking as many American lives with you as possible) you will receive more treasures in heaven as a reward are two totally different things.
Americans, on average, value life itself. It seems that our current enemies do not have that same desire to keep living. That goes a long way when being faced with scenarios like: retreating because all you have left for weapons is one grenade…and strapping that one grenade to your chest and running into the middle of enemy strongholds.
hedo,
could you give me some examples of the freedoms that palestinians enjoy in Israel? or these state offers?
as for the arab v. jew war…re-read your koran. it ain’t that simple and you know it.
are you REALLY trying to say that the US is not the primary backer of Israel?!? give me a fucking break! comparing the use of a mercedes with the use of sophisticated US military hardware is, at best, ludicrous. check your history before you say stupid things.
no one, least of all myself, has defended suicide bombing. but, in the absence of any other options (as is the case in palestine), drastic methods are the REALITY. pull your heads out of the sand and deal with it. arabs hate us for a REASON and its not that they “hate freedom.”
and don’t fucking call me anti-US. I’m trying to productively discuss a REAL solution to a REAL problem that cost us over 3000 people in 2001 (remember that?) instead of blindly subscribing to foolish policies.[/quote]
I didn’t say anything about us not being the primary backer of Israel but they are not the only country we sell weapons too. I have a current Jane’s right in my office and can give you a laundry list of what we have sold and to who. What does our backing them have to do with our ability to control what they do with it after we sell it? Do they not have a right of self-protection? And do you really think a car bomb cannot cause the same kind of destructon as a F-16? I can post some slides of the effects of a car bomb and a 16 drop and you would not be able to tell the difference. I’ve got my history straight, and I still remember quite cleary during Desert Storm how the Saudi’s would cheer every time Sadaam would fire a scud toward Israel. So don’t act like it is just Israel against Palestine, it is Israel against the Middle East.
So targeting innocents with suicide bombimg is ok because Arafat stole all of the aid intended for his people and didn’t spend it on any kind of weaponry? Is this really what you are trying to say? You say drastic measures are a reality, does this not apply to Israel also?
Actually our freedom is one of the things the Arab’s hate us for. I have been told many times how weak and lazy my country was and how we have too much freedom. That there should only be one religion, how we give women too much freedom (one of the guys told me women should be treated like an animal because they are no better than a dog), and that we are too nice to our criminals. I have also been spit on, flashed the “evil eye” sign and followed around by the Fatawa more times than I care to count. The Arab people having never been shy to me about showing their disdain for our country.
Of course I remember 9/11. I remember it everytime I put on my flight suit, I wear a patch that says 9/11-Never Forget and I remembered it when I was deployed to the Middle East this Sept 11th and we had a memorial for the victims, I never have and never want to forget it.
cdm,
good post. good points. believe it or not, I’m not a liberal and I’m not 100% against war or the use of force. however, I did want to discuss the multi-faceted israel issue and how it creates problems for our country. thank you for adding something useful.
It’s so refreshing to see some discussion of history in here. There are reasons things happen, not simply because hatred springs out of nothingness. Talk about naivety.
Anyhow, keep up the good work. Looking at history and the progression of events is certainly not anti-american or apologetic or any other bullshit often thrown around in these parts.
Understanding the progression of events and the reasons for beliefs, feelings and actions in the region might allow one to suggest solutions and actions that lead toward a defusing of the current hostilities.
I’m not actually against use of military force either, but I don’t think it is a long term solution. It is an acute action taken in extreme situations, but it doesn’t necessarily solve the underlying chronic pathology.
I was not disrespecting you. You want to take the killing and dying of Israelis out of the equation. My point was simply that you can’t take the suffering, on either side, out of the equation - especially not the Palestine/Israel conflict.
Before there was a palestinian problem, there was an Egyptian problem, a Lebanese problem, a Syrian problem, and a Saudi problem.
IF it weren’t for the U.S. restraining Israel - there would be no Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, or Egypt.
Professor X wrote:
Being willing to die and being convinced that by dying (and taking as many American lives with you as possible) you will receive more treasures in heaven as a reward are two totally different things.
Americans, on average, value life itself. It seems that our current enemies do not have that same desire to keep living. That goes a long way when being faced with scenarios like: retreating because all you have left for weapons is one grenade…and strapping that one grenade to your chest and running into the middle of enemy strongholds.[/quote]
[quote]battlelust wrote:
cdm,
good post. good points. believe it or not, I’m not a liberal and I’m not 100% against war or the use of force. however, I did want to discuss the multi-faceted israel issue and how it creates problems for our country. thank you for adding something useful.
battlelust,
I didn’t assume you were liberal, and it would not bug me at all if you were. My brother would make some of the people on here that get branded liberal seem like Tom Delay. Just like I hope people don’t think that just because I am in the military I am a totally blind hard core right winger. I am for sure more Hannity than Colmes but that doesn’t mean I am thrilled with everything the President is doing, the presciption drug bill for example, is awful. I also have no problem with anyone being against the war or use of force. I am glad people are passionate about the issues, some of it is misguided at times in my opinion, like hating the French as a whole, I am not fond of their government but when I was in Paris I never was treated badly by any of the locals. One caveat I will add though, if your team (I’m guessing if you follow baseball your a Red Sox fan) signs Edgar Renteria away from us then I would be for the use of force against the Red Sox. Anyway, I agree with you that Israel is one thorny issue and it is one balancing act that I don’t envy for whoever is the President.
liberal vs. conservative is boring. the interesting people in the world defy easy categorization. politics are not two dimensional and very few thinking people fall easily into any one (or even two) simple, ready-made categories. I “defended” myself against the accusation because, on this forum, the “sin” of liberalism seems (as it does in Ann Coulter’s very sexy, yet very delusional world…admit it lefties, you’d hit it!) to equate with treason and anti-americanism. I find that to be absurd and insulting to all of the people I know who fit more easily into that category. even the issues that we desperately want to be black and white issues tend to have uncomfortable shades of gray.
examle: Israel = shit sandwich. the jewish citizens of tel aviv and the arab refugees of jenin suffer and die every day because of their “leaders:” fools with no respect for human life. I only hope that the Palestinian movement can further distance themselves from the nuts in Hamas and the Israelis can further distance themselves from the shithouse-rat-crazy “settlers” who are more than willing to sacrifice us ALL for a few hundred feet of scrubby-ass desert.
Health Care, even those wounded in
the commission of a crime against
innocent civilians.
Right to work in Israel with
permission
Ability to deed and transfer property.
Public Safety, The Israeli police are
not a party to political killings.
It is not the US so don’t compare the benefits the Palestinians have in Israel to those they would have in the US. Compare them to the “freedoms” they would have in Syria or Iran. The Palestinian State, when they get it, will be a model of corruption and poverty. It’s a shame really because Israel will isolate it and the other Arab nations will not support it.
Reread my Qu’ran? Which part? Any particular passage or section in the Hadith that mentions cordial relations and cooperation with the Jews? I know the part about Christians and Jew being people of the book? It’s the parts that follow that are troubling? To what section are you referencing?
Seriously ,I am trying to learn more about Islam and have read a great deal of the translated texts. I am asking you this in an effort to find out your interpetation and have a differnet opinion to evaluate.
like being held for years without trial? I admit this is only an issue for non-religious palestinians (aka real threats to detente) as the nuts ARE given rights in court (they have a much higher profile thanks to their religious insanity).
Humane treatment of prisoners.
since 2000 when Israel finally OFFICIALLY outlawed the torture of prisoners while still minimizing the ability of outside organizations (like the pesky red cross) from visiting their detention facilities.
Health Care, even those wounded in
the commission of a crime against
innocent civilians.
see above…
Right to work in Israel with
permission
I suggest some non-liberal media sources/non-Israeli sources to get the full picture on that one. yes, some people are allowed to travel…but…
Ability to deed and transfer property.
unless the settlers want to move onto your land.
Public Safety, The Israeli police are not a party to political killings.
WHAT!!! the israeli police are even operating in most of the areas where the palestinians live. those are israeli army and not a week goes by that there isn’t a “hearing” because an israeli soldier shot a child in a school, or an old man in his field, or an old woman doing her laundry, or… and these hearings come to nothing. collective punishment by the israeli army/government is furthering the divides between the Palestinians and the Israeli people. in fact, around half of the population of Israel wants to see a withdrawal from both Gaza and the West Bank. its the settlers and their lobby in the Knesset that maintains the situation as is.
It is not the US so don’t compare the benefits the Palestinians have in Israel to those they would have in the US. Compare them to the “freedoms” they would have in Syria or Iran. The Palestinian State, when they get it, will be a model of corruption and poverty. It’s a shame really because Israel will isolate it and the other Arab nations will not support it.
thanks for pointing out that we’re not discussing Indiana, but, in fact Israel. however, we (Americans) should be trying to spread our ideas and values to the rest of the world (sorry liberals, but freedom and DEMOCRACY are universal), not making excuses for the abuses of our “allies.” creating a false binary between Israel and Syria as the options for Palestinians (?) is irrelevant to the discussion of Palestinian rights. the jist of my arguments is that the WRONG people are being listened to as the voices of the palestinian people. however, I maintain that the Israelis are far more terrified of the moderates than they are of the radicals. the moderates, if given the attention of the radicals, could easily sway the rest of the world’s opinion. see problems with the settlers’ lobby in the Knesset that I listed above.
Reread my Qu’ran? Which part? Any particular passage or section in the Hadith that mentions cordial relations and cooperation with the Jews? I know the part about Christians and Jew being people of the book? It’s the parts that follow that are troubling? To what section are you referencing?
well, to clarify, the issue with Jews was a historical reality. call me a heretic and infidel, but I’m skeptical of an all-mighty god who conveniently reveals messages at politically useful times. to wit, the negative references to jews (Al-Ma’idah “The Feast”) were written (or “revealed” (snort)) at a time when certain Jewish allies of the early Muslims had betrayed them during an early battle near Medina. and to be specific, the most directly negative passage is from Al-Ma’idah and states:
“Oh believers, do not hold Jews and CHRISTIANS as your allies. They are allies of one another; and anyone who makes them his friends is surely one of them; and god does not guide the unjust.” (5;51) to me, a man of northern european descent and spirituality, this is common sense. however, for the early muslims, it was a political manuever by muhammed. which, I suppose, doesn’t change the fact that most Muslims (like their brethren, the “people of the book”) are apt to accept these things as divine revelations that hold true throughout the ages. in short, you’re right, I projected my own reasoning onto fundamentalists; a mistake I’ve made with all the people of the book at one point or another. that said, many, many Muslims, like many, many Christians or Jews are not fundamentalists. they take the anti-Jew statements of the Koran with the same grain (or three) of salt that jews and christians take the book of leviticus and its permissive attitude toward slavery.
On the issues of history I would argue that the initial anomosity started over economic issues and then became religous and now unfortunately cultural.
The comments I made about rights in Israel are fact. I do not doubt there are abuses. I would make the point, however, that under Israeli law, in the middle East, an infrastructure exists to protect those rights. In the Arab countries it is not even paid lip service. The Israeli’s do not want to destroy their neighbors…the neighbors can’t say that with a straight face.
The Christian religion seems to have gotten past the ancient practices. The fundamentalists in Islam have not. I sincerely hope the moderates become a greater force one day soon.
I’ve fallen woefully behind on this thread, but this article deals with some of the topics above – particularly concerning supply of equipment for the troops – very interesting stuff:
Question Authority
What the media got wrong about Spc. Wilson and Secretary Rumsfeld.
BY JOHN R. GUARDIANO
Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
To the media, it was a dramatic revelation of Bush administration hypocrisy and incompetence: A lowly American GI courageously speaks truth to power, thus showing that the emperor has no clothes. But to this Marine veteran of the Iraq war, the hullabaloo over Army Spc. Thomas J. Wilson’s question reveals far more about media bias, prejudice and ignorance than it does about the U.S. military and Iraq.
Spc. Wilson asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld why, nearly two years after the start of the war, his unit still has too few “up-armored” humvees. The media were surprised that an enlisted man would ask so direct and pointed a question of the Pentagon’s highest official. I wasn’t.
I enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve after Sept. 11, 2001, and served in Iraq in 2003. Throughout boot camp, combat training and subsequent preparation for war, my instructors always stressed the importance of independent thinking and initiative. Obviously, when you’re in the middle of a firefight, you cannot–and must not–second-guess split-second command decisions. However, when preparing for war, thoughtful and considered questions are not only tolerated; they are encouraged–even demanded, I found.
As one of my combat instructors told us: “Marines, you’re more likely to die from someone doing something stupid than because the enemy is skilled and ingenious. So make sure you’ve thought things through and that everyone’s on the same page. Be polite. Be tactful. But don’t be afraid to ask questions.”
I soon discovered that this command to think and to ask questions wasn’t mere rhetoric. I was serving with the First Battalion, Fourth Marine Regiment at an abandoned pistol factory in Al Hillah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad. Every three weeks or so, we were visited by Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, who was then commanding the First Marine Division in Iraq.
Gen. Mattis is a Marine’s Marine, a true warrior who speaks bluntly and candidly, without being bound by the constraints of political correctness. For well over an hour, on a routine and regular basis, the general would gather together his Marines and field questions. Nothing was out of bounds. The event was entirely democratic and thoroughly American–though marked by standard military etiquette and respect for rank. Thus, newsmen and commentators who fear “retribution” against Spc. Wilson haven’t a clue as to what the U.S. military is all about. Spc. Wilson asked a tough but fair question; however, for any U.S. serviceman who’s ever been to war, this was hardly surprising.
Nor does his question demonstrate, as some have argued, that the Iraq war was ill-conceived or poorly planned. War is, by its very nature, surprising and unpredictable; it forces us to adapt and to be innovative. Armchair “experts” notwithstanding, the fact is no one anticipated the Baathist-Sunni insurgency, certainly not the U.S. military. We all expected to knock off Saddam Hussein and his elite Republican Guard and then head home in time for the July 4 celebrations. That’s why, when I deployed to Iraq in 2003, I traveled throughout the country in a standard canvas humvee with no special armor. Nor did I have any special body vest or protection.
I thought nothing of this at the time and still don’t. My team went as far north as Baghdad, but we were situated mainly south of the Sunni Triangle, in predominantly Shiite Iraq. Throughout our entire time there, the Iraqis welcomed us as liberators. We were well prepared for the threat as it then existed and as we understood it.
But when my old Marine Corps reserve unit redeployed to Iraq in September, it did so with fully armored vehicles, new sappy plated vests and special goggles–all designed to protect against shrapnel and improvised explosive devices. That’s because the unit was deploying to Fallujah, and the threat there was different from what we had faced in southern, Shiite Iraq.
This type of change and adaptation has occurred in all wars from time immemorial. It reflects not poor planning but the unpredictable nature of war. That’s why the Defense Department has been moving quickly to up-armor its humvees, producing nearly 400 such vehicles a month, up from 30 a month in August 2003, according to Army Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb.
The U.S. military ultimately wants 8,100 up-armored humvees versus the nearly 6,000 such vehicles that it has currently, Gen. Whitcomb told reporters last week. Moreover, according to the Army vice chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Richard A. Cody, the military long ago embarked on a “Manhattan-like project” to remotely jam IEDs with radio sensors.
If you’re an American soldier or Marine whose life is on the line now, clearly that’s not good enough. On the other hand, it simply isn’t true that U.S. military leaders have callously ignored the troops’ request for up-armored vehicles and other protective equipment. In fact, most of our troops in Iraq have up-armored vehicles, and units there take force protection quite seriously.
Delays ought to be blamed on the military bureaucracy, which Secretary Rumsfeld has been trying to reform. Indeed, that’s what military transformation–a Rumsfeld priority–is all about. Yet, many of the same people who are most vociferously denouncing the lack of up-armored humvees in Iraq also fight military reform tooth and nail.
Example: When the Army decided last winter to cancel development of its Cold War relic Comanche helicopter, Sen. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, immediately took to the barricades. “It simply doesn’t make sense to pull the plug on the Comanche,” Mr. Dodd said. “Obviously, this will not be an easy fight, but I intend to work with other members of the Connecticut congressional delegation to seek to retain the Comanche as part of our military arsenal.”
It didn’t seem to matter to Mr. Dodd that the Comanche was a $39-billion boondoggle that the Army didn’t want because the aircraft isn’t suitable for 21st-century urban warfare. Nor did Mr. Dodd seem to care that much of the displaced Comanche money would be used to equip existing Army helicopters with new countermeasure systems necessary to neutralize the ubiquitous threat posed by rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-fired missiles, and man-portable air-defense systems, all of which are omnipresent in Iraq.
Yet Mr. Dodd, who has never been a champion of big defense budgets, now has the chutzpah to lecture Mr. Rumsfeld about the need to “spare no expense to ensure the safety of our troops, particularly as they confront a hostile insurgency and roadside bombs throughout Iraq.” Mr. Dodd says Mr. Rumsfeld’s response to Spec. Wilson–“You go to war with the Army you have”–is “utterly unacceptable. Mr. Secretary,” he writes, “our troops go to war with the Army that our nation’s leaders provide.”
Quite true–and Mr. Dodd is one of those leaders.
Nor does the entire hullabaloo concerning up-armored humvees show, as some commentators contest, that U.S. troops lack confidence in their military and civilian leaders. The reality is that troop morale is consistently high.
Of course, American soldiers and Marines yearn to come home; it is not in our nature to colonize or occupy a country. By the same token, however, most U.S. troops take understandable pride in a job well done. They are pleased to have the historic chance to serve and to practice, in a real-world operation, that which they have been training for all these many years. That’s why re-enlistment rates are high.
As U.S. Central Commander Gen. John Abizaid told Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” Sept. 26: “The constant drumbeat in Washington of a war that is being lost, that can’t be won, of a resistance that is out of control, simply does not square with the facts on the ground.” In fact, the vast majority of Iraq is not a war zone; it is peaceful, tranquil and doing surprisingly well. I refer specifically to the Shiite south. The Kurdish north, too, is doing relatively well, despite the recent upsurge of violence in Mosul.
“So is this fight in the Middle East worth fighting?” the general asked Mr. Russert. “Absolutely,” he said. “In my mind, and in the minds of our young people that are out here fighting and sacrificing, it’s absolutely worth it.”
Of course you won’t hear any of this in many news articles or broadcasts. The media long ago decided that its job was to put a negative slant on all things Iraq. Truth is, as they say, the first casualty of war.
Mr. Guardiano is an Arlington, Va.-based journalist who served in Iraq in 2003 as a field radio operator with the U.S. Marine Corps’ Fourth Civil Affairs Group.
Looking backward, here’s a link to a a recent seminar at the American Enterprise Institute held to discuss an Army War College analysis of operations in Iraq, which recognized Operation Iraqi Freedom’s achievements without minimizing the shortcomings now evident in hindsight:
An interesting article by a local NJ/NY area writer.
Media vs. the Military 2: The Armor Flap
December 14, 2004
by Joe Mariani
Once again, members of the so-called “mainstream” media leave no stone unturned in their quest to embarrass the Bush administration and undermine support for the war America is already committed to win. This time their target is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their issue is armored HMMWVs (High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, or “hummvees”). Their tool is the very military that will be hurt the worst if they’re successful.
While Rumsfeld was in Kuwait last week, he visited a group of National Guard soldiers that were about to be deployed to Iraq. He took questions from them, but not from the press. The briefing and questions were not in the least adversarial until one soldier demanded to know why “we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal” to armor the HMMWVs. Naturally, the media went wild with glee over this “evidence” that the US military is ill-equipped to fight a war.
The first problem is that the media planted the question and arranged for it to be asked. Edward Lee Pitts, a Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, wrote in an email: “I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions, so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. … Beforehand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have.”
Now, some might say that the question was entirely legitimate, asked by a soldier with very real concerns over the vehicle he would be asked to drive into Baghdad. Fortunately (for our military; unfortunately for our media), HMMWVs that haven’t yet been up-armored are not driven, but carted on flatbed trucks to a safe area. Any concerns the soldiers might have had came not from their own experience – since they hadn’t been in Iraq yet – but from the media misrepresentation. The fearmongering media created the worries they then reported as “legitimate concerns.” Reporters like Pitts (and there are far too many like him) have long ago forgotten anything they knew about journalistic integrity. Instead of reporting facts fairly and accurately, they create the news to further their agenda, engaging in a “gotcha” game designed to attack those with whom they disagree.
The fact is that HMMWVs are normally unarmored except for military police use. They’re simply not designed to carry heavy armor – the suspension and transmission aren’t built to handle the extra weight. In late 2003, the terrorists in Iraq began using more IEDs (improvised explosive devices) on roadways to attack our troops, so the military realised they had to ramp up production of armored HMMWVs, and come up with a lightweight armor that could be added to the 30,000 wheeled vehicles (including HMMWVs) already in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point, there are only about 8,000 vehicles without some armor on them, and a large number of those are “tool trucks, communication vans or vehicles that don’t leave the base camp,” according to Lieutenant General Steven Whitcomb, the CFLCC commander in Kuwait. Any reports of soldiers digging through trash heaps to find scrap metal were likely based on soldiers recycling steel plates from vehicles that had been hit and couldn’t be repaired, Whitcomb said. This makes sense, as scrap metal wouldn’t do much to armor a vehicle (old A-Team reruns notwithstanding), and would unbalance the load on its suspension.
HMMWVs can be given three levels of armor. Level one includes complete armor and bulletproof glass. Those have to be built from the ground up, and production has increased in just a year from 30 a month to 400 a month. Approximately 6,000 vehicles have level one protection. Level two protection is provided with an add-on kit, which covers the sides of the vehicle but not the top and bottom. Approximately 10,000 vehicles have level two armor. Level three armor is used more for trucks than HMMWVs; it consists of steel plates bolted onto the vehicles’ sides. About 4,500 vehicles currently have level three protection.
Because of this manufactured armor flap, the enemy knows exactly how many and what types of vehicles are armored, and how to tell one from another. Good job, members of the mainstream media. Doesn’t our military have enough to do without your invented scandals and information leaks? As for the military, I suggest that when speaking to the press, you restrict any conversation to the following topics: names of cities fought in, amount of ground taken, and number of enemies killed. Anything you say can and will be used against you by the enemy.
Joe Mariani-Mens News Daily
Didn’t the media have a differnt spin on the Armor issue. Mr. Mariani ssems to provide a lot more detail and fact.