2/28/2007
I found this today while surfing around. This story is truly sad, but I have one question; why wasn’t the mother having the child brush his teeth? I understand that the poor often can’t afford a dentist, but a toothbrush and toothpaste would have gone a long way to prevent this tragedy. Here’s how MSNBC/Washington Post opened the story.
WASHINGTON -Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.
A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.
If his mother had been insured.
If his family had not lost its Medicaid.
If Medicaid dentists weren’t so hard to find.
If his mother hadn’t been focused on getting a dentist for his brother, who had six rotted teeth.
By the time Deamonte’s own aching tooth got any attention, the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain, doctors said. After two operations and more than six weeks of hospital care, the Prince George’s County boy died.
What about if his mother had had him brush his teeth. Or if his mother had recognized that something was wrong and had taken hom to the hospital sooner. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to put this all off on the mother. She’s not a doctor, nor is she a dentist. Obviously, something went horribly wrong when the child went to the emergency room the first time. What I am saying though is that there were many many things that the mother could have done to help prevent this.
Furthermore, I have been through many medical emergencies in the past four years and I cannot believe that — insured or not – Deamonte couldn’t get emergency dentistry care when they realized that his tooth was abscessed.
The article goes on to make this into a universal healthcare thing. I don’t believe that universal healthcare would have save Deamonte. His mother had access to everything she needed to prevent this. Once things got to the point that he needed to be hospitalized his mother certainly had access. They — by law — cannot turn away someone who is that ill due to lack of insurance. If they could, I’d be dead right now.
You know, the point is personal responsibility. If Deamonte’s mother had taken responsibility for having him brush his teeth he might not have gotten the abscess. If she had taken responsibility for bettering her life and her children’s lives she might have had insurance. Folks, the government — whether state or federal — cannot solve all of your problems.
2/27/2007
The trucking industry will always be near and dear to my heart. As many of you know, I spent seven years traveling the highways of this country in the drivers seat of just about every type of truck out there. So, I was discouraged today to read that the federal DOT has decided to start a pilot program allowing Mexican nationals to drive their trucks beyond the twenty mile border zone.
This — in my opinion — is a big mistake for a number of reasons. First and foremost, it would likely take jobs from American drivers who have been loyal to the industry for decades. This would happen in this way; a Mexican national brings his or her load up to the states from Mexico City. Today, that driver would have to drop their load at or within twenty miles of the border and an American driver would take it the rest of the way to where it’s going.
Under the proposed pilot program, the Mexican driver would be allowed to take the load on to whatever city it was ultimately bound for costing an American driver that portion of the “haul”. Now, that would be okay if their was a reciprocal allowance for American drivers. In other words, if American drivers were allowed to haul to… say Mexico City. This probably won’t happen though. First of all, there’s nothing in the proposed plan allowing for that. Even of there was, most American trucking companies will likely be hesitant to send their drivers to Mexico because of difficulties getting freight coming back to the states (amoung other problems).
The second reason that this would be a big mistake is that neither the drivers or the Mexican trucks are up to our safety standards. Now, the federal DOT promises that they will hold Mexican trucks and drivers to the same safety standards as US trucks and drivers. But, that’s not likely to happen either. The DOTÂ (whether state or federal) simply does not have the inspectors to keep that promise.
Finally, in this post 9-11 world, this is a huge security risk. We’ve all heard about OTM’s (other than Mexicans) coming across our southern border. Most of these OTM’s are of middle eastern origin. Countries that are not our friends or allies. Countries like Iran. If that weren’t bad enough, what’s to stop someone from putting a device in one of the trailers coming across the border? Once again, unless the DOT plans on inspecting every load coming across the border this would be very easy to do.
I would really hate to see an industry I love so much harmed by a foolish program like this. I really hope someone in Washington is paying attention to the very real problems this will cause both the trucking industry and our country.
2/26/2007
Bruce Crandall Recieves Long Overdue Honor
Bruce Crandall, who was a helicopter pilot in Vietnam, recieved the Medal of Honor in a Whitehouse ceremony today. Crandall is credited with saving the lives of more than 70 wounded soldiers by volunteering to fly them out to safety when the medevac unit originally assigned to the task said that the landing zone was too hot.
Crandall and Retired General Harold Moore were portrayed in the movie “We Were Soldiers Once… and Young“. The movie was about the heroic actions of Crandall, Moore, and his troops in one of the fiercest battles of the Vietnam War in the Ia Drang valley.Â
To read the Washington Post and Iraq The Model, you’d think they were talking about two different cities in two different countries. While Omar and Mohammed at ITM are positive and upbeat about the progress being made by the Iraqi government and American troops, the WaPo takes the more pessemistic view.
BAGHDAD — The engineer stood aside as Iraqi and American soldiers rifled through his daughter’s wardrobe and peered under her bed. He did not mind when they confiscated the second clip for his AK-47, because he knew it could be easily replaced. He demurred when asked about insurgent activity in the neighborhood, afraid to be stamped an informant and driven from his home of 14 years. Face to face with the Baghdad security plan, it seemed to him a bit absurd.
“Obviously, the soldiers lack the necessary information about where to look and who to look for,” said the government engineer, who declined to give his name in an interview during a sweep through his western Baghdad neighborhood last Monday. “There are too many houses and too many hide-outs.”
 Wow, to read that, it seems that the road to peace in iraq is hopeless. But, lets take a look at what the two residents of Baghdad have to say about the progress being made.
It’s been less than two weeks since the Baghdad operation was officially launched. This period, though short, has been full of events; both good and bad ones.
Here we are not in a rush to judge the operation unlike some media or politicians who seek anything they can use to serve their agendas. We, Baghdadis, only want this operation to succeed and we still have some patience to show.These days I make sure that I have daily tour in Baghdad, covering both Karkh and Resafa (west and east) and these tours aren’t exactly boring because there are always new things to see.
The buildup of troops in the capital seems to be incremental and increasing by the day giving a steadily growing sense of the seriousness of the operation. Yesterday during my tour with some friends we were stopped to be searched seven times during about only two hours; five times in Karkh and two in Resafa. The search typically includes verifying the vehicle registration papers, looking for guns and munitions or suspicious objects, destination of the passenger/driver and often their identity cards. In general the security personnel are polite in their dealing with people they search and some of them even end the procedure with an apology for the inconvenience.
We are getting used to the procedures at checkpoints; keep your hands visible on the wheel, keep your papers close to you, prepare to open the trunk and if it’s getting dark then turn the headlights off and turn the reading light on.
I hear a lot from people how they want to see checkpoint search each and every vehicle on the street even their own because we know that the more effective checkpoints are the more secure the city would be.
Yesterday I saw the national police units using new armored vehicles (I guess they are Reva’s) that look much more professional and effective than ordinary SUV’s or pickup trucks. Actually it would be great if all national police units get these unique vehicles because then both imposters and corrupt officers would have little chance to carry out attacks on civilians in the name of the corps.
Heh, like I said; a tale of two cities.
2/24/2007
2/22/2007
Anti military military columnist Bill Arkin has come out with another incoherent rant. For years the left demonized Donald Rumsfeld making him look like either the devil incarnate or the most incompetent defense secretary in history — to the point that I believe they made the position untenable for Rumsfeld. Now, Arkin — in an attempt to beat up on both Senator McCain and President Bush — is defending Rumsfeld… sort of.
If Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) thinks that the buck stops with Donald Rumsfeld, he is not qualified to be President.
On the campaign trail, McCain labeled the former Secretary of Defense the worst in history Monday.
Sure there is a lot to criticize about Rumsfeld.
What I detect, though, is a virus that is also spreading through the Pentagon right now, in which the former defense secretary is the excuse and the whipping boy for all of America’s problems.
Rumsfeld’s missteps indeed made a major contribution to the mess in Iraq and the mishandling of the “war” against terrorism. In blaming Rumsfeld, however, McCain sidesteps the faulty logic of American interest and necessity that justified the war in the first place. And he excuses the larger national security team who equally has responsibility for the war and its subsequent design. Finally, McCain ignores the Commander-in-Chief: He will later need Bush on the campaign trail.
Why the sudden defense of Secretary Rumsfeld? I suspect that it’s because it’s time to start whipping on anyone and everyone who could get the Republican nomination for President. The fact that he can whip on President Bush is a bonus as far as Arkin is concerned.
What a disingenuous piece of work.
2/21/2007
Soldiers On The Ground Hopeful For The Future Of Iraq
***The opinions expressed in this interview are those of myself and the interviewee only and not necessarily those of the Army or the DOD***
I’ve had the great opportunity to work with Sgt. Keller at CENTCOM public affairs he and his superiors have graciously allowed this amateur internet journalist interview another soldier. This time, I spent some virtual time with SFC Smith who is serving his country in the area around Basra, Iraq. I would also like to thank SFC Smith for taking time out of his very busy schedule to spend time answering my questions. As I said during my last “boots on the ground” interview, I believe that it’s vitally important to publish the opinions of those serving their country. I also believe that it’s important to find out about the good stuff going on in Iraq. The MSM joined the out of Iraq drumbeat long ago, and because of that I feel that we often don’t hear about the good things happening there. So, without further delay, here’s my interview with SFC Smith.
There are hundreds of missions going on EVERYDAY that you all back home do not hear about. It does not meet the media agenda I guess. We have teams here that specialize in rebuilding Iraq, and they carry out tons of projects to better this place. They are repairing sewer systems, building wells, building schools, even repairing the roads in this country. The truth is that there are hundreds of them going on everyday in this country without the media attention reserved for the “blood and guts” coverage. We have even started women’s schools for the advancement of the women in this country, which is a far cry from the treatment of women throughout the Middle East. I, myself took part in a park opening in a smaller city in Iraq- it was my proudest moment for me personally in this country, to be able to see the kids run around all excited just like any other group of kids back in the states. Our guys took a corner property that was trash and made it into a full playground for the kids to use. You should have been there- a beautiful sunny day became a beautiful moment in that small city. The kids were running around like crazy, “amped” up on the pure excitement of the park that they had watched grow before them for weeks now becoming open for them to play on. The Iraqi leadership for the region was there- sheiks, mayors, governors and plenty of Iraqi police. Our leadership was there too, but it was the small team of civil affairs specialists that had put it together that were cornerstone in improving that little town. They are probably the most trusting soldiers we have here in Iraq. They roll into towns and cities, big and small, and try to make a difference for the people of this nation who suffered so much under Saddam. They look at each place and see it as a challenge to build into something better, despite the targets they could be to the enemy. They risk a lot coming into some of these towns- I hold the utmost respect for them and love to work with them when I get the chance.
I am in Southern Iraq. This is my second base I have been stationed at. Our bases are great. We have little apartments we live in, and we even have Burger King and Pizza Hut here (Taco Bell arrives next month). In fact, they say that AAFES (our version of Wal-mart) has 175 fast food restaurants in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan- imagine being at war and being able to swing by and grab a burger or pizza after a long days mission.
Administrators note: The answer to the above question needed to be edited for security reasons.
YES. Problem for you all is that they will never report it back there in the states. For instance, I saw a press conference from General Casey, the MNF-I Commander, in regards to the provinces here. Iraq basically has 19 “states” compared to our 50, except they call them provinces. That said, in terms of security 14 are considered “green”, 3 are “amber” and 2 are still “red”. Instead of telling the American public that story (I believe it is called the truth) the reporters they send over here sit in their cozy hotel in the IZ in Baghdad and only report the doom and gloom from the footage they buy from local reporters. Has your nightly news ever started their coverage with the feature story “14 of 19 Iraqi provinces show MAJOR improvements” or “heavy fighting reduced to 2 provinces”? Yeah, I knew you had not- rhetorical question I guess. The general said it best- we have 5 areas with problems, 2 with serious problems. This country is never going to truly get along, they haven’t for a thousand years. That said, they aren’t in a civil war, but they are never going to be like America, either. The truth, as often in life, lies somewhere in the middle. The issue of Sectarian violence- It was the same under Saddam, just state-sponsored sectarian violence that tortured women and children at a much worse level. Why is it that Hollywood stars will rush to support the end of genocide in Africa with 200,000 deaths, when Saddam systemically committed genocide on his own people for over 2 decades, more than 2 million lives lost and the only time a Hollywood star came here was to protect Saddam’s reign? They (Iraqi’s) are a different culture, and we are rebuilding this country under that culture, as different from ours as it is. They don’t always get it in what we expect of them, but they are still fascinating people- even if it is frustrating. Imagine a culture where corruption was not only accepted, but so commonplace that it wasn’t even considered improper.
I will answer both of these together. The answer is certainly complex, but I’ll point out one thing. The American soldiers are growing VERY disenfranchised with the American media and the impact it is having on the American people’s view of this war. The media is not telling the truth about this war, they are not telling what is going on over here.
There just seems to be no integrity in the entire media empire- how in the hell do those guys sleep at night? As I mentioned before, hundreds of improvement missions go on here daily, and NONE of it gets reported. We have advanced the cause for women’s equality more in this country in the last three years than during Saddam’s entire reign of over 2 decades. Yet, none of it gets reported. I met a man here that was a LT Colonel pilot under Saddam, and he made $75 a month. Now, he makes $15 dollars a day selling Iraqi gifts, and he has employed his son to work for him, also making $15 dollars a day. Their family income went up 12 fold in the new Iraq. Imagine a minimum wage family that makes a combined income of $40,000 a year suddenly making $480,000 a year. Iraq’s economy is one of the fastest growing in the world and the guys with street side markets in Baghdad say they earn 30 times what they were ALLOWED to make under Saddam. A street cleaner in Baghdad now earns what a teacher was allowed to make under Saddam. This country should be a thriving country with a great middle class- and it is moving closer to that now that when a madman controlled it. Yet, no one wants to show the positives of Iraq. No one wants to tells both sides of this story. Instead of going out and telling the true tale here, the reporters want to sit in the green zone and live off the footage they buy from the local reporters (with no means of authenticating the coverage). We’re not asking for much, just be fair and tell both sides of the reality of Iraq. So, for the American people, I guess the message is for them to demand more from their media outlets. Enough of the “groupthink”, look at both sides of this place and demand some level of integrity from your local news, your local paper and on up to the big networks. They have no desire to conduct themselves ethically, so we must, as a united nation, demand more from them and write them to tell them so. Write your elected officials as well, and tell them you demand more integrity from the media and politicians who get caught up in the collective trashing of the war effort. War is never an easy endeavor. To win, it takes commitment, and if you are TRULY “for the troops” then you cannot be against the war. If you are “for the troops” then what people need to say is “get the job done, then come home” rather than trash the efforts we are sweating and bleeding for over here. See the positives in bringing freedom to a decimated people and creating a democracy in the middle east. We know this is serious business, but making it into a quagmire isn’t going to help- it will only make this thing drag on. If the American public just loved this nation HALF as much as the American soldier we’d be so much better off- where are all those flags we saw flying after 9/11??
I don’t interact with them daily.
So, let’s look at this issue in purely numerical terms. Iraq is a country of 24 million people. If they TRULY wanted us to not be here, we wouldn’t be. If only 5% of Iraqi’s took up arms against us, that would be an army of 1.2 million people, and we’d be running for Kuwait! That doesn’t even account for the estimated 20,000 foreign fighters that have come here to become Martyrs and such. So, imagine if the people of Iraq truly “didn’t” want us here. This is their country and when they are ready, we’ll be gone and they’ll be running it. In the meantime, they want what every other person wants- they want security, food on their plate and a chance to better themselves and their families. That said, most know what the deal is and want the Iranian spies and foreign fighters to clear out and give them a chance to be their own country. Look at their vote- they had a higher voter turn out than America. They are a very literate people and are very educated. Americans would be surprised how many Iraqi’s took English in high school. Most of them are frustrated with the stalemate of the progress because of sectarian violence, and sometimes their frustration just comes out. They want to be able to do their jobs without masked gunman taking them hostage, or long American convoys driving by that they have to pull over for. They want what we all want- normalcy. The thing they are missing is the commitment to excellence we have as Americans. For more than 2 decades Saddam held them under his boot, and they learned to accept less than the best, and now we need to convince them to believe in excellence again.
If you pay someone to side your house, and half way through the project they come into some problems that are going to cost more money and time on your house. Do you quit the job, fire the crew and curse the job they did and especially the decision to side the house in the first place? And if you do that, do you expect your house to get better after the half job is done? No. We all make decisions in our lives, and we make them based upon the best information available at the time. If the road afterwards has some unexpected turns, we don’t quit and get off the
road- we adjust to the changes and keep moving forward.
To quit in Iraq now, will make every life lost part of something less.There are patriotic Americans who have given a loved one towards this cause, and they want to know it was for something important, something real and something honorable. No one wants to think they lost a loved one for something we quit on part way through, accented only the negatives, and hid the reality so we could make it out to look at negative as possible. We, as a nation, cannot allow that to happen to those who lost a loved one, or for those who gave a limb or serious injury here in Iraq. We must continue to view both sides of this conflict and see the truth that lies in the middle and remember these heroes daily. If we leave Iraq, Iran, Syria and Al Qaeda will undermine everything we have done. Iran will mobilize the Shiites and Al Qaeda the Sunni’s. The country will fall into complete rebellion as both groups fight to gain control of one of the world’s largest oil reserves. We will be forced to watch on our nightly news as the violence (which we think is bad right now) in Iraq is compounded by the complete loss of all morality into large scale genocide. What will happen in Iraq if we pull out now will be genocide the modern world has never seen. What we stand for as Americans cold be lost forever if we pull out- how will the world view America after the world watches Iraq tear itself apart and allow Al Qaeda and Iran takeover an entire country? All of these left-wing groups and out of touch politicians- what do they really think is going to happen if we just pull out like they grandstand about? Those of us who have been here see past this farce logic- America was built upon the ideology of freedom from oppression, and Iraq today is not just a war, but a battle in a larger war, the war against terror.
For me, as with most soldiers, it is family. We live well over here, for soldiers at war. In fact, we live better than any other American soldiers at war throughout America’s history. Most of us even have cable TV in our rooms brought to us by AFN (Armed Forces Network). So, when we get home it will be the issue of family, those loved ones we have been dreaming about for so long. Right now, the Army is our family and our comrades in arms are our loved ones. Yet, the moment we get home we want to squeeze our loved ones and feel them in our arms. We want to laugh with them, to see how much they have grown without us. We will have stories to tell, some good some bad. But, those stories need to wait until another day, because when we get home we want to enjoy every second of every moment with our families, to lavish in the moment of enjoying the freedom we have defended. Of course, there is also a strong desire to be able to do what we want for a change, without anyone giving you any “orders”. Also, I plan on getting engaged and making that “big plunge” everyone talks about.
Morale is good. Of course, the longer anyone is away form home, the more we miss home. We just get tired. Even though the heat has died down, everyone I talked to is just a little tired. I am different- I am not married nor do I have any children. I am completely in awe of those soldiers with small children, and families. They are sacrificing more than I can imagine with time lost in their children’s eyes. They, like the soldiers we have out on convoys every night are the true heroes of our units. I have a soldier with newborn twins, and I monitor his situation back in “Fort Living Room†closely. I volunteered to deploy here- I actually had to fight to get to come here. Morale here is also more multi-faceted than people at home might think. Those engaging the enemy daily are tired and looking for a break- yet, those soldiers in support roles are longing to be apart of the “a team” and out on the field playing the big game, their morale struggles stemming from a lack of being able to make the biggest impact here as possible. Soldiers are almost all “type A” personalities and are very competitive, each wanting to do their part and more in defending our greatest of nations.
Well, it is really more of a 50/50 deal. Some are re-upping, some are not. As an Army National Guard Retention NCO, I have kept a keen eye and ear on this very issue. A lot of good soldiers are “extending” to continue to serve, but a lot are not. However, the war is not as big of a factor as one might think. In my observations, the long train up we received prior to deploying, as well as the “internal politics” of any organization are bigger factors. Something that we struggle with here, just as with civilian organizations, is employee satisfaction and commitment. When you take someone from their home and deploy them thousands of miles from home to do probably the most dangerous thing in their lives, an organization must ensure that its employees are taken care of at all levels, especially the middle management levels. Overall, the “re-upping” rate is not what it could or should be, but not a negative outcome either.
2/19/2007
Levin Vows Continued Obstructionism
The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin (D, MI) appeared on Fox News Sunday yesterday. One thing that his appearance proved to me was just how clueless the Democrats in Washington are about national security. We clearly cannot trust them with the safety and security of our nation.
Let’s spend a little time covering some of what Levin said today. Chris Wallace’s first question to Levin was about whether or not the Democrats would pursue a binding resolution now since the non-binding resolution has so far failed to pass in the Senate.
“FOX NEWS SUNDAY” HOST CHRIS WALLACE: We’re joined now by the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Democrat Carl Levin, who comes to us from his home state of Michigan.
Senator, now that the House has passed the anti-surge resolution and the Senate has not, what’s next? Will the Democrats in control of Congress move now to binding measures that would restrict the president?
LEVIN: Well, we assume that we’ll be thwarted in that by a filibuster, too. But if we can’t get a non-binding statement passed because of the Republican filibuster, it may be more difficult even to get a binding resolution passed.
But we’re going to continue to try, because we are determined that we’re going to change course in Iraq and that the president’s current position of deepening our military involvement by sending 21,000-plus troops into Iraq is a mistake.
It’s just going to plunge us in deeper into a civil war. This is not a surge. This is a plunge which we’re talking about into the unknown and into maybe the unknowable by putting 21,000 American troops into the neighborhoods of Baghdad.
Notice that he’s intent on “changing the President’s current position”. We haven’t even given the surge a chance to work fully. That being said, what work we’ve done so far after the beginning of the surge, seems to have quited Baghdad down a lot. But, that doesn’t seem to matter a whit to Levin and the rest of the defeatists.
Next, Wallace asks Levin what they plan to do about changing the President’s policy.
WALLACE: Senator, there are several ideas out there about how to change course — either cut off funding — Congressman Murtha, as you know, has come up with the idea of setting benchmarks for how troops that could be sent over that he knows the Pentagon can’t meet.
Senator Biden is talking about repealing the 2002 authorization to go to war. What approach do you favor?
LEVIN: Well, hopefully, we can come up with a bipartisan approach. We got seven Republicans who voted with us yesterday. We hope to pick up at least that many and maybe a few more.
I think probably the best approach would be to modify the authorization to the president to go to war in Iraq. That was a wide-open authorization which allowed him to do just about anything and put us now deep into combat in Iraq, and now into the neighborhoods of Baghdad.
We, I think, will be looking at a modification of that authorization in order to limit the mission of American troops to a support mission instead of a combat mission, and that is very different from cutting off funds.
I don’t think there’s support to cut off funds. I think that sends the wrong message to our troops. We’re going to support our troops. And one way to support them is to find a way out of Iraq earlier rather than later.
Note to Senator Levin: if you really want to support the troops, how about supporting their mission.
One thought is that we should limit the mission to a support mission — in other words, an antiterrorist mission to go after Al Qaeda in Iraq, to support and train the Iraqi army, to protect our own diplomatic personnel and other personnel in Iraq, rather than this unlimited mission which was described in the authorization for the use of force.
Um, I thought that this was exactly what we’re already doing? Going after terrorists, protecting our diplomatic personnel and training the Iraqi army… Ah, but here’s the real reason they’re planning all of this:
We think that that would be constitutional, and it also would move us toward the end of our presence in Iraq…
Wallace isn’t about to let Levin off the hook easily. Later in the interview he asks Senator Levin whether or not this move by the Democrats is gambling on failure, and whether or not the Democrats will look foolish if it succeeds.
WALLACE: Senator, aren’t some Democrats in effect gambling that the surge will fail? And won’t you end up looking foolish if it should actually succeed?
LEVIN: Well, the course that the president is on is a failing course. It’s been failing for four years. We’re trying to change that course to one which has the maximum chance of success.
And the maximum chance of success is to limit our mission, to get us out of the middle of a sectarian civil war. So it’s the president’s course which is a course toward failure…
Levin’s response is ridiculous. He says that the President’s course has been failing for four years. Well, in what world is freeing a people from the tyranny of a thug like Saddam Hussein, allowing a people to vote for the first time in their lives, and taking out Al Qaeda terrorists a failure?
The interview goes on and on. Levin basically continues to call a strategy that hasn’t had a chance to play out yet a failure and promises to do whatever is necessary to proclaim defeat and retreat.
I think the worst part about what is taking place in the Congress and Senate right now is that both our enemies and our allies are watching them systematically undermine US foreign policy. Democrats and white flag Republicans seem to have given absolutely no thought whatsoever to the message that sends.
2/17/2007
The Army Responds To The Armor Shortage Meme
The armor shortage meme has reared it’s ugly head again. This time in a WaPo story related to a Department of Defense IG report. The New York Times editorial board has even resurrected it’s interest. Ted Kennedy has even gotten in on the act.
Well, the army is pushing back this time. Here’s their full response.
Recent media reports and a three-page summary from a classified Defense Department Inspector General report suggest the Army may have difficulty meeting its equipment requirements with regard to the recently announced troop increase in Iraq. These media reports are inaccurate and paint an incomplete picture. The U.S. Army’s priority is sending only the best trained and equipped Soldiers into combat operations and that means providing the best force protection equipment for Soldiers. Even as we plus up troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom and beyond, force protection will not be shortchanged. Further, the Army will ensure all these Soldiers continue to have the best and most capable equipment in the world.
“Combat is an inherently dangerous and risky endeavor,” said Brig. Gen. Chuck Anderson, a senior leader for the Army’s force development section. “The one area the Army will not accept risk is in the protection of our most valuable resource - the Soldier. As our additional forces reach Iraq, they will have the most modern force protection equipment available.”The Army began the Global War on Terrorism with equipment shortages totaling $56 billion from previous decades. In the last several years, the Army has transformed itself more than any other military in history and rapidly acquires ever-improving equipment on a scale not seen since World War II. This agility was forced by the reality of the battlefield: urban combat, the enemy’s selection of casualty producing weapons like Improvised Explosive Devices, and the need to operate in dispersed locations across vast distances are examples. As the combat environment our Soldiers fight in continues to change, the requirements for the type of equipment necessary to fight successfully and win also change.
So, while engaged in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, training and rotating thousands of Soldiers and their units year after year, the Army has provided Soldiers with the best in individual body armor and continues to improve that protective system as technology evolves. In Iraq alone, the Army has gone from a low of 400 up-armored Humvees to nearly 15,000 up-armored Humvees patrolling neighborhoods, protecting troops, and mitigating risk from most types of enemy munitions.
And, while all these improvements have been substantial, the comprehensive process of assessing lessons learned to find and accelerate technological advancements to Soldiers continues.
An excellent example is how the Army is improving the Humvee, based on the ever-changing battlefield threat. As of this date, the Army has produced enough Frag Kit #5 Retrofit kits to outfit every Humvee in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thousands of these kits are being flown into theater every month and they are being installed in theater, 24 hours a day, seven days a week to ensure Soldiers have the best protection available. Retrofit of vehicles being used in Iraq and Kuwait has been synchronized with the plus-up, and is scheduled to be completed this Spring. Retrofits of vehicles being used in Afghanistan are scheduled to be completed this Summer. Bottom line and contrary to news reports, the Army has sufficient up-armored Humvees being produced or fitted with Frag Kit #5 and all other force protection and safety enhancements to meet the plus-up requirement. These vehicles are being shipped directly from the factory to theater to ensure no Soldier “crosses the berm†in a Humvee without Frag Kit #5.
The draft Defense Department Inspector General report, also much-discussed in the media, is an anecdote-based survey that includes interviews with Soldiers about their experiences from 2004-2005 in Afghanistan, and the experiences of multi-Service Members (slightly more than half were U.S. Army) from various units in Iraq in May 2006. We are closely reviewing the Inspector General’s findings and recommendations, always ready to apply lessons learned.
The report’s findings for Iraq were actually positive, and in almost all categories there were no equipment shortages in Army units there. Almost all of the Army shortages described in the report were in Afghanistan, with the majority of those shortages in Task Force Phoenix, the US-lead coalition force that trains Afghan security forces. The equipping conditions described in Afghanistan, though accurate for the report’s time period, are dated. The requirement for more and more Afghan security forces means the requirement for US personnel and equipment to execute the train-and-equip mission has increased even further since the date of the report. And these new requirements are being addressed right now. “We’ve had steady and continuous improvement in force protection assets over the past year,†said Maj. Gen. Robert Durbin, the senior American trainer for Afghan security forces. “To date, the increased critical force protection requirement my command has identified has been validated and approved and I am totally confident that everything possible is being done to ensure that equipment arrives in theater as quickly as possible.”
Also, the DoD IG report’s finding that the Army lacks a standard process to determine equipping requirements is incorrect. The Army Requirement and Resource Board (AR2B), a weekly three-star level event with key overseas headquarters linked by video teleconference is the process that reviews emerging theater requirements and operational needs and determines how to solve equipping problems for deployed and deploying units. Through this process – in place and continually refined since early 2003 — the Army continues to work closely with commanders on the ground, U.S. Central Command, the Joint Staff and the Defense Department to provide Soldiers and other U.S. forces with needed equipment in a timely manner. Unlike the report’s recommendation, the Army believes that it would be inefficient to simply follow a rigid, uniform approach in equipping forces in view of the constantly changing realities on the battlefield. Instead, the Army’s process responds rapidly and flexibly to the assessments that commanders continually make in the field in determining the exact resources they require to accomplish their missions and safeguard the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines under their command. With each new assessment, the Army has been quick to respond, and will continue to do so.
Facing even greater requirements now in 2007, and to ensure full protection with no compromises, the Army has developed a plan to make use of every available asset worldwide to fully equip plus up forces. The essential elements of the plan include:
1. Ensuring Soldiers of deploying units have the equipment they need to train with before deployment.
2. Preparing unit sets of what we call “TPE” (Theater Provided Equipment) for the forces when they arrive in theater.
3. Speeding up production of key “in demand” systems, capabilities and additional equipment like armored trucks.
4. Retro-fitting — in theater or back in the United States — equipment that has been in the fight with updated force protection.
5. Continuously reviewing and streamlining the process to identify, request, validate and deliver needed equipment to the Soldier. The Equipping Common Operating Picture System started Sept. 1, 2006, provides a worldwide collaborative data base and tracking capability for equipment needs and is an example one such improvement made from this constant review.“We will fully resource our combat commanders for this new plus up mission, and assure them we will satisfy their theater force protection requirements for our Soldiers. It is always the priority mission, “ said Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, the Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs.
Michelle Malkin has this response from a Captain currently serving in Iraq:
This is simply another Red Herring. All of the trucks that leave the FOBs either possess interim FRAG-5 armor kits or the Objective Kits. I have not seen a truck equivalent to what we used over 2 years ago in OIF II on the roads in Baghdad (add on armor kits). Every truck we have is baseline an M1114 or M1151 up-armored HMMWV, not a modified M998 or M1025 (standard HMMWV, no armor). The same type of reporter writes these articles, one you can refer as a Green Zone Sniper. I have personally been impressed with how quickly the Army gets newly developed equipment and technology to the soldiers in the fight. The EFP threat didn’t explode until last year, although we saw their initial use over two years ago.
In any case, the interim or objective armor is only designed to stop the spalling effect (inner debris converted to shrapnel), as there is no reasonable amount of armor that can stop the copper slug. EFPs are equivalent to firing an anti-tank gun at the side of a HMMWV. What will help address the EFP threat? The increase in forces in Baghdad. The FOB mentality, combined with a lack of a persistent presence in sector of US forces, is a greater threat to soldier safety than a lack of passive force protection materials (armor, concrete barriers). That stated, however, there is no shortage of passive FP materials.
Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin
2/16/2007
Well, the house has voted to pass the Democrat’s defeatist resolution. The good news is that two Democrats voted against it. Let’s give them credit for doing the right thing. Here are their names and contact numbers:
Representative Jim Marshall
Phone: 202-225-6531
Fax: 202-225-3013
Representative Gene Taylor
Phone: 202-225-5772
Fax: 202-225-7074
Note: The original version of this post incorrectly identified Nadler and Baird as the dissenting Democrats. I apologize for the incorrect information. — Jim C, Thinking Right
Now, for the bad news. Seventeen Republicans decided to embolden our enemies and undercut our troops. It’s beyond me why any serious Republican Representative would not only hurt our troops, but hurt their own career by voting for this non binding resolution. For the Democrats this is obviously nothing but political grandstanding as the resolution will change nothing about how the war is being waged. For the Republicans, it’s a career ender. So, without further adieu, here are the seventeen Republicans who have decided to end their careers:
Representative James T. Walsh
Phone: 202-225-3701
Fax: 202-225-4042
[Email: Rep.james.walsh AT mail.house.gov]
Representative Walter Jones
Phone: 202-225-3415
Fax: 202-225-3286
Representative Wayne Gilchrest
Phone: 202-225-5311
Fax: 202-225-0254
Representative Michael Castle
Phone: 202-225-4165
Fax: 202-225-2291
Representative Richard (Ric) Keller
Phone: 202-225-2176
Fax: 202-225-0999
Representative Philip Sheridan English
Phone: 202-225-5406
Fax: 202-225-3103
Representative Ronald Ernest Paul
Phone: 202-225-2831
Representative Frederick Stephen Upton
Phone: 202-225-3761
Fax: 202-225-4986
Representative Thomas M. Davis
Phone: 202-225-1492
Fax: 202-225-3071
Representative Mark Kirk
Phone: 202-225-4835
Fax: 202-225-0837
Representative Howard Coble
Phone: 202-225-3065
Fax: 202-225-8611
Email: howard.coble AT mail.house.gov
Representative John J. Duncan Jr.
Phone: 202-225-5435
Fax: 202-225-6440
Representative James Ramstad
Phone: 202-225-2871
Fax: 202-225-6351
Email: mn03 AT mail.house.gov
Representative Steven C. LaTOURETTE
Phone: 202-225-5731
Fax: 202-225-3307
Representative Robert Inglis
Phone: 202-225-6030
Fax: 202-226-1177
Representative Timothy V. Johnson
Phone: 202-225-2371
Fax: 202-226-0791
Representative Thomas Petri
Phone: 202-225-2476
Fax: 202-225-2356
2/15/2007
General William Odom (Ret.) And The Defeatocrats
I appreciate his service to his country, but, I’ve never heard anyone so fundamentally wrong on the war. This is what he had to say about our efforts in Iraq:
WO: We have made it much worse.
HH: Much worse than Saddam?
WO: Yeah.
HH: You believe that people in Iraq…
WO: Oh, there’s many more people been killed each year we’ve been there than were being killed during Saddam’s period.
HH: How many people were being killed under Saddam, General?
WO: I don’t know, but it was not a very high number we’re discovering.
HH: General, the mass graves? Those are not signifiers?
WO: Well, look. You know, I haven’t counted the people in the mass graves, but I think that that would be a very instructive figure to get some hard data on and compare them. I’d like to see it. I don’t think that Saddam…he had enough intimidation so that he didn’t have to kill on the rate that we’re killing.
HH: And so…
WO: …or that they’re killing each other.
HH: Now you also write in the article that we must, that you dismiss the idea it will get worse if we leave.
WO: No, I said it doesn’t matter how bad it gets, it’s not going to get better by us staying there. You see, I’m not one of those…I personally think that we might end up finding less of a terrible aftermath than we’ve pumped ourselves up to expect, because the President and a lot of other people have really made a big thing of trying to scare us about that. What I’m saying is even if their scare scenarios turn out to be the case, that is the price we have to pay to get out of this trap, and eventually bring a stability to that region which if the Iraqis and other Arab countries want to become liberal systems, they can do it. They’re not going to do it the way we’re headed there now.
HH: From your Sunday Post piece is this couple of lines. “Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath, express fear that quitting it will leave a bloodbath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a failed state, or some other horror. But this aftermath is already upon us. A prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.†Do you…
WO: I think that’s a pretty accurate description of what’s happened over the past four years.
HH: So you don’t think it can get worse?
WO: Yeah, it can get worse. It’s gotten worse every year.
HH: But how much worse could it get if we weren’t there?
WO: I don’t know. I don’t think it…look, it will eventually get as bad it can get if we stay there long enough.
HH: But if we precipitously withdraw, do you expect genocide?
WO: I would call some of the things…I mean, you know, that’s a definitional term.
HH: Do the numbers…
WO: I mean, it depends on what you define as genocide.
HH: Do the numbers matter at all to your analysis? If someone came to you and said 100,000 people will die…
WO: Yes, they matter, and what I’m telling you is that we can’t affect, we cannot improve the numbers of survivors by staying longer.
HH: Well here…do you follow the work of John Burns, New York Times correspondent?
WO: Yeah.
HH: Here’s John Burns on that subject from last week.
JB: If the United Nations is correct in saying that 3,700 Iraqi civilians died in October, and that’s a morgue’s count. It may be an underestimate, we don’t know. But he said if it’s correct that 3,700 people died in October across Iraq, think about this. You take the American troops away in this situation, leaving Shiite death squads to move into Adamiya in force, without any kind of protection, he said it won’t be 3,700 dead in the month, it will be 3,700 dead in the night in Adamiya. Now that may be an exaggeration, but it reflects the kind of fears that are quite widespread, amongst Sunnis in particular, but also to some extent amongst Shiites in Iraq about the consequences of an American troop withdrawal.
HH: So General, should we be indifferent to that?
WO: Yes.
HH: Why?
WO: Because we can’t affect it. He’s assuming we can make it different, and we are the cause that that situation exists today. John Burns, he’s forgot that we invaded the country, and they weren’t having those deaths that rate when Saddam was there.
HH: But it was a nation of…
WO: You insist, you are arguing that they…you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that there were more deaths when Saddam was there, and say that we’re improving things by staying there, and seeing them get worse every year.
HH: Actually, I believe that we have some significant numbers of the number of killed under Saddam over the course of his lifetime, and that those are much higher than have died in the four years under the American occupation.
WO: Well, I’d be very surprised to discover that, because he’s not…he was not that efficient at killing people. Now Stalin was.
and on the success of not being attacked at home since 9/11…
HH: And why do you believe we haven’t been attacked since 9/11, General?
WO: I don’t think…we’ve been attacked in Iraq. They’ve been killing us left and right over there. It’s over 3,000.
HH: Why have we not been attacked in the United States since 9/11?
WO: You don’t know and I don’t know. Mr. John Miller’s done a very good study saying they don’t have the capabilities. There’s a very lot of intelligence evidence that suggests they don’t have the capabilities to do it.
HH: And did we…
WO: All these so-called cells that the last administration, or this administration seems to have discovered here turned out to be mythical.
HH: Would Libya have disarmed its nukes and chemical weaponry, General, if we…
WO: It’s not analogous. If you are trying to pay a general rule to cause something to happen in all countries, that is…you know, I’d flunk you on a sophomore international relations course.
HH: I’m asking whether or not you thought the Libyan disarmament had anything to do with our invasion of Iraq?
WO: None.
HH: And do you believe that the Oil For Food scandal would have been detected if we’d left Saddam in power?
WO: Look, we would have been less worse off, much better off, had the food scandal gone on, and Saddam were still there.
Odom — in the interview — also tries to make the point that the middle east has no ability to construct and maintain a democracy or a Constitution. I don’t believe this for a minute. In fact, Hugh gave the General two examples — Turkey and Indonesia. In the meantime, in Washington John Murtha finally admitted what his plans for Iraq are:
Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy.
Great, and here I thought we were all supposed to be on the same side. So much for Americans fighting for America.
2/14/2007
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a civil rights lawsuit against New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin as well as the police chief. Apparently, in the days following the Katrina disaster, the city dispatched police and national guard soldiers to confiscate firearms — often at gunpoint, and without warrant or probable cause. That’s bad enough. Mayor Nagin needs to realize that the Constitution can’t be suspended because of a natural disaster. Now, apparently trying to add insult to injury Mayor Nagin and the city attorney have acted as though there was no lawsuit — they’ve completely ignored it… and the judge is mad.
Judge Carl J. Barbier issued a blistering rebuke to New Orleans’ defense counsel for conduct that is “wholly unprofessional†and warned that it “shall not be condoned.†Judge Barbier ordered defense counsel to reimburse SAF’s attorney $1,365. SAF is joined in the lawsuit by the National Rifle Association.
In his ruling, Judge Barbier noted, “Defense counsel has caused time and money to be wasted by Plaintiffs’ counsel and further admits that he has ‘no good reason’ to explain his behavior.â€
What I don’t understand is why the citizens of New Orleans put this incompetent fool back in office.
Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin
2/13/2007
Apparently Moqtada “Mooky” Al-Sadr has decided that things have gotten a little inhospitable for him and his crew in Iraq. Today news came out that he’s made a run for the border… the Iranian border.
According to senior military officials al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago, and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.
Al Sadr commands the Mahdi Army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.
Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, “He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house.”
Sources say some of the Mahdi army leadership went with al Sadr.
Memo to the defeatocrats: We must be doing something right.
Guns sold to Iran found in the hands of Iraqi terrorists
Apparently there have been over 100 .50 calibre sniper rifles found in the hands of Iraqi terrorists over the last year. There’s only one problem; these rifles were originally sold to and exported to Iran by the Austrian company Steyr-Mannlicher.
These rifles are capable of penetrating body armor and are assumed to be responsible for the deaths of around 170 American and British troops.
Austrian sniper rifles that were exported to Iran have been discovered in the hands of Iraqi terrorists, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
More than 100 of the .50 calibre weapons, capable of penetrating body armour, have been discovered by American troops during raids.
The Steyr HS50 is a long range, high precision rifle. The guns were part of a shipment of 800 rifles that the Austrian company, Steyr-Mannlicher, exported legally to Iran last year.
The sale was condemned in Washington and London because officials were worried that the weapons would be used by insurgents against British and American troops. Within 45 days of the first HS50 Steyr Mannlicher rifles arriving in Iran, an American officer in an armoured vehicle was shot dead by an Iraqi insurgent using the weapon.
Over the last six months American forces have found small caches of the £10,000 rifles but in the last 24 hours a raid in Baghdad brought the total to more than 100, US defence sources reported.
The find is the latest in a series of discoveries that indicate that Tehran is providing support to Iraq’s Shia insurgents.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, yesterday denied that Iran had supplied weapons to Iraqi insurgents. But on Sunday US officials in Baghdad displayed a range of weapons they claimed had originated in Iran.
They said 170 American and British soldiers had been killed by such weapons.
The sniper rifles are just one example of the multitude of weapons that have been found in the hands of “insurgents” that can be traced back to Iran. Americans have also found EFP’s or Explosively Formed Projectiles.
EFP – Wide angle cones and other liner shapes such as plates or dishes do not jet, but give instead an explosively formed projectile or EFP. The projectile forms by dynamic plastic flow and has a velocity of 1-3 kms-l . Target penetration is much less than that of a jet, but the hole diameter is larger with more armour backspall.
The concept of using explosive energy to deform a metal plate into a coherent penetrator while simultaneously accelerating it to extremely high velocities offers a unique method of employing a kinetic energy penetrator without the use of a large gun. A typical explosively formed projectile (EFP) is comprised of a metallic liner, a case, an explosive section, and an initiation train. Very often there is also a retaining ring to position and hold the liner-explosive subassembly in place. EFP warheads are normally designed to produce a single massive, high velocity penetrator. After detonation, the explosive products create enormous pressures that accelerate the liner while simultaneously reshaping it into a rod or some other desired shape. The EFP then hits the target at a high speed, delivering a significantly high mechanical power.
An EFP warhead configuration may be comprised of a steel case, a high-explosive charge, and a metallic liner. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) warheads have been designed to project a single massive high velocity penetrator to attack the top of armored vehicles. Such armor perforation capability needs further improvement to counter new generations of harder armored vehicles, without resorting to a larger caliber weapon system. In developing a warhead configuration that meets system constraints and also meets performance requirements, several parameters in the warhead configuration must be redesigned to achieve an optimum configuration. Several warhead configurations have been developed to accommodate varying system constraints.
Explosively Formed Penetrator warheads can defeat the target at very long standoffs. EFP warheads consist of an explosive billet and a metal liner. When the explosive is detonated, the detonation wave forms the liner into a high-speed long rod penetrator and propels the penetrator towards the target at speeds greater that Mach 6.
Yes, these are as nasty as they sound. A 7lb charge is enough to blow through 30 inches of concrete, or the weaker points on an A-1 Abrams tank. Here’s a picture of some of the EFP’s that our troops have found in Iraq:
Unfortunately, there will still be people who just won’t believe that Iran is a threat to the US and it’s interests no matter how much proof you provide.
Here’s a great video courtesy of subsunk at Blackfive. By far the best line of the entire song; “The first amendment protects you from the government, not from me”.
Hat Tip: subsunk @ Blackfive
2/12/2007
Arkin And His Disdain For The Military And The War
William Arkin first proved his disdain for the brave fighting men and women of our military with an op-ed column titled “The Troops Also Need To Support The American People“, and I was going to write a post tearing him apart, but this problem goes far beyond William Arkin and his well established record of coming down on the side of everything anti-military.
The problem seems to be one of the entire MSM — whether it’s Arkin and his ungrateful attitude, Reuters and it’s fauxtography, or the AP and it’s enemy propagandists masquerading as stringers. As I pointed out this weekend, we didn’t have this sort of problem during WW II, the Korean war, or even the first part of the Vietnam war. What’s the difference? I don’t know. Is it that during WW II we had a press and a body politic that was more interested in winning the war than hurting their political adversaries, or is it that American media outlets have become too much of an international entity rather than an American one? Whatever the case, clearly the train has derailed when an American columnist such as William Arkin makes a statement such as this:
These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.
The disturbing thing is that this kind of tripe used to be limited to the far left bomb throwers like Maureen Dowd or Ted Rall. Now it can be found in almost every major newspaper and television network in the US. Of course, now the question becomes what are we as Americans going to do about it?
2/10/2007
Where Have All The American Reporters Gone?
Opinion Journal Online published a great piece by James Q. Wilson a couple of days ago. In his op-ed he laments the negative (and sometimes treasonous) reporting by the “American press” in regards to the GWOT.
Many say that a lot of the negative coverage can be passed off as reporting on conflict, or if it bleeds, it leads. That may be part of it, but it doesn’t explain why papers like the New York Times, and the LA Times have broken stories such as the Terrorist surveillance program, or the story about our efforts to monitor terrorist banking transactions. Wilson provides a great parallel example of how things might have looked during WW II if the press was as anti-victory as they are now.
Suppose the current media posture about American military and security activi