Today’s dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny … MONDAY, Monday .. monday

In the entire history of warfare there has never been an amry that went in equiped like they should have been and my guess is there never will be. War always comes down to which group of soldiers makes the best use of what they have. Who best minimizes the bad and maximizes the good.

This is one of those stories that I can’t quite believe. Remember the “courageous” soldier who raised his hand at a (Tenn?) National Guard meeting with Rumsfeld and asked why his jeeps weren’t up-armored? Rumsfeld, floored, said “You go to war with the army that you have…” It later turned out that 90-some percent of the Hummvees in the soldier’s unit had in fact been up-armored or would be by the time he shipped out, and that the question was planted by a partisan in an effort to make the administration look bad. Given the NYT’s past estrangement from the truth in all things military or related to Don Rumsfeld, I am not willing to buy this until I see further proof.

I will say, however, if it turns out to be true and if turns out that Pentagon bureaucracy is at fault, this would be a crime.

Now then, allow me to offer a modest defense of the failure to up-armor every Hummvee in theatre. As Linda points out, there seem to be enough Hummers available (at least there are now) for soldiers on patrol to take one with auxilliary plating. Second, there is a significant trade-off between weight, speed and maneuverability. Many soldiers prefer speed in Iraq, like Command Sgt. Major Michael Mellinger. Also keep in mind the Hummvee is a glorified Jeep, not a APC. Furthermore, if an RPG or large IED can disable an APC or even a tank, how would it ever be possible or practical to protect soldiers with extra plating on a Hummer? I’m not saying it isn’t a worthwhile exercise to try, but I don’t believe it’s a perfect or even mostly perfect defense against IEDs.

One another thing. You are quite right about the stupidity of kitting the armor. Evidently the Pentagon has figured it out, too. Better late than never.

The company, by the way, is not a pipsqueak; it is a division of Armor Holdings, a $1 billion public company traded on the NYSE (AHI).

Anyway, I don’t think the war planners are at fault, given the serial assumptions one would have to make about the insurgency to divine that up-armor kits would be needed throughout the theatre.

In fact, he wouldn’t admit to a single administration mistake in the war in Iraq. According to Rummy, all mistakes are explained by the fact that “no war plan survives the first encounter with the enemy.”

Make no mistake. I’m clearly conservative, and feel we have to support the war to the hilt in order to get the job done. BUT, sophistry in support of administration policies (and mistakes) has its limits.

Consider the breathtakingly broad possibilities present in free use of the “no war plan survives the first encounter with the enemy.” As applied by Rummy, it serves as an excuse for no planning at all.

Moreover, it misses the essential point here: the need for adequate armor isn’t a “first brush” problem. It’s been obvious for months. Rummy’s response is really another “you go to war with the army you have” BS excuse.

The lack of proper armor in this war will go down in history as a scandal as great as the non-functioning Mk. 13 torpedo in the Pacific at the beginning of WWII. There, as here, it’s the servicemen in the field who are fixing the problem.

But that doesn’t make it right.

Have a look at these. The American Princess writes on the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Ten Commandments.

It’s something else, and nothing short of ludicrous, to simply not learn from your mistakes.

How can we claim to have the best, most agile engine of war in the history of the world, and simply not be able to accommodate rapid R&D for acute problems, AND swift change in the supply line, do to bureaucratic inefficiencies?

This was frustrating to read, Rick, but so well presented. I’d like to see if some bloggers can defend the Pentagon on this issue. (Moonbats, go away.) The Pentagon certainly won’t defend themselves in any well-articulated manner, besides their usual “we’re doing what we can” line.