Obama Promises the Obvious

[ClydeR]

"I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy, the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done," the president told more than 1,000 graduates during a sun-splashed ceremony at Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium.

More... (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iiYUsDAuLKQc0O_N_xTBL18g0WcgD98BENV80)

I can't understand why this is being treated as such big news. Every president promises that. If the implication is that Bush sent troops into harm's way when Bush didn't believe it was necessary, then I can't agree.

[Cido]

I can't understand why this is being treated as such big news. Every president promises that. If the implication is that Bush sent troops into harm's way when Bush didn't believe it was necessary, then I can't agree.

Based off of what TV has fed me, I recall that bush did send soldiers into combat w/o the tools necessary. Meaning armored hummvees (sp?) and other junk like that. I'll see if I can find some links to support this banter.

[Androidpk]

I don't think he was saying it wasn't necessary, but if he was implying that soldiers were sent into Iraq without the right strategy, defined goals, and equipment he is correct. The military was unprepared for what happened after the Iraq military was defeated.

[Cido]

Based off of what TV has fed me, I recall that bush did send soldiers into combat w/o the tools necessary. Meaning armored hummvees (sp?) and other junk like that. I'll see if I can find some links to support this banter.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095705

[Slider]

Based off of what TV has fed me, I recall that bush did send soldiers into combat w/o the tools necessary. Meaning armored hummvees (sp?) and other junk like that. I'll see if I can find some links to support this banter.

Well, for starters the way everyone talks about this you would think the Hummer was an APC or something. Which it most decidedly is NOT. In fact the U.S Army/Marines never intended the M998 HMMV to be anything other than a replacement for the venerable Jeep. (The M151 MUTT seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M151), the M561 Gama Goat (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gama_Goat) and various other light trucks used in the military. Note that these vehicles lack ANY armor of any kind, and are even open topped. Yet served admirably in their chosen roles through several wars.

The job of the HMMWV, prior to the war in Iraq, was to transport equipment, materials, and troops, behind the lines or as a (light) scout vehicles at best.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m998.htm

It was deployed in this configuration in the invasion of Panama, then in Bosnia, and up until Somalia where it suffered considerable losses during the Battle of Mogadishu. And the Army finally decided that an unarmored vehicle wasn’t very resistant to machinegun and RPG fire. They then started to replace it with the M1114. Which, while somewhat more resistant to small arms fire, still couldn’t stop RPG’s…. (Which are designed to kill APC’s, AFV’s, and TANKS!!)

Mind you, the military knew this prior to the invasion of Iraq, as early as 1994 in fact, and had taken (some) steps to upgrade the HMMWV to something other than an upgraded JEEP, but it was still… well, a JEEP.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-02-03-humvee_N.htm

On top of all of this, there is the fact that adding armor to the HMMWV also seriously stresses the drive train, transmission, and suspension of these vehicles. Not too mention what the effect of adding between 1500-2,200 lbs of armor does to the gas mileage of these things. Which both have a serious impact on logistics and combat operations, and seriously shortening the lifespan of these vehicles.

And yes, an RPG or an IED also has the effect of shortening the lifespan somewhat more drastically, but truth be told, these things will never be able to withstand an IED folks. It’s a nasty truth, but there it is. No matter how much armor you add, the bad guy just has to use a bigger bomb… end result; dead HMMWV. I thought it was particularly humorous (in a sick kind of way) the screams of the reporters that our HMMWV’s are unable to withstand blasts from Anti-tank mines….

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11810053/

You might also want to keep in mind that G.W. Bush had nothing to do with the Army’s decision to field this vehicle; it was purchased for military use in 1985 after all, well before he was elected if I recall my dates correctly. And it is the Army’s decision as to what operational role the vehicle would play in this, or any other conflict. No one here blames Clinton for the use to which the Army put this vehicle to in the Battle of Mogadishu, even though he was President during that time, and did order troops into battle without proper armor on their HMMWV’s. Of course claiming this would be BS, it is not the President’s job to ensure that the vehicles that the Armed Forces provides to it’s soldiers are properly armored, it is the militaries job to do that. Just as it is the militaries job to know what use to put a specific weapon system too in a battle. The President may craft strategy gentlemen, but it is the militaries job to translate this into tactics for use on the battlefield.

[MrTastyHead]

My best friend's father, a 50 year old band teacher in the reserves, had to buy parts of his gear with his own money before being sent overseas to guard an embassy. He then had to guard said embassy with a gun with NO CLIPS.

They had people walking up to the gates and telling them they didn't have bullets in their guns. True story.

[Gan]

Was it (is it) the executive branch that was responsible for approving funding for military supplies? Or was it (is it) the responsibility of Congress to do so?

[Slider]

Was it (is it) the executive branch that was responsible for approving funding for military supplies? Or was it (is it) the responsibility of Congress to do so?



Part of Congress's exercise of legislative authority is the establishment of an annual budget for the government. To this end, Congress levies taxes and tariffs to provide funding for essential government services. If enough money cannot be raised to fund the government, then Congress may also authorize borrowing to make up the difference. Congress can also mandate spending on specific items: legislatively directed spending, commonly known as "earmarks," specifies funds for a particular project, rather than for a government agency.

To the best of my knowledge, the only time that a sitting President ever had anything to do with the military procurement system was Lincoln ordering the Union Army to use the Sharps carbine. With somewhat dubious results. While the Sharps he received as a gift was no doubt a fine weapon, and eventually went on to become one of the most popular weapons of the Civil War, early Sharps had some...quirks that took getting used too. General Lee is claimed to have described the Sharps Carbine as, “. . .so defective as to be demoralizing to our men.”

The Army was also reluctant too take it on as a primary weapon because of worries over ammunition believe it or not. It was thought that the Union would not be able to afford to manufacture enough rounds for the Sharps, and thus the design was initially turned down by the Ordnance Department.

[Parkbandit]

Bush is easier to blame than Congress though.

[Gan]

Just like that global warming thermostat that Bush had in his office...

[Parkbandit]

Just like that global warming thermostat that Bush had in his office...

Why do you hate the Earth so much?

[Stanley Burrell]

ClydeR.

[radamanthys]

From what I understand, It was Rumsfeld's fault. My buddy was on the plane to Afghanistan on Sept 12th, 2001. He's got a pretty good handle on what exactly got fucked up.

[Gan]

Rumsfield lied and people died?

[Androidpk]

it is not the President’s job to ensure that the vehicles that the Armed Forces provides to it’s soldiers are properly armored, it is the militaries job to do that. Just as it is the militaries job to know what use to put a specific weapon system too in a battle. The President may craft strategy gentlemen, but it is the militaries job to translate this into tactics for use on the battlefield.

As Commander of the Armed Forces, I hope he/she would have a greater understanding and awareness of all that.

[Slider]

As Commander of the Armed Forces, I hope he/she would have a greater understanding and awareness of all that.

You apparently missed the entire point of my post, so let me try this again. It is not the President’s job or responsibility, to know the capabilities of every single piece of equipment in the militaries arsenal. Just as it is not the job of an Air Force general to know the capabilities of every piece of equipment in the Army’s inventory. That is what we have the JCOS for, and why we have a member from each service in that group. G. W. Bush did NOT send out a memo to the Army ordering them to deploy HMMWVs to Iraq, or to use them in battle, any more than President Clinton did when totally unarmored HMMWVs where used in the Battle of Mogadishu. The military did this. Got it?

The military knew, without a shadow of a doubt as far back as 1994, that the HMMWV was incapable of standing up to IED’s/mines of any kind. And STILL sent them to Iraq, and STILL used them to provide escort to convoys, as well as using them for jobs they where NEVER intended to fill. The HMMWV is a JEEP!!! It is not an APC, or an IFV, but the military has repeatedly used it in these rolls, not just during Bush’s Presidency, but also during the Clinton administration, and continues to do so now during the Obama administration. The military decides how to carry out the mission they are given, whether this is from the President, or the JCOS, and all the way down to individual 1st LT’s commanding a company (?) of infantry. Each needs to decide what tools he has, which one will be the right for the task at hand, and the strategy of how to use those resources to complete the mission. If an Army commander decides to use HMMWVs to engage tanks in a straight up fight, is that also the responsibility of the President? Do we roundly criticize his decision to use them in the battle? No, of course not, it was not his decision to use them in the first place, it was the commander on the ground that made that choice, and who should be made to answer for it. Not his commander, not the Brigade or Battalion commanders, or the JCOS, nor the President.

And let us be realistic here, let us just assume that the HMMWV was not used in Iraq, would it make you feel any better if we had lost those soldiers killed due to IED’s if they where riding in Strikers, or Bradley’s? You cannot up armor a vehicle to be able to completely ignore an IED/mine. It is impossible. The bad guy is just going to use a bigger bomb, and achieve the same effect. A dead vehicle and dead soldiers. That is, after all, what he is trying to do when he puts that IED in place to begin with. To assume, quite unrealistically, that he would use an IED incapable of doing that job if faced with a larger, more robust vehicle is lunacy.

[Androidpk]

I understood your post just fine. I know it's up to the commander's in the fields for decisions like that. It was the President's decision to send them in though in the first place, and they did so without proper equipment, proper intel, and proper training. The military had a lot of catching up to do because of all that. That is what some people blame Bush for.

[Parkbandit]

I understood your post just fine. I know it's up to the commander's in the fields for decisions like that. It was the President's decision to send them in though in the first place, and they did so without proper equipment, proper intel, and proper training. The military had a lot of catching up to do because of all that. That is what some people blame Bush for.

If "some people" want to blame Bush for going into Iraq in the first place.. that's fine. If "some people" want to blame Bush for troops not being properly equipped to their liking, then blaming Bush is just being ignorant on how the system works.

[Androidpk]

How is it being ignorant? Commander in Chief. That's part of his job. If he shouldn't be held accountable, then why even bother having the position?

[Parkbandit]

How is it being ignorant? Commander in Chief. That's part of his job. If he shouldn't be held accountable, then why even bother having the position?

Holding him responsible for that is like holding him responsible for a letter that was lost via the United States Postal Service.

Of course, there are "some people" who would actually blame him for that as well........

[Androidpk]

Holding him responsible for that is like holding him responsible for a letter that was lost via the United States Postal Service.

Of course, there are "some people" who would actually blame him for that as well........


That comparison makes no sense, the head person in charge of the USPS is the US Postmaster General, not the President of the US. While the President of the US is the COMMANDER of the US military.

If a President orders his military into war, he should ultimately be held responsible for whatever happens.

[Parkbandit]

That comparison makes no sense, the head person in charge of the USPS is the US Postmaster General, not the President of the US. While the President of the US is the COMMANDER of the US military.

If a President orders his military into war, he should ultimately be held responsible for whatever happens.

Bah.. you are correct. In 1970, the Postmaster General ceased answering to the President of the United States.. thus the USPS isn't part of the President's overall responsibility. Point - YOU

[Slider]

So, in your book, any President that sends poorly trained, and badly equiped troops into a war is a pile of shit and should be condemned, right?

So, in your mind I would imagine that FDR is right up there with good ol' G.W. Bush, right? I mean, the army before WWII basically existed only on paper, most of the troops that stormed the beaches of Normandy where literally straight out of Boot, and had NO combat experience, or even advanced (or basic for that matter) infantry training of any kind.

And vehicles?!?! The Sherman was a POS tank; it was under-armored, it's main gun was laughable (and plenty of German tank crews spent a lot of time laughing as it bounced off of their armor) and in every way possible it was just plain out performed by the German tanks. And worse, FDR KNEW that it was a POS tank, and still sent them to war. So he must be a total fuckhead in your book, right?

Or how about good old JFK, what a POS that guy was. The gall of the man sending troops not even trained in jungle or guerilla warfare to fight a war. And don't even get me started on the POS M-16 issued to our troops that misfired/jammed so often they where more usefull as clubs than rifles. The army didn't even issue cleaning kits for them, and ask anyone who has ever used one how often they need to be cleaned. Go ahead, ask.

Or President Lincoln, another POS in your book I would imagine. I mean, sending privatly raised and equipped troops into the Civil War, with no combat training of any kind whatsoever. And with weapons that they either already had, or they had to buy themeselves.

And don't even get me started on George Washington... man what a complete fuckup he was...

Get the point?