Translation: “My claim came out of my ass, so the only cites I can offer are mental diahrria.”
Well I’ll just quote you since I couldn’t say it any better…
Still going to say this admin shouldn’t be held responsible?
Crap. Replace “you” with “Lordvar”
Bloggerman and Poynter have the account of the embedded newsman coming up with the question. He also made sure his question got attention.
Whether or not you agree that he should have orchestrated this incident is probably a question for another thread.
Okay, tell me. Why is my statement idiotic? I think you have bought the Pentagon’s self-promotion a little too easily.
As of Spring 2003 Saddam had no air force, AA, or armor to speak of. We could have had air superiority with a squadron of P-51s and done all of the pinpoint bombing with 1945-type aircraft. The lack of helicopters might slow some operations but Iraq has lots of roads and flat land to get around on in Jeeps and 2-1/2 ton trucks, neither of which is LESS armored than a HumVee or an S-10 pickup. The M4 Sherman, being narrower than the M1 Abrahms, would be better in the cities and perfectly adequate out in the open since there was no opposing armor.
But, as in all wars, this one is being fought mostly by grunts on the ground and the only big improvements for them have been in communications and body armor. And since our men were sent in with too little body armor its lack in 1945 would be no great problem. Their weaponry? I’ve been tempted to start a half-joking thread Pitting the military for adopting the M16 because, with it’s toy-like size and materials, it just isn’t very intimidating looking, reducing respect for America because our enemies have scary-looking AK-47s. Imagine the respect American soldiers would get if they busted into a house brandishing Tommy Guns like Al Capone! (Yeah, I know the Thompson was being phased out by 1945 in favor of the lighter and cheaper M3 “Grease Gun” but that was no reflection on the Thompson’s abilities. It was and is a hell of a weapon.) The reduced communications would force our men to depend more on their own judgement and abilities but I have never doubted either in the average GI. We build us a damned good soldier. He may gripe some but that doesn’t mean he is not as good as a soldier from any other country. And a good Citizen Soldier, just like the Citizen Drafters I deal with, shouldn’t be cowed by rank. Hell, I’ve never had any use for a subordinate who didn’t think he or she had a better idea now and then and Rumsfeld should feel the same.
Did you add my comment because you agree or disagree, kind of hard to tell without any comment.
Close enough. Maybe he’ll address them again if my points are raised in your post. Right now, it just kinda looks like he’s trying to put the words that he can counter into his opposition’s mouth.
-lv
Even if a reporter did put the guy up for the question, it was in accord with his natural leanings. Sort of diminishes the potential for outrage, don’t you think?
I do have other things going on other than this thread. Your last post was well thought out and I’ll have to go back and look at the points I agree with and the parts I disagree with. I don’t have time to put together a reply right now. After reading your well thought out posts I hope you don’t continue with the tone of the above quoted post.
I wasn’t outraged. Thats why I said I was taking anything quoted by Drudge with a giant grain of salt. That’s why I am confused why you picked my quote. I am assuming that the soldier asked the question on his own accord until I can see credible evidence to the contrary.
OTOH, you have had six replies in this thread since I made my original point, including one or two of which that misunderstood or misapplied my original position (“should have had a strategy for the war that didn’t involve needing more armored vehicles than they had”). So I felt justified being a bit skeptical.
But now that I’ve explained my position better, I look forward to your well thought out reply.
-lv
Actually, what we’ve had cites for in this thread involve the administration and/or the army saying that the factories are building these things as fast as they can. The factory, OTOH, says that it still has plenty of surplus capacity left, but that the army has repeatedly underestimated it’s own needs. (thanks, Fark)
Actually, no. The idea is to use one word or the other. “The problem is that there are more bombs being deployed…” sounds much better, is perfectly understandable, and isn’t blather.
“Explosive device” is what an Army spokeman says when he’s trying to avoid saying things that sound like they might actually kill your relatives.
This is incorrect. Iraq had more tanks than our invading force did. We didn’t beat them with numbers, we beat them with better equipment and troops.
Your notion that the only improvements for the troops fighting this war are in communications and body armour is way off base. We have satellite photos, unmanned arial vehicles, AWACs planes and many other much more advanced intelligence gathering techniques that were’nt even thought of yet in WWII. Knowing more than your enemy is a huge advantage that we have due to technology. Special forces were laser guiding in smart bombs dropped from advanced stealth bombers. Medical advancements are too numerous to mention. I could go on and on.
I do agree that there were problems with the overall strategy . For reasons of regulation and law I can not place blame in this forum. Believe me, there is plenty of issues both pro and con the current administration that I can’t comment on for various reasons. That is not important and I’m sure you don’t care. Having said that I will say I agree with a lot of what you said. However the current issue is about the armor on vehicles. There have been plans to invade Iraq since the first gulf war. That’s what the Pentagon does, they make contingency plans. I’m sure there is a plan to invade Belgium somewhere. In all this planning no one came forward and said that the military needs more armored vehicles. It is ridiculous to assume that the Bush administration would feel different than the last 20 years of military and civilian leadership. In order to “hold off on attacking until we had enough armor for the job” they would had to have ramped up production on inauguration day or earlier. The factory used to make 15 a month. The president relies on the generals to come up with the proper doctrine. The doctrine was that armored HMMWVs were needed only for scouts and MPs. At this point it’s easy to see that the thinking was flawed. Not so easy beforehand. When the problem was identified, solutions were put in place. To listen to all the furvor over the last day you would think that the administration has done nothing to fix the problem. In reality it has the highest priority.
I will answer your other reply in a minute.
Interesting article. I wonder what the company was saying before the soldier asked the question.
I was able to watch the press conference from Kuwait with the Third Army Commander. Some of this is from memory some from the CNN update.
According to the press conference, there are around 30,000 vehicles in the CENTCOM area (including Afganistan, Kuwait). 4000 are not armored. 2000 are HMMWVs The unarmored vehicles are vehicles such as tool trucks and other things that are used in contonement and not on patrol. Those vehicles are flat-bedded into the area. Granted some of the armor is better than others. It would be ideal if each vehicle was armored with the best composite armor but that won’t happen soon due to logistics. Even if its true that the company can crank out another 50 a month it still would take a while. Bottom line those that need the armor all ready have it.
The SPC who made the comment is a National Guardsman in Kuwait who has not be deployed to Iraq yet. The vehicles they are using are not the ones they will be using. The armored patrol vehicles being used in Iraq do not leave with the units as they rotate. Anyone who is going to perform patrols will fall in on armored vehicles already in theater.
If it is true that they can make more than they are, that order should be made or heads should roll.
I can accept what you said but what I said was “This war would’ve gone about as well with WWII technology.” In retrospect, maybe not the war but the “peace” sure would’ve! 
Filling the floor of your Humvee with sandbags and boiler plate ain’t 21st century tech!
However, I’m always happy to dig myself in deeper. As the Soviets demonstrated at Kursk, even the best armor cannot survive without air superiority and those additional Iraqi tanks and other armored vehicles would’ve been toast, whether the attacking aircraft were A-10s or Mustangs. (The USAF evaluated the Piper PA-48 Enforcer, basically a revised P-51, as a light ground attack aircraft in 1984, eleven years after the A-10’s evaluation.)
The greatest medical advance on the battlefield has been the ability to evacuate the wounded quickly. In 1945 the Bell Model 47 came out and was capable of carrying two casualties (like on MAS*H). But yes, we lost fewer men than we would have in '45 because of other medical advances.
Improved battlefield intelligence is a wonderful advantage but, again, we had air superiority and were fighting an enemy whose AA capabilities were severely compromised to begin with, thanks its to near total destruction in 1991 and repeated destruction every time it lit up since then, and then was manned by gunners who were not at the top of the game, so we could’ve retained much of that advantage with older recon vehicles. Stealth bombers are way cool but aren’t exactly necessary when there’s nobody around who can aim. (OTOH, because of their construction Mosquitos were quite stealthy for their day.) Dive bombers, which thrive when there are no enemy fighters or AA to get in the way, were quite accurate. Maybe not AS accurate as laser-guided smart bombs but perfectly adequate for most uses in this war.
My point is that yes, modern technology is neat and is absolutely necessary when going up against a first-class fighting force, but the Iraqis were not that enemy. Brand new, fancy gear made it easier to invade Iraq but not that much easier. Using a nuclear attack sub to fire cruise missiles is an example of overkill when a B-26 could do the job almost as well. I am not saying that we should throw out all of the advances made in the past sixty years. I just want to make the point that those advances were not necessary for the successful prosecution of this particular war.
LOL. I just wanted to make sure that we’re getting the spin from both sides 
The rest of your point I consider valid or invalid depending upon your definition of “armored”. From your cite:
Now, to me, “locally fabricated armor” sounds consistant with “armor we dug out of landfills”, and Level 3 certainly doesn’t sound like anything that I would want to be patrolling in. But I’ll admit to some ignorance here as to what’s actually occuring, and welcome cites as to the adequate armoring of patrol vehicles, particularly your point about the “level 3” humvees being trucked across the border, and about the humvees that they’re armoring with leftover bits being left in Kuwait.
Heh. They were making less than 60/month a year ago. They got the contract to increase to 450/month in October and only notified the Pentagon of their ability to increase from that level last month.
“Locally fabricated” means installed at the location, but it’s not clear whether he’s referring to improvised armor or to locally installed but properly designed on-site up-armor kits. A search indicates that “Level 3 armor” seems to mean ‘able to protect against bullets up to 14.5 mm and some heavier shells which detonate some distance away.’ It also implies mine protection, which I have to imagine also include the kinds of IEDs the bad guys are using over there. So from that, I’m suspected to think he meant the proper up-armor kits, but of course I can’t be sure.
Do you know anything about military procurement at all?
As an example, the current iteration of the Tomahawk cruise missile has been upgraded to include GPS navigation. This simplifies mission planning and improves the missile accuracy.
The changes to the program that included this as a requirement were made by the Navy in the Clinton administration.
Today, we’re working on further upgrades to the missile system, including the ability to get status reports from the missile and do in-flight retargeting. These changes should be fully on line for Bush’s successor to take advantage of.
We can’t just leave Clinton in the past. Much of our current military preparedness, for better and for worse, is due to decisions made on his watch.
The fact that you seem to be ignorant of all of this indicates that you, in fact, couldn’t have planned this war better. Thanks for your opinion, though.