Soldier that "dissed" Rummy a "plant"?!!

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Airman Doors

What’s more, I hate how people think that soldiers are just people to be co-opted.

AD, you’re going to blame Michael Moore and this reporter for using the troops? Given this pre-emptive, unnecessary war and the political capital that has been created for and used by Bush, you think critics are using the troops? Guys are suffering from stop loss, old guys and guys with fused vertebra are being called up, and Michael Moore is using the troops?

I feel very stongly that the opposite is true. This administration needs to be called out for so callously taking advantage of the troops. Prodding someone to ask a legitimate question that gets a big hua from the rest of the troops pales in comparison to putting the troops in that situation in the first place.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@Hentor the Barbarian

I feel very stongly that the opposite is true. This administration needs to be called out for so callously taking advantage of the troops. Prodding someone to ask a legitimate question that gets a big hua from the rest of the troops pales in comparison to putting the troops in that situation in the first place.

Well then, I’m glad you’re here to do it. I don’t have that luxury. Neither do the soldiers that cooperate with journalists. The journalists are very aware of what can and cannot be said, and they pimp them to do it anyway, and what the hell, they have nothing to lose, do they?

How does jail, loss of pay, and loss of job strike you, simply for speaking your mind in the wrong place and to the wrong people? That’s one of the things we give up when we join up.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Airman Doors

Well then, I’m glad you’re here to do it.

I wish anything I did here made a difference.

I don’t have that luxury. Neither do the soldiers that cooperate with journalists. The journalists are very aware of what can and cannot be said, and they pimp them to do it anyway, and what the hell, they have nothing to lose, do they?

How does jail, loss of pay, and loss of job strike you, simply for speaking your mind in the wrong place and to the wrong people? That’s one of the things we give up when we join up.

I suppose that one always has to balance opposing outcomes when making decisions about one’s actions, particularly when they involve making a potentially unpopular stand. Those things sound bad, but so does tooling up IED highway with a cookie sheet strapped to the driver side door.

[elucidator]

Dave:

Whoa, big horse! Steady! Do you really imagine that public espousal of unpopular political opinion goes unpunished in the civvy world? After you’ve traded your combat boots for tennies for a couple years, get back to me on that.

[John_Mace]

@Airman Doors

How does jail, loss of pay, and loss of job strike you, simply for speaking your mind in the wrong place and to the wrong people? That’s one of the things we give up when we join up.

I still don’t understand. How could the SecDef hold a Q&A session in which no “Qs” are allowed? Are you really saying that soldiers will be punished for asking Rummy a question in an open forum?

I agree that Chain of Command is important. But one of the reasons you have a Q&A session is to break down the barriers once in awhile. My army buddies (and I’ve asked quite a few about this) tell me that just having him there to talk to is a big moral boost. As long as they don’t think their questions are filed under “T”, they’ll feel good about the experience.

[David_Simmons]

@elucidator

If the question had been asked by one lone malcontent, gold-bricking whiner, everyone around him would have inched away in silent disdain. But they didn’t, they cheered for his courage and audacity because…he was defending his buddies! Loyalty number one.

In fact it was a standing ovation for the question as shown on Pat Buchanan’s show on MSNBC last night.

@Hentor the Barbarian

Guys are suffering from stop loss, old guys and guys with fused vertebra are being called up …

“Guys”, that is, except old guys like Tommy Franks. Since he was credited with such a whiz-bang job as Commander of CENCOM earlier on maybe he should be recalled to take over.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Airman Doors

Well then, I’m glad you’re here to do it. I don’t have that luxury. Neither do the soldiers that cooperate with journalists. The journalists are very aware of what can and cannot be said, and they pimp them to do it anyway, and what the hell, they have nothing to lose, do they?

How does jail, loss of pay, and loss of job strike you, simply for speaking your mind in the wrong place and to the wrong people? That’s one of the things we give up when we join up.

Airman, I could be wrong, but I think you’re exaggerating. Can you point to a single member of the Administration calling for punishing these guys for their questions?

Because that’s not what I’m hearing; on the contrary, I’m hearing the administration saying over and over that it’s a fair question. So your claims that the reporters exposed these soldiers to danger ring hollow.

What may be possible is that the reporter was travelling with these guys for aa while, hearing them complain about the unnecessary danger their lives were in, and when the press conference came around, the reporter said, “You guys should ask Rummy about it.” And the guys said, “Naw, I’m not good at public speaking, can’t do it,” and the reporter said, “Sure you can. I’ll practic with you, help you come up with a good way to air your complaint.”

And when the guys got psyched about it, the reporter told the sergeant with whom he’d become friendly, “Sarge, I’m a pro at these press-conferences, and I think these guys have a great question. They’re gonna ask about the armor situation. You should call on them.” And the sergeant, also worried about the armor situation, thought, “Cool! I’d love to hear the answer to that.”

That’s really what it reads like to me. Because, and this is important, the soldiers were not under the reporter’s command. There’s no evidence that he bribed them or blackmailed them into asking the question, nor that he used threats or bribes to get the sergeant to call on them. Everyone acted voluntarily and fully informed.

If evidence comes out that he bribed them or blackmailed them, then sure–he’s a bastard. Otherwise, I fail to see how anyone acted in an unethical fashion, or how anyone exploited anyone else.

Daniel

[Ravenman]

@Airman Doors

The journalists are very aware of what can and cannot be said, and they pimp them to do it anyway, and what the hell, they have nothing to lose, do they?

I don’t get it. Are you saying that the journalist fooled or coerced the soldier to ask that question? Surely the soldiers, themselves, know far better about where the line is drawn on disrespect for senior military and civilian officials than does a reporter. Or are you saying that the reporter knows military regulations better than those reservists at the town hall?

[Maeglin]

FYI

Statement from Pentagon Spokesman Mr. Lawrence Di Rita on Question Posed at Town Hall Meeting

        “The issue Specialist Wilson raised at the Town Hall meeting in Kuwait is important.  This department takes the matter seriously, and is addressing it aggressively.

        Town Hall meetings are intended for soldiers to have dialogue with the Secretary of Defense.  It would be unfortunate to discover that anyone might have interfered with that opportunity, whatever the intention.

        The Secretary provides ample opportunity for interaction with the press.  It is better that others not infringe on the troops’ opportunity to interact with superiors in the chain of command.”  

[SanibelMan]

I want to second what Left Hand of Dorkness said and I’d like to add that, as a journalist, I take offense to being called a “pimp.” I ask questions and it’s up to my sources to say “no, I don’t want to answer that.” Soldiers are human beings with the ability to say “no.”

FYI:
The publisher of the Chattanooga Times Free Press put a note on the front page today backing the reporter. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000735326

In a front-page note to readers this morning, Tom Griscom, editor and publisher of the Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press, quoted a local military spokesman and a top ethicist in defending his reporter Edward Lee Pitts, who prompted a U.S. soldier to put a challenging question to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on Wednesday.
…
He quoted Sgt. Randy Harris, of the Tennessee Military Department, saying, “Regardless of where the question came from, it is a legitimate concern. The soldier that asked the question was earnest in asking. I think he was very truthful in the way he asked the question.”
…
Griscom also quoted Bob Steele, an ethicist with the Poynter Institute, who said, “Lee Pitts used some enterprise in how he went about getting that question on the table. From an ethical standpoint, he certainly needed to be honest with the soldiers about what he was doing, that he wanted them to ask his question. My impression is that is what he did. I don’t see any form of deceit in what he did.”

[David_Simmons]

@Maeglin

The Secretary provides ample opportunity for interaction with the press. It is better that others not infringe on the troops’ opportunity to interact with superiors in the chain of command.”

The statement quoted by Maeglin is disingenuous at the very least. As Howard Fineman of Newsweek pointed out, the SECDEF doesn’t give many news conferences in forward areas. Mostly that’s a Washington event. And the Washington press corps isn’t always aware of the situation in the forward area and can’t ask the right questions. And even if they do ask about the lack of armor the stock answer is along the lines of, “That’s been a problem and we are addressing it.”

How many times have you heard that answer, or a similar one, in a press conference?

GW is the team leader and the instigator of this thing. His record in the businesses that he has operated is one of screwing them up. He and his team are running true to form.

[rjung]

@Airman Doors

What would Ike think of this?

I think Ike would have said something like, “Dammit, George, why do you want to dick around Iraq for? The enemy’s in Afghanistan!”

[wonky]

@Bricker

It cannot be done quickly.

Apparently it can.

I work for a company that supplies one of the manufacturers. We’re hearing that the DoD has, out of the blue, now split one contract between two manufacturers.

In other words, the question has apparently spurred action. And it appears from the grapevine that there was nothing preventing the DoD from splitting this contract between these two manufacturers earlier, when they discovered that one couldn’t keep up with demand.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@jsgoddess

Apparently it can.

Even if it couldn’t be done quickly, I doubt that the administration found this out only after the invasion began. If they knew from teh getgo that their choices were:

1. Engage in noncompetitive bids that at the very least gave the strong appearance of impropriety; or
2. Engage in competitive bids that take awhile to complete,

then shouldn’t they have waited to launch the invasion until all their ducks were in a row?

You can’t present me with two crappy choices and then chastize me for calling them both crappy, unless there’s no third choice. In this case, there was a third choice (wait for the duckqueue) AND a fourth choice (don’t launch an unjustified war). Given that I’ve been advocating choice #4 all along, I daresay I’ve been pretty consistent.

Daniel

[wonky]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Even if it couldn’t be done quickly, I doubt that the administration found this out only after the invasion began.

Absolutely true, and I agree with the rest of your points.

The fact seems to be that the DoD had options. They didn’t exercise those options. Why is anyone’s guess at this point, though I don’t think there’s any way to make it a positive for the DoD.

[minty_green]

@manhattan

I have complete confidence that the Pentagon pushed for exactly that. Companies don’t invest for 10X production on a lark or without a pretty good idea that they’ll get an order to cover the new invested overhead.

I’m also pretty confident that if they told the Pentagon that they were ready to go to 500 or 550 or whatever and the Pentagon said go ahead without checking things out and it later turned out that the higher production rates resulted in substandard vehicles people would be screaming about that instead.

So under your theory, the Pentagon may have been pushing and pushing these guys to ramp up their production of vehicle armor – because, of course, it’s needed desperately in Iraq because we’re having soldiers killed and maimed every single day due to roadside bombs – then when the company says they’ve got capacity to increase production by 20%, the Pentagon says . . .

“Hey, great, we’ll get back to you in a month or two.”

[Harborwolf]

@Airman Doors

I agree, that is worrysome. What’s worrysome is the apparent attitude that since they are American soldiers, they shouldn’t have to take a soldiers’ chance. That they deserve to come home with nary a scratch and live the life that the Armed Forces owes them. That’s not how it works.

There’s nothing wrong with the equipment, there’s something wrong with the mindset. Every single time I go up in the aircraft, war or peace, there is the possibility that I will die. I accept it, I am pragmatic about it, and I move on with my life. There is some sort of illusion of safety that these guys want that I just don’t understand. Next thing you know they’ll want Starbucks in their MREs instead of Folgers. Or an electric blanket for those cold desert nights. Or Wi-Fi in tent city.

We’ve fought so many “easy” military actions since Vietnam and we’ve become so enamored of technology that we think that the mighty US Armed Forces can win with little or no losses. Well, here’s a wake up call… this is what war really is. Not Grenada, not Panama, not Kuwait, this is what it’s all about. And since there’s no institutional memory of World War II and very little left of Vietnam, it’s been forgotten. Hopefully this time we’ll have people that remember.

The issue at hand here isn’t that the soliders have unrealistic expectations. It’s that they don’t seem to be being supplied with things that would keep them from dying.

This is likely a poor analogy, but it would be closer to being sent up in a jet with no parachute. Before you go, they give you a hearty “Don’t worry. We don’t think you’ll need it.” Yeah. Even with the parachute you may die, but the chances of death increase without it. And there isn’t really a good reason to go up without it.

The soldiers have to scrounge for armor because the planners of this let optimism run the show. They underestimated the strength and stamina of the insurgents. I know that the armor can’t be there instantly. I understand that it takes time to produce it. I just wonder why they didn’t have the armor in the first place. Why didn’t they think that the soldiers would need it?

[elucidator]

Tossed garlands of flowers have little penetrating power, a very low grade of armor will suffice under those conditions.

[minty_green]

Although you could be killed by a fllower no matter how much armor you’re wearing. You go to war with the foliage you have, not the shrubbery you want.

[jshore]

@elucidator

Tossed garlands of flowers have little penetrating power, a very low grade of armor will suffice under those conditions.

I have to admit that I laughed heartily at this and then reacted with some guilt as I realized that I was laughing at the ridiculously naive and idealistic expectations of leaders who are now responsible for the deaths of many brave men and women. And, not a one of these “leaders” has even paid for this with his job.

To be honest, I have a hard time understanding why Rummy and Wolfowitz and Co. don’t offer their resignations out of shear embarrassment and contrition.