Armored vs. Un-Armored Vehicles in Iraq
Okay, let me try and make things perfectly clear. I do not want anyone to go into harm's way without the equipment, weapons, or ammunition required to complete their assigned mission. On the other hand, I have to fault the leaders, tacticians, and national command authority on their conduct of the war on insurgents, IEDs, and RPG ambushes. Here's my idea about how to fix the problem...
1. We've all heard about the "highways of death" and "ambush alleys" throughout Iraq. It's time to get tough here...and the interim government can certainly help us here. We need to start patrolling, conducting surveillance, and absolutely hammering ANYONE that approaches these routes under the cover of darkness. Maybe it's time to really "let loose the dogs of war" and start dealing with the sneaky little cowards that choose to fight us from the shadows.
2. We need to figure out how to get the "good" Iraqis that are willing to be tolerant of the differences between all the different peoples of Iraq AND to give up the "bad" Iraqis that are attempting to re-establish a heavy handed regime like the Baath Party...or a theocracy based strictly on Islam. It cannot happen for a number of reasons, but mostly because you can't get the different Islamic factions to work together very peacefully.
3. We need to start going back to the days of "Loose Lips Sink Ships." There is so much information available in the unclassified press for ANY enemy to help establish their own doctrine and tactics to defeat our forces. We need our press to act more responsibly. I'm not advocating military gag orders...but just because a reporter happens to talk to a bitching soldier, doesn't mean that the story is necessarily newsworthy.
The firestorm created by the Rumsfeld "Town Hall" meeting in the past few days....never should have happened. While I believe that soldiers might not understand why every HMMWV over there isn't armored, that tells me that their leaders have done a poor job explaining the "whys" of the answer. The bottom line is that HMMWVs were never intended to be armored vehicles. This changed within the past ten years where SOME HMMWVs were upgraded and given a little thicker skin to operate in certain areas of the battlefield where their brothers with vinyl doors have no business being.
Without going into any details that would put my butt behind bars in Leavenworth...trust me that there are better things on the way to the troops in potential trouble spots around the globe. Pretty soon it will be funny to watch the results. We'll get the "bad guys" or maybe better yet, they'll get themselves.
This issue really had me twisted around today while I cruised back toward home...but maybe my real bottom line is that the session was intended to be between the SecDef and the soldiers. If I were king and had my way, I'd ensure that the press was given something better to do than to make mountains out of molehills on topics they have just a fleeting familiarity with.
posted by MajorDad @ 12/09/2004 08:23:00 PM
10 Comments:
Fox...need to respond to this one, point by point. My comments in bold...1 - The army is already "hammering ANYONE" who dares to walk their own streets, hence the civilian body count.
What are your sources on this unbelievable body count? You make it sound as if the coalition's blowing away anything that moves on the streets in Iraq. If that were the case, I'm quite sure we'd be hearing about it at every turn. The press here in the states is pretty liberal...doubt that they're part of a conspiracy to keep things "quiet."
Perhaps I should have been a little more clear...could you live with a curfew in the areas that have been hardest by the IEDs and roadside bombs? Anything moving out there between dusk and dawn...blown away? I'll bet if you asked the families of those killed along those routes by the weapons in question would line up squarely behind me.2 - A person is not "bad" because they disagree with American objectives. As you say, Iraq's population is diverse. It is important that all members of society are involved in what is happening to their country, without being labelled "good" or "bad" in such a simplistic way.
Fox, I really don't buy into the idea that the American/British leadership are trying to establish a little America or little Britain in Iraq. What I do think is that they're trying to assist the interim Iraqi government in establishing a society where one does not have to worry about voicing their opinions...much the way we do in our respective countries. They're trying to establish a society where religious tolerance is the order of the day rather than the exception to the rule. While I won't claim to know all the nuances between the different sects and tribes in Iraq, I have to believe that one day the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds can indeed learn to live in relative harmony. Bombings at rival mosques can be a thing for kids to read about in HISTORY books, rather than the front pages of their newspapers or watch on the evening news on television.
Would you try to argue the fact that the average Iraqi has never experienced this kind of freedom? Even before Saddam, it wasn't commonplace.3 - Another argument in favour of press censorship. The Bush administration is pushing this line heavily too. Wonder why? Clue: it's nothing to do with national security.
What's the conspiracy here? What exactly do you think is being surpressed? Seems to me that if the freedom of the press were truly being taken away...we never would have heard about the question of the SecDef about armored vehicles....4 - Rumsfeld's speech was less about reassuring the troops and more about aggressive posturing to the rest of the world about America's military capability, because everyone is aware that the army are stretched very thinly. If you have a finger in every pie, soon you're going to run out of fingers. It doesn't take a genius to work out that another aggressive country could use that to its advantage.
If someone decides to get "froggy" then they can jump and see just how thin we're stretched. While we might never be able to commit ground forces in another location...I don't think we need to. Airpower and Tomahawk missiles can put a damper on just about anyones party...let's see just how gutsy the other members of the "Axis of Evil" are.
As far as Mr. Rumsfeld's comments about war being a "come as you are" event...isn't it? As much as you plan...as much as you prepare, unless you have an agent in place to confirm your suspicions about the enemy...how can you get it right each and every time?
We can thank the good folks at the United Nations for not insisting that the post-Gulf War sanctions were followed through with.
We can thank a number of our "allies" for not standing shoulder to shoulder with us during the period of 1991-2003 in looking the other way and now we find out that they were feathering their own nests, much as the United States and Britain are being accused of now. Where's the evidence? Do you think that the American contractors are keen on the fact that they're losing employees to insurgent activity?And aside from all that - hope you had a good trip, Major Dad!
Aside to coming back and finding emotional tirades...fueled by fears and lack of facts...it was a pretty nice drive. I don't throw bogus facts around and I try to keep the emotion out of it. I'm looking for logic...as always.
Good to be back on the high ground...
MajorDad1984
Fox...you and the rest of the like minded thinkers are welcome...but I will continue to ask for facts. Just be prepared.
If you choose to remain scarce, up to you. I can keep up my end of a debate...more fun when there's someone willing to do the same.
Yes, I did use the word emotion twice...as you're not treating the situation fairly and failing to recognize that there are random acts of kindness going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan (just to name two).
The situation with infrastructure that you and I both take for granted is improving...and from what I understand, well above the Saddam era when it comes to electricity/water/etc.
You want to look at the glass as being half empty...I want to look at it as being half full.
See you on the high ground!
MajorDad1984
Major Dad,
You mentioned the ambush alleys and highways of death. The road to the Baghdad airport has been described as one such road, and it was said to be 6 miles long. Can't we post soldiers along the road or else have them patrol in enough force to keep this 6 mile stretch safe enough so that our people don't get blown up every time they have to make a run to the airport? I've read that the British have prohibited their people from using this road. If the bad guys keep hitting us on the same road, why not secure that road? Are we that short of people that we know where we keep getting hit but can't secure a 6 mile long road? If so, why don't the commanders ask for more people? The administration keeps saying that they'll send more people if the commanders request them - are they all afraid of Rummy?
Regarding the "Yellow Brick Road" between the city and the airport. I don't want to go into too much detail...as I think that it doesn't serve any purpose than give the "bad guys" (Yes Fox and others...there are BAD IRAQIs) ideas about how to do their evil better. I don't talk about troop deployments, locations, or tactics here.
I agree that there has to be a better way to keep the major roads clear...and it does absolutely bamboozle me when I hear of the same checkpoints getting bombed day after day...or problems along the same stretch of road.
If I took fire from a building (doesn't matter what kind) it probably would be three strikes and you're out with me. The third time I received fire from a location...that location would probably cease to exist. I would NOT leave two stones/bricks/whatever stacked. You'd have to ask yourself what truck would just dump that much rubble all in one place at the same time. Sorry, that's the way I would handle it. Guess it's a good thing that my time for those kinds of decisions are past. I know that the BAD GUYS would think so anyway.
What I would propose...is to institute curfews along the problem highways/roads and the penalty for violation would be a display of overwhelming military firepower. Once "they" got the message...we'll have to simply be prepared for the next "good idea" they have.
I'm not trying to defend Rumsfeld...I'm not that impressed by the man.
As to why people seem to be afraid of Rummy...I don't know. I have noticed in the 20+ years I've been associated with the military that there are very few career military officers that are willing to buck the system. It also transfers over to the civilian side of DoD. Maybe that's why I've been stalled at the same grade for over 11 years. If you ask me a question, you'd better be prepared to hear the answer. If you ask me what I think, likewise, I'll give you exactly what you've asked for.
For any active duty readers out there...you can hide your identity here quite easily. I'd like you to tell me if I'm misinterpreting what's happened over the course of 20 years. I'm finding it more and more prevalent that military staffs simply validate what the "boss" thinks. Woe be it to anyone that tells the "emporer" that he has no clothes.
See y'all on the high ground!
MajorDad1984
I just came across this article and am wondering what you think Major. This is not a trick question, I'm genuinely curious. :0) http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/10401608.htm
Ah...the age old issue of "cannibalization" or the more proper term...."controlled substitution."
I've been out of the active force for a little more than 12 years....but I'm very familiar with the issue. Happens during peacetime as well. The bottom line answer...is if you ever want to see easily pilfered items again (fuel cans, water cans, doors, windshields, etc) you take them off the vehicles and store them somewhere less accessible.
Now...you're probably looking for me to either jump on the band wagon and say that these guys/girls should be hung from the highest yard arm...or be given medals for their ingenuity and ability to carry on with the mission.
Can I put them in the pokey for three months and then give them a medal?
The fact that one unit basically abandoned the vehicles/equipment is bad. Probably shouldn't leave tractor trailers and other vehicles laying around the battlefield. The Ohio guard unit referenced should have been more honest about what they did. Every vehicle in the Army...and probably the entire force, has a distinct bumper number painted. It's not hard for the trained eye (been in the Army more than a week) to look at the abbreviations/numbers and have a pretty good idea what the parent unit is. To claim ignorance like the major serving a 6 month sentence...is an out and out lie. They knew the vehicles weren't theirs. They could have reported what they had done...and it would have been fine. The last charge on the list, conspiracy...that's what put them behind bars and rightfully so.
Does that answer the question...or do you need more?
Bottom line: Great job. You kept the fuel moving. Bad job...you should be honest in all that you do.
From the high ground.
MajorDad1984
I wasn't looking for any answer; I just wanted to hear your thoughts. Thanks for sharing them.
"The bottom line is that HMMWVs were never intended to be armored vehicles. This changed within the past ten years where SOME HMMWVs were upgraded and given a little thicker skin to operate in certain areas of the battlefield where their brothers with vinyl doors have no business being."
I can't prove this but it seems to me that there have been a lot of deaths in Iraq due to overturned vehicles.
If you are putting a great deal of weight, in the form of armor, on a vehicle that was not designed for it, it would seem to me that it might easily have stability problems, especially at higher speeds. There must be a trade off between the protection of armor and the stability and maneuverability of the HMMV. Besides, from what I've read, the armor plates are mounted on the sides and top of the car, but not on the underside of the vehicle. If they are running over IED's, that would be "unhelpful" as Rummy might say. Just putting sandbags on the floor isn't going to help very much.
To be frank, what the hell are HMMV's doing there in the first place? There are certainly plenty of Bradley's and LAV's around. If it's because they want the Soldiers and Marines to be more visible in order to win "hearts and minds", screw 'em.
Patrick's nailed this one...adding to what I said. He's absolutely right...that HMMWVs probably ought not go out with an awful lot of support...and FIREPOWER!
Brads and tanks would help...but the bottom line is that some of these IEDs are so powerful, they've destroyed our tanks. We need to figure out how to keep these little bastards (Yes, UrbanFox...there are BAD people over there) from going out under the cover of darkness and rigging these devices. Better surveillance...sweeping...and tactics are probably a better solution than piling armor on under engineered, under engined vehicles. We're doing the same thing we've always done...gotten ready to fight the last war again.
Tactics and threats evolve over time. An increase in the intelligence capabilities (HUMINT) would sure help us keep up with the Jones' (Hajis?) in this regard.
See y'all on the high ground...with OVERWHELMING SUPERIOR FIREPOWER!
Peace through strength.
MajorDad1984
Jim...never a problem. I've been accused of not reading the problem myself.
I wanted to hear from today's military...to see if I'm missing a key point.
MajorDad1984
Post a Comment
<< Home