Ha, Rumsfield gets his Kamuffin

[stratego]

Ha, Rumsfield gets his Kamuffin (sp?)

The U.S. Defense Secretary, Donald H. Rumsfield thought his troops in Kuwait who are headed to Iraq would respond to his pep talk with the usual enthusiastic “yesss sir”. He began his little speech by commending their service and emphasizing the importance of their mission. Little did he know what to expect when he asked for “tough questions”.

He found himself facing a barrage of complaints that had clearly caught him off-guard.
The questions coming from disgruntled soldiers, were diverse and ranged from “why is our travel pay being held up; why do our unit’s Humvees not have adequate armor to protect against roadside bombs; why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass in order to up-armor our vehicles; how much longer will the tours be extended without our consent, etc.”

The questions drew applause and shouts of approval from the ranks. Open criticism by uniformed troops is very rare, as they usually have great respect for the chain of command. Interestingly, this extraordinary confrontation between the troops and the defense secretary took place in the same week that a group of soldiers had filed suit to prevent the U.S. government from extending their tour of duty.

Rumsfield defended the administration’s decision to extend tours of duty. His response came across as largely testy. At one point he is even reported to have said ''Now settle down, settle down, Hell, I'm an old man, it's early in the morning. I didn't take -- just gathering my thoughts here." That the U.S. army ranks were disgruntled, there was no doubt. The U.S. administration is confronted with a morale problem and even dissent among its troops particularly in the Iraq war. The troops are restive and there are doubts whether they are adequately equipped for combat.

Regarding the armored Humvees, Rumsfield said that it was a matter of production capability. “Armored Humvees,” he said, “are being produced as fast as is possible. 450 armored vehicles were being produced every month. And the U.S. government is not skimping on supplies.”

This was Rumsfield’s first major public appearance (broadcast on the Internet) since the White House announced last week that he would remain in the Cabinet for President Bush's second term. Despite his impeccable record, Rumsfield too, has his share of critics at the White house. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a democrat, found Rumsfield’s statements as particularly cruel and callous. He felt that the troop’s near defiant behavior was equal to a resounding vote of no confidence for Rumsfield.

 

[Immortal]

Well, did he provide any answers? If he isn't equipping his soldiers properly he's putting their lives in danger.

 

[stormbind]

Wasn't this on the news yesterday?

From BBC News article ...

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmour our vehicles?" Army Spc Thomas Wilson asked.

His question brought cheers from some 2,000 fellow soldiers - mostly Reserve and National Guard troops - assembled in an aircraft hangar for the question-and-answer session that followed Mr Rumsfeld's speech.

Mr Rumsfeld paused, before asking him to repeat the question, AP news agency reported.

...

The BBC's Nick Childs at the Pentagon says that while questioning at rallies can often be critical, the comments from the troops this time did seem particularly pointed and some of Mr Rumsfeld's responses rather blunt.

 

[Arminius]

Hua. 56789

 

[Cuivienen]

Did you mean "comeuppance?"

Well, did he provide any answers? If he isn't equipping his soldiers properly he's putting their lives in danger.

His answers seemed to be something along the lines of, "It's hard to supply the army."

 

[stormbind]

Did you mean "comeuppance?"

Bit posh ain'cha?

 

[amadeus]

Surprise, surprise. The question was given to the soldier by a newspaper reporter to ask to Secretary Rumsfeld. So much for independent thought, eh?

 

[shortguy]

The question was given to the soldier by a newspaper reporter to ask to Secretary Rumsfeld.

Well, if such things are happening, then it's a good question, isn't it?

 

[Shaihulud]

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmour our vehicles?" Army Spc Thomas Wilson asked.

What does this mean exactly? I do not understand this question. Does he means that the US soldier has to harvest resources to manufacture armour like in a real time strategy game? Or the soldiers are improvising their vehicles with scrap metal.

 

[GEChallenger]

Improvising with scap metal.

 

[YotoKiller]

What does this mean exactly? I do not understand this question. Does he means that the US soldier has to harvest resources to manufacture armour like in a real time strategy game? Or the soldiers are improvising their vehicles with scrap metal.

They're enhancing their already somewhat armored vehicals. Its kind of like in World War II where tank crews welded spare treads on the fronts and sides of their tanks to improve protection.

 

[Jack the Ripper]

His answers seemed to be something along the lines of, "It's hard to supply the army."

He said "you fight with the army you have, not with the army you want".

I doubt soldiers would ask a question like that. It was probably an inplanted media personality; like the one that staged the shooting of the "civilian" in fallujah.

They're enhancing they're already somewhat armored vehicals. Its kind of like in World War II where tank crews welded spare treads on the fronts and sides to improve protection.

Dont forget, Kerry voted against the funding of body armor, so the libs are in no position to complain.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Surprise, surprise. The question was given to the soldier by a newspaper reporter to ask to Secretary Rumsfeld. So much for independent thought, eh?

Link please.

I think the soldier wasnt really after an answer to hes question. I think him and those who agree with him wanted to convey to Rumsfield that there paying with their lives for hes "mis-calculation"

 

[GEChallenger]

A reporter planted the question, so close enough.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Dont forget, Kerry voted against the funding of body armor, so the libs are in no position to complain.

"Clinton undercut our military by sending them into useless nation building execises" - Condoleezza Rice

Nope no complaining but a lot of laughing

 

[AVN]

Link please.

Linky

Please don't ask me how reliable/biased that site is, because I don't know.

 

[GEChallenger]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-12-09-rumsfeld-reporter_x.htm

 

[Uiler]

Don't forget that very few politicians write their own speeches. Yet no-one is saying that what Bush says in speeches aren't Bush's words. Even if a reporter asked the soldier to ask the question, the soldier was obviously willing (and there are no indiciations that he was being paid) despite the risks (I imagine insulting the head of the Pentagon might not do much for one's promotion chances) and his (many) fellow soldiers cheered the question. If one remembers earlier a group of army truckers refused to go on a journey because their trucks were not armoured. This does seem to be a genuine sentiment in the troops over there. And if one remembers, there was a big ruckus over the lack of Kevlar vests as well to the extent that some families were buying the vests themselves and sending them to their kids. I think it is pretty clear from this and many other things that the Pentagon does have equipment problems.

Also in some ways it is not entirely Rumsfeld's fault as successive governments have ramped down manufacturing capacity for the army since the end of the Cold War so now when you need to have huge amounts of X made in a short period of time it is difficult. Still, Rumsfeld has big blinkers where he is trying to transform the US army into one big special forces operations and often forgets the ordinary grunts and the things that ordinary soldiers have to do (like fight insurgencies and dealing with bombs and grenades) so he's not making things better. Hence the focus on making the army as high-tech as possible instead of "boring" things like armour and *gasp, shock, horror* increasing the number of boots. Rumsfeld is a "dotcom" Pentagon leader. You know the dotcom types who bought into the idea that there is a "new" economy and you don't have to deal with the boring "old" economy things like cash-flows, managing debt etc.

Here's food for thought. Whatever equipment difficulty the US troops are having, the Iraqi police and army equipment difficulties are magnitudes worse. They are way outgunned by the insurgency (despite their primitive weaponry) and very few of them have anything like bullet-proof vests let alone armoured Humvees. Though given the way the insurgency has infiltrated the Iraqi police and army, even if the US equips them well it is very possible that the weapons will simply make their way to the insurgency so it is a difficult situation. The Iraqi forces are a mess. Corruption, poor training, poor equipment and infiltration by the enemy. Most of them are there to get a paycheck in regions where unemployment is around 70-80% and don't have much desire to actually fight. Sadly the most motivated, trained and equipped fighters are the ones which are part of private ethnic based militias that were slotted wholesale into the new army.

 

[GEChallenger]

Forgot to mention before... Kamuffin is probably the most creative bit of spelling I've ever seen...

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I watched this, Rumsfeld didn't seemed surprised and answered well, though I didn't like some of his answers.

He is right, you fight with the Army you have. However, production for uparmored parts could be done very quickly, but it would cost lots more money to have multiple factories produce the required parts instead of what they would be doing otherwise.

Congress?! The congressmen and senators have no real right to criticize Rumsfeld as they could make it happen quicker if they really wanted to.

Rumsfeld made a decision based upon risk. Good or bad is debatable. Good for soldiers to ask and criticize, bad for Congress to do so.