Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Tell me--and John Kerry--again what that $87B was spent on.

A charge of false advertising seems appropriate--though treason is probably more accurate, it would be difficult to document.

"Support our troops" in the the Bush dyslexicon does not mean up-armoring humvees or replacing Vietnam-era flak jackets with superior ceramic body armor (or even adequately caring for the maimed and wounded returning from Iraq). To our benighted president it obviously means dribbling away the lives of our soldiers on a pointless foreign adventure; doing it on the cheap (no matter the lives lost); and concealing the true costs of the war until after the election.

Worst president ever- on his best day.

Do you get the feeling that adequately protecting the troops doesn't show up on the radar of our "war president" because in his time of war he stayed comfortably at home in the "Champaign Unit" of the national guard? Or worse yet, coming from a position of privilege and a higher station in life, he just doesn't care, so long as it doesn't interfere with his re-election.

I don't want to be an administration apologist here: I think that they're corrupt and inept. Still, how much of this can be attributed to Bush's three years of tenure? Some of us spoke jokingly of Bush beating Saddam with "Bill Clinton's military," and largely rightly. Could the Bush administration have procured a lot of armored vehicles in three years, during two of which the plan to invade Iraq was cloaked in secrecy, denial, and hypocrisy? Basically, COULD he have gotten enough armored vehicles, given the number he inherited from Clinton?

In response to Julian Elson's question: isn't that what being on a war footing would entail? How long did it take the US economy to gear up for world war II? How long, exactly, would it take to requisition the hummers already in production, retrofit them, and move them out? Perhaps instead of asking us to go to disney world, hug a mouse, and go shopping after 9-11 our "war president" could have actually, you know, prepared for our troops for war.

Kate Gilbert

Two factors are at play here- the responsibility of the CIC to adequately equip the military for the missions they are tasked with and the added weight that Bush places on his own shoulders by (falsely) claiming to be "pro-soldier" and superior in all things military to any Democrat.

Bush, by all accounts, decided to go to war with Iraq, or at least seriously contemplated it as early as 2001. At the same time, he was advised, and apparently agreed, that we would keep a significant force in Iraq for years. The kind of equipment needed to smash an army (tanks, planes, artillery, bombs, etc.) is not the same kind of equipment needed to protect soldiers in a nation-building exercise (which I do not agree we have in Iraq- its more a guerrilla war). Infantry needs body armor and armored vehicles to protect it when there are hostile forces intermingled in a civilian populace. Bush, with three years foreknowledge, manifestly failed to provide that equipment (which is a drop in the bucket of the Pentagon budget). Why? A combination of stupidity ("flowers and sweets" expectations)and cupidity (more careful steps taken to mask the true cost, length, and severity of the war and occupation).

Clinton was criticized for not placing armored vehicles in Somalia, for a much smaller task. A measure of the wingnut capacity for hypocrisy is the deafening silence about Bush's failure to provide reasonable equipment for the soldiers he views as an armed servant class.

One word: CAKEWALK.

The enemy will always find weaks spots where they can attack. If we had armored Humvees (or when we do) they will switch to other effective strategies. Regardless of how soon they get better jeeps, supply convoys are still vulnerable to roadside bombs. There is little reporting about the numbers of civilian "contractors" killed in Iraq.

A committed enemy with no regard for his own life can be almost impossible to stop.

I do not think this is the correct question. I think the correct question is, "Why are Americans providing the security for Iraq and not the Iraqis?" The politicians have failed our military. Our politicians are asking our military to provide complete security for the country without being willing to make the hard political choices that would make our military successful.

Hard choice #1:
Make concessions to allies to get more foreign participation at the start. The Bush administration failed to do this.

Hard choice #2
Make politcial compromises with Iraqi Baathists in order to maintain order. The Bush administration dismissed Iraqi help summarily.

Hard choice #3
Make political concession to Sadr and allow Iraqis to form militias as long as they are under central control. The administration has failed to do this.

Hard choice #4.
Concede that we could not run post war Iraq alone and asked the UN early on to help run it. The administration refused to do this.

This administration has made a series of political choices that have put our military in a position where they lack the force strength to provide order and in addition must fight against Baathist forces in Falloojah that could have been potential allies and fight against Sadr and other militia in Shiastan that also could be potential allies. Our politcians don't know how to make friends. Politicians have failed our troops.

Hello:

Besides naked Humvees, scarce ceramic body armour...
the other big glarring problem is how we are "half-assing" the Iraqi police force and quasi-military.

NOTE: A majority of Iraqi policeman have NO RADIOS/ or Communication devices... Think of a New York City Police man/ women asked to go and fight crime without a 2-way radio...That person would quit, could not call back-up..could not report a disturbance...

so you see, forget the humvees, forget the body armor...wonder why the Iraqi police and military are quitting in droves....ask your local politician...e-mail Prz Bush or Rumsfield and ask them how the procurement system works. I bet there are 70,000 2-way radios that can be procured and sent over in 2 weeks. There is Realistic Company, There are numerous cell companies that offer 2-way cell radios...the list goes on, I bet with a few internet searches I could locate a vendor and get a quote and delivery for 70,000 police radios in 2 hours..I bet if we call on all local police and fire to donate 2 radios per squad...we all could do what our lousy military procurement dept cannot do in 8 months...
STOP...we can do a better job than them (meaning politicians)
elect me, I will get radios to Iraqi policeman, why should they not quit, they are asked to patrol streets, and cannot call the babysitter (US)

Have a nice day and enjoy not hearing the news you are not allowed to hear

"Could the Bush administration have procured a lot of armored vehicles in three years, during two of which the plan to invade Iraq was cloaked in secrecy, denial, and hypocrisy? Basically, COULD he have gotten enough armored vehicles, given the number he inherited from Clinton?"

Posted by Julian Elson at April 27, 2004 07:35 AM

Julian, if there were any signs that the Bush administration attempted to do what they could, and were hampered by the Clinton legacy, then blame would indeed accrue to Clinton. However, everything that I've seen indicates that the administration failed to make what preparations they could, and interfered with people attempting to make preparations.

The Vietnamization of security in Iraq has failed already. Commanders on the ground there stated that when the recent intensification of conflict broke out 40 % of the Iraqi security forces deserted (many of whom stole and sold their weapons) while 10% turned their guns on American soldiers. If these are the official numbers, what was the reality?

It does seem strange that the defense department has not been trying to take more urgent action wrt the body armor and humvee armor issues, when it seems like a large part of their post-Saddam strategy has been to try and minimize military casualties (a Zakaria criticism, I believe) by keeping soldiers as seperate from the population as possible....

Still why focus solely on the Bush (or Clinton)
administration? Isn't the army itself likely partly to blame? Maybe it's a slow, ponderous bureaucracy.... Isn't this the picture of the army we have from WW2, Vietnam, or any other war?

Oddly, army generals seem of late to have become, to left-wing minds, repositories of great wisdom. Rather than, say, careerist hacks.

Lots of generals are hacks- but we have a lot of generals. But the reason we don't have things that an ordinary soldier can wear, carry, or ride in is a function of the fascination with airpower and other whizbangery (can an F-16 patrol the slums of Baghdad?), exemplified by that empty-headed fool Rumsfeld. 10,000 armored humvees cost 1.5 billion (bolt-ons cost less). Body armor is even cheaper. Missile defense (which, odds are, can't defend against missiles) is expected to cost $54 billion over the next five years.

bakho: "Hard choice #1: Make concessions to allies to get more foreign participation at the start."

I'm sure bribing countries into switching sides would be no. 1 on Von Clausewitz's "no-brainer effective strategies" list.

"Hard choice #2 Make politcial compromises with Iraqi Baathists in order to maintain order."

Why invade in the first place, then?

"Hard choice #3 Make political concession to Sadr and allow Iraqis to form militias as long as they are under central control."

Another nice gift to the Iraqi people this would be.

"Hard choice #4. Concede that we could not run post war Iraq alone and asked the UN early on to help run it."

Would the UN take on the security challenge? Of course not. None of these are "hard" choices, they're not choices at all. The real "hard" choice was not to invade at all. No matter how much you hate Bush, no analysis really disproves the idea that the war, taken as a whole, may have gone just about as well as it could possibly have been expected to go. Which is not to say that many specific accusations of Bush administration incompetence probably aren't (undoubtedly) right on the money, but the war in Iraq is essentially a cipher....

[filling in, ineptly as always, for PRS]

Another amazing thing about this, is that we have had to ask Israel to lend/give us back the many armored humvees we had manufactured and then shipped to Israel.

Julian,

In Rumsfeld streamlined, Satellite and air power military the Army has been given short shrift. Since Rumsfeld was going to fight wars without too many "boots on the ground," we only ordered a small amount of armored humvees. Also Bush and Company started focusiing on Iraq in Feb 2001. They misjudged what the issues truly were.

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz expected by the end of the summer of 2003 we would only need 30,000 troops in Iraq. The Army knew better.

Julian,

In Rumsfeld streamlined, Satellite and air power military the Army has been given short shrift. Since Rumsfeld was going to fight wars without too many "boots on the ground," we only ordered a small amount of armored humvees. Also Bush and Company started focusiing on Iraq in Feb 2001. They misjudged what the issues truly were.

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz expected by the end of the summer of 2003 we would only need 30,000 troops in Iraq. The Army knew better.

Beating a nearly dead horse:

This is part of a letter from Cong. Ted Strickland to Rumdumb.

"April 23, 2004

The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Room 3E880
Washington, DC 20301

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld,

For several months now I have been following the status of Up-Armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV), or Humvees, available to our troops in Iraq. What I have learned has been very disconcerting.

I am writing you to ask several questions as to how the Department of Defense (DOD) plans to provide our troops with Up-Armored Humvees and to express my support for protecting our American troops in theatre with this essential equipment as soon as possible. I am aware of reports that indicate that if soldiers had been traveling in Up-Armored Humvees, some of the wounds and causalities in Iraq could have been prevented.

These stories are particularly startling as I have been in contact with O'Gara-Hess & Eisendhardt, a company in my state of Ohio that holds DOD's sole contract for manufacturing Up-Armored Humvees. According to O'Gara-Hess, its current contract with the Department of Defense, amended this week, calls for the production of 300 Up-Armored Humvees per month. However, it is my understanding that O'Gara-Hess is capable of making more vehicles than the pentagon's contract as early as mid-summer and steadily increasing its production capacity to a maximum 450 units per month in November.

DOD has articulated a need for over 4,400 Up-Armored Humvees in Iraq alone. That's not counting the back-fill that will be necessary to replace Up-Armored Humvees rushed from soldiers in South Korea and the Balkans to serve as a stop-gap in Iraq. For reasons stated above, I am concerned that this equipment is not being provided to our troops in the most expeditious manner. Therefore, I respectfully request that you respond to the following questions:

How many Up-Armored Humvees are presently needed in Iraq? How many Up-Armored Humvees are presently needed in Afghanistan?

What is the Department of Defense doing to assure that American soldiers are provided Up-Armored Humvees as soon as possible?

When will the need for Up-Armored Humvees in Iraq and Afghanistan be met? When will the Pentagon's need for Up-Armored Humvees across all branches of service for all troops - full-time, guard and reserve - be met?

Given the fact that the war started in March, why did the Pentagon not request an increase in production of these vehicles until November, and why has the Pentagon still not requested that O'Gara-Hess increase production to maximum capacity?

If the problem is simply a matter of funding, it is incumbent upon you to immediately tell Congress exactly what resources are needed in order to provide the Up-Armored Humvees to our troops as quickly as possible. I have full faith that Congress would make funds available without delay."

Joe: "I'm sure bribing countries into switching sides would be no. 1 on Von Clausewitz's "no-brainer effective strategies" list."

Sorry to rant but:

That attitude is exactly why the US screwed this up. They tried to bribe other nations, and most other nations told them to stuff it (see the Turks, for example). Because actually it takes more than bribery to make friends.

The US was never willing to contemplate an alliance of like-minded nations acting together in Iraq. The US's approach to other nations was "you'll do it our way or else, we'll be in charge son, we'll do all the thinking and deciding, but you send some troops and here's some cash - oh, and polish my shoes while you're at it". Surprisingly enough, some of us weren't keen...

And even real bribes (like offering Pakistan free trade in textiles) weren't followed through on when they conflicted with vote-catching at home in the US. Which just pointed out another way that the US is hypocritical (on free trade this time) and can't be trusted.

meno

What I don't understand is why Kerry isn't hammering Bush with this. It would make such good sound bites. MR President why don't you care about our soldiers? Mr President where are the Hummers? This stuff is perfect to take "patiotism" and the "military" out of the republicans hands. Yer not gonna win if you don't play hard. Hell you got Hughes calling us Nazis the least you go do is call the admin hypocrites.

The Iraqi police are running or turning because many of their countrymen consider them to be Quislings and they fear for their lives if they continue to serve the imperialists.

Online Casino Directory