Why did Rummy send Humvee's into Iraq with light Armor and no certainty of assuring the safety of our troops?

Question

Now that Bush and the Republicans are in trouble in the polls, suddenly all the big wigs are speaking out about the wonders of this Administration. They are so smart, but where was all this smartness in 2003? Rummy has this sharp wit and short temper with anyone who disagrees with him and his friends. Well Rummy it has been three years and you can not sell the idea that you know what you are doing. Everyone already has made of their minds on the subject. You and your leader and all your puppets were blowing smoke in the first three years in Iraq, and you and your leader are still lost and over your heads on the subject of Iraq.

Answer 1

I believe that the Secretary of Defense is not the only one to blame for the Humvee situation; it should go towards the senior military leadership as well (and to the military industrial congressional complex as well). As a commander, you are responsible for everything that happens within your command. It seems that the Administration wasn't expecting nor prepared for the conflict that would occur after the invasion. And the senior military leadership for the most part did not have the moral courage to stand up for the soldiers under their command to say, "I resign since I believe that the plan is unfinished and needs to be finished before we enter Iraq." The military always teaches that there needs to be back up plans because of Murphy's Law. Unfortunately, the invasion wasn't the real war... the real war happened in the streets after the Iraqi Baathist state fell, which happened to be warfare that the US cannot easily fight.

The SecDef once said: "You can't go to war with the army you want, you have to go with the army you HAVE." Well to that, I ask, what happened to the stockpile of M113 APCs left over from the Cold War? Is it so hard to deploy M113s to the theater instead of the soft-skinned Humvees that were designed to be light utility trucks, not close combat vehicles? I mean, the M113s are already armored and designed for combat and could have saved many lives and prevented harm to many more. It is something we had before the invasion, yet we used them as target practice for the USAF. What a waste of something useful. Perhaps it wasn’t profitable for the business that produces these Humvees? Is there really any need to purchase the gold-plated Strykers when there are M113s that we can use? When you need armor, use armor. Don’t use something lesser than that. So simple, isn’t it?

It seems that the military spends a lot of time and money to save face, when instead they can use that time and money to get the troops what they need and can be available to them whenever they want it. It is the mature, responsible, and wise thing to do. That is what really means by "supporting the troops."

Answer 2

The armour added to Humvees is an outsourced endeavor, originally by a small Ohio company. General Motors is not the company that does this although you would think the Pentagon could put on the full court press to encourage them to do it. It's a slow and tedious project and they're only capable of doing so many per month.

In the meantime, the roadside bombings have increased, which has increased the pressure to get more done.

The truth is, all the insurgents need to do is use more powerful ordinance. No matter how much armour a vehicle has, it can only withstand so much of a blast.

So maybe vehicles on the road really aren't the answer. Perhaps more boots on the ground, helicopters in the air, drones in the night sky, and recon missions looking for these guys are the answer. To listen to the same old crap, day after day, month after month, of troops being blown up by ied's, makes no goddamn sense at all. What the hell are we paying that dumb @ss geriatric for, if he can't resolve these problems or, at least, hire someone who can!

Answer 3

I am glad to see that alot of you have such remarkable opinions... granted you have no idea of how the cabinet position of the Secretary of Defense actually operates or how equipment gets into the hands of the soldier, but at least you are engaging with 10% (which is average by the way) of your brain.

It used to take seven to ten years to get new equipment into the military. We got the High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle in 1986..... so do the math.... seven to ten years before it was being designed. Roughly in 1978. It takes two to three years after the system is developed and tested for it to recieve money to be purchased and funded for fielding. Then once built, tested again and finally parts inventories have to be manufactured to support the system.

Once a system is approved by Congress and funding is available.... the military is pretty much stuck with what they got. When needs and situations for changes arrive... Modification Work Orders (MWO's) are developed, tested, and fielded... another two to three year problem. But I worked hand in hand with the Program Executive Office on Up Armoring the HMMWV. AND because it actually crossed the SEC DEF's desk.... it was approved by Congress in a four week period and money was "found" to make it happen and the M1114 and M1113 HMMWV came to reality. What we call the UP-ARMORED HMMWV. And yes... the blast protection does work.... that I can attest to as well.

I'd really like to see more things like that happen..... but lets not blame individuals for what our laws that have been put in place control. It was called the Defense Appropriations Act..... it was originally approved by FDR.

Answer 4

It is so easy to be what is called an "arm chair quarterback" and call the game after the fact. The truth is, that the Secretary of Defense only had the advise from his advisers and the intelligence services to go to war on. This information, while not perfect was enough to get the job done. We prevailed, the Iraqi Army was ineffective in stopping our invasion of their country despite Saddam Hussein's warnings of destruction if we tried. We prevailed and then the tactics changed from a conventional ground war to a guerrilla war. The US has a long history of ineffectiveness against guerrilla fighters. We have done pretty well considering the training for this type of fight had to be made up along the way.
Yes there were mistakes made at all levels of the leadership. And everyone has their version of what they would have done if they were in charge. Well, they were not! So now, we just adapt and overcome. It is the division of support that caused our failure in Viet Nam and it is the division of support that will cause us problems in Iraq. We are either a united front against terrorism and the methods used in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight a dirty war or we are not. If you can morally support people who blow themselves up in crowds of civilians then you are not on our side. So we may not be perfect, and we may not have the best equipment and training for what we have to do, but we are prevailing and will win.

Answer 5

Nearly all Americans are slow to learn just how ugly the terrorist enemy can be. You wouldn't last 24 hours in Iraq, because you don't know a thing about warfare. Rumsfeld wasn't responsible for the design of the Humvee. When we learned the potential of roadside bombs, we started adding armor, but too much armor will make the Humvee so heavy that it is a sitting duck, and can still be killed by an RPG or flipped over and set afire by a roadside bomb.

Answer 6

Hey, moron are you asking a question or making a speach?
A Humvee is a SUV in camo. It was built the replace the jeep. It was never designed for or intended to have armor. It fact adding armor makes the thing heavier & slower. Thus not really a 100% good thing. Also the armor was never intended to stop a direct hit from a bomb.

As for your political rant? Oh forget it. I don't have all night......

Answer 7

There is no certainty in war. If you think there is you will die soon enough in combat. The only thing for certain is the men and women of the US military are tough, unrelenting, and do their missions to the best of their abilities, sometimes without the luxury of the best or even adequate equipment.

Answer 8

With your logic one might criticize FDR for the number of B17's shot down in WWII. Do you think Rumsfeld acts on his own without input from the pentagon? Do you think Rumsfeld has control over what weapons systems we develop and deploy? No wonder you are so confused; you don't have a clue about who does what.

Answer 9

F.Y.I. the government is not on our side. The Illuminati, who run this world, seek to wipe out 2/3 of us useless eaters in an all out nuclear world war 3, so they can establish their new world order fascist police state.

Answer 10

We were to be greeted as saviors and met With flowers.