Why did president Bush send troops over to Iraq w/o proper equipment?

Answer 1

We went to war with the equipment that we had at the time. Our equipment has gotten better by leaps and bounds since this war started. It was not because the Gov. did not want to send us with the proper gear, it is because we did not know we needed it, or it had not been developed yet. New body armor, new vehicles, new vehicle armor....all that came after the war started.

Answer 2

The U.S. military generally lacked body armor, which by the way there is a direct order to wear all their body armor, because many were not wearing the body armor that was given to them.

The military also lacked up armored Humvees. Now this was unusual, because the humvees was made to do what it was suppose to do and that was to replace the jeep, not the APC. They were not ment to be armored and used in offensive combat. The soldiers insisted on using these things like APCs and put enough pressure on the military to make them into mini APCs. Now the U.S. has the stryker, basically a compromise on what the military heads wanted and what the field guys wanted. The stryker is a general failure though because two strykers in a C-130 only allow a range of 900 miles in one direction if the C-130 can't refuel. This is the far cry of 2,000-4,000 miles that the military conveived the stryker. The extra weight came from the extra armor that the military saw was needed from the Iraq war.

Answer 3

He sent them with the equipment they had.
The government ( and yes it was under Clinton) had cut military budgets, so the military was undermaned and not having all the equipment they needed for a long term battle.

But no troop will ever have every piece of equipment, and it is easy to complain that people don't have this or that, but we are fighting an enemy with no uniforms, out dated weapons who fight using non military methods.

It was not the war, that was over in no time, what we are dong now is police actions.

Answer 4

Richard_W asks:
"Why did Clinton cut & cut defense spending so our trooops wouldn't have the proper equipment when it was needed?"

Same reason Bush 41 and Bush 43 did (yes, all three did): because we didn't have a Soviet Union to fight anymore.

It really wasn't a partisan decision. We were supposed to be enjoying "the peace dividend", remember?

Answer 5

Because everybody's beloved John Kerry and his democrat buddies disapproved spending money on the war. Anybody recall this line I was for it before I voted against it. Hmmmmmmmm.

Answer 6

Because most of it had not been invented yet?

I am thinking of having a bumper sticker made that says: "Iraq - if you weren't there, shut up."

Answer 7

I wonder how that happens myself or why people here have to raise money to supply soldiers with things like silly string, but whether or not we want to admit it, the truth is that the President isn't the one who directly sends them to Iraq.

Answer 8

Why did Clinton cut & cut defense spending so our trooops wouldn't have the proper equipment when it was needed?
---------
OK CJ, tell me any war in History that the troops always had every piece of equipment that they needed or wanted?
The basis of my question/answer is no less valid than the asker's.

Answer 9

HE sent them with what they had availible. The first guy nailed it though. Clinton cut the funding.

Answer 10

ah ahahahahahahahahahaaaaahahahahahaa
hhahahahahaah

i start to believe that you people dont know the truth !

is long tell but.......all country that bush went to "liberate" had PETROLEO.

thats is a concidence !!!!!

if you want know the true story send me a mail. ask me anything