Fatal Inaction
By April Witt
Sunday, June 18, 2006; Page W08
The world's most powerful military failed to provide the armor that would have saved scores of American lives. One father would like to know why
Private 1st Class John Hart whispered into the phone so he wouldn't be overheard. It was just a matter of time, he said, before his buddies and he bumped down some back road in Iraq right into an ambush. They were so exposed, the somber young soldier told his dad, back home in Bedford, Mass. They were riding around in unarmored Humvees with canvas tops and gaping openings on the sides where doors should be. That seemed pretty stupid now that people were shooting at them and lobbing rockets. John, a 20-year-old gunner whose job it was to keep his head up and return fire, felt hung out in the breeze.
/snip
This was not the first time John had confided that the U.S. military was failing to provide him with essential equipment. In previous calls home, Brian recalls, John recounted a bewildering array of shortages and snafus. Before landing in Iraq that scorching July, John told his father, he'd been issued a winter-weight camouflage suit, body armor with protective plates too small to shield his broad chest, and a broken rifle. An expert marksman and former co-captain of the Bedford High School shooting team, John had been told to conserve scarce bullets by not taking practice shots to sight his weapon, he said. Summertime water rations were so inadequate that guys were passing out in the Iraqi heat.
/snip
"I'm like, uh, why are they sending us?" Williams recalls. "We were returning kitchen equipment. We were not combat-effective . . . You are going to investigate a rocket attack. So you know they have rockets. Why send guys in a rickety Humvee to chase guys who have rockets?"
/snip
THE NEXT MORNING in a tan clapboard house in Bedford, Brian Hart knew even before he saw the Army officer, policeman and Catholic priest standing stone-faced on his front stoop. He could hear Alma screaming, "N-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o!"
RightatNYU said:This story has been hashed out over and over and over again. Those who desire to do so will continue to attempt to paint it as "The Bush Administration denied the soldiers the body armor they needed, resulting in their deaths."
The fact of the matter is, adding more body armor is not the solution.
Many, many, troops who have been deployed have come out AGAINST the proposals to increase armor, arguing that they add weight and hinder movement, decreasing the effectiveness and safety of US forces overall. People from both positions have logical arguments. Unfortunately, the truth is that no matter whether armor is increased, decreased, or stays the same, people will die. And sadly, no matter what happens, there will be those who will try to spin it to create news stories and make cheap political attacks.
It's just a shame that people continue to encourage them by listening to crap like this.
There is grousing and complaining in every war and the leaders are always to blame. No matter what was supplied to the soldiers, there would be stories like this.hipsterdufus said:I'm sorry you view the truth as "crap". This story is about a lot more than body armor. There is memo after memo of Rumsfeld turning down requests for more bullets, MREs, Kevlar Vests, Uparmored Humvees etc. It's pathetic and speaks directly to Rumsfeld's failed leadership in this war.
Gill said:There is grousing and complaining in every war and the leaders are always to blame. No matter what was supplied to the soldiers, there would be stories like this.
yeah, why don't you suggest congressional hearings. They could start with the revolutionary war.. that's when it began.hipsterdufus said:Well then maybe it's time for us to re-examine why these failures of leadership are so commonplace.
Perhaps it would be a better use of Congress' time than debating gay marriage?
Gill said:yeah, why don't you suggest congressional hearings. They could start with the revolutionary war.. that's when it began.
Gill said:There is grousing and complaining in every war and the leaders are always to blame. No matter what was supplied to the soldiers, there would be stories like this.
Oh yeah, I forgot. 'Leaders' are perfect and infallible.alphieb said:Does that make it excusable? The leaders of our country should have that almost perfected. If they don't, they have no business being leaders.
Gill said:Oh yeah, I forgot. 'Leaders' are perfect and infallible.
hipsterdufus said:I'm sorry you view the truth as "crap". This story is about a lot more than body armor. There is memo after memo of Rumsfeld turning down requests for more bullets, MREs, Kevlar Vests, Uparmored Humvees etc. It's pathetic and speaks directly to Rumsfeld's failed leadership in this war.
Eight months earlier, a committee of military medical experts had urged the Pentagon to give every soldier in the war a tourniquet. Bleeding to death from an arm or leg wound is the most common cause of preventable death in combat, the Committee on Tactical Combat Casualty Care reported. Quick access to a cheap, simple modern tourniquet could save many lives, military doctors had concluded. Yet it would be two more years before the U.S. Central Command, which runs combat operations in Iraq, adopted a policy saying all soldiers in combat should carry a tourniquet. Even then, the policy was moot because the Army didn't widely distribute tourniquets for several more months. An investigation by the Baltimore Sun spurred that distribution and documented one reason for the delay: Military procurement specialists were studying what kind of pouch to carry the new first aid kits with tourniquets in.
The U.S. military bureaucracy is like a giant overloaded ship that turns excruciatingly slowly -- even under fire. In May 2003 the first U.S. soldier in Iraq was killed by an improvised explosive device (IED). "It was about a week later before the second one showed up and about another week before the third one," Maj. Gen. Buford C. Blount, who led U.S. troops into Iraq from Kuwait at the start of the war, later told Congress. By mid-June it was clear "a pattern started to develop for IED usage," Blount testified. Yet it wasn't until November 2003 -- nearly five months later -- that the Army said it needed 3,780 armor kits to retrofit five types of trucks to protect the troops from IEDs. The Army did not produce all the kits until February 2005 and did not install them fully until May 2005 -- 18 months after it formally identified the need, the GAO found. By that time, however, the number of unarmored trucks in Iraq that needed retrofitting kits had skyrocketed, outstripping the supply.
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) was planning to attend John's November 4 funeral. Brian contacted his office and asked if he and Kennedy could meet before the service to talk. Some of Brian's relatives were aghast. Brian grew up in a family of fundamentalist Christians who vote Republican. At the University of Texas, Brian was president of the campus Republicans. Now some of his Texas relatives warned Brian not to be seen with Kennedy, he recalls. Brian didn't care. To get answers, he needed allies. He even called John Kerry's presidential campaign; but nobody called back, he says. Kerry did send an aide to John's funeral.
Standing in an administrative office at Arlington, John Hart's grieving parents and Kennedy talked so long that they delayed the funeral 30 minutes. Kennedy promised that he would try to get the Senate Armed Services Committee to hold a hearing on equipment shortages.
hipsterdufus said:I'm sorry you view the truth as "crap". This story is about a lot more than body armor. There is memo after memo of Rumsfeld turning down requests for more bullets, MREs, Kevlar Vests, Uparmored Humvees etc. It's pathetic and speaks directly to Rumsfeld's failed leadership in this war.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?