Iraq troops got Mine Resistant Armored Protection vehicles (MRAPs), Americans waited

[babylonsister]

:nuke: :nuke:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070716/1a_iedcoverxx.art.htm

Pentagon balked at pleas from officers in field for safer vehicles
Iraqi troops got MRAPs; Americans waited

By Peter Eisler, Blake Morrison and Tom Vanden Brook
USA TODAY

snip//

n a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates late last month, two U.S. senators said the delays cost the lives of an estimated "621 to 742 Americans" who would have survived explosions had they been in MRAPs rather than Humvees.

snip//

Even as the Pentagon balked at buying MRAPs for U.S. troops, USA TODAY found that the military pushed to buy them for a different fighting force: the Iraqi army.

On Dec. 22, 2004 — two weeks after President Bush told families of servicemembers that "we're doing everything we possibly can to protect your loved ones" — a U.S. Army general solicited ideas for an armored vehicle for the Iraqis. The Army had an "extreme interest" in getting troops better armor, then-brigadier general Roger Nadeau told a subordinate looking at foreign technology, in an e-mail obtained by USA TODAY.

In a follow-up message, Nadeau clarified his request: "What I failed to point out in my first message to you folks is that the US Govt is interested not for US use, but for possible use in fielding assets to the Iraqi military forces."

In response, Lt. Col. Clay Brown, based in Australia, sent information on two types of MRAPs manufactured overseas. "By all accounts, these are some of the best in the world," he wrote. "If I were fitting out the Iraqi Army, this is where I'd look (wish we had some!)"

The first contract for what would become the Iraqi Light Armored Vehicle — virtually identical to the MRAPs sought by U.S. forces then and now, and made in the United States by BAE Systems — was issued in May 2006. The vehicles, called Badgers, began arriving in Iraq 90 days later, according to BAE. In September 2006, the Pentagon said it would provide up to 600 more to Iraqi forces. As of this spring, 400 had been delivered.

The rush to equip the Iraqis stood in stark contrast to the Pentagon's efforts to protect U.S. troops.

more...

[rodeodance]

1. I imagine they will say that the contracts could only go to US firms?-no

excuse if this is an excuse (just spectulating)

[formercia]

2. Can't have the Iraqis killed by their own IEDs

Sire, the parade of Virgins had to be canceled
one is sick and the other refuses to march alone.

[Solly Mack]

3. that's some killer support for the troops..seriously....it's killer

Why anyone believes the invasion of Iraq was anything but political cover for a massive grab of -power, tax dollars & resources - is beyond me

Invading Iraq was a subterfuge...a deadly subterfuge

[babylonsister]

5. I'm just fuming at this; all the excuses we've heard about the lack

of MRAPs for the troops, only to find out they've been supplied to the Iraqis? Who's determining the priorities over there? :argh:

From the article:

Officials at Marine headquarters in Quantico, Va., shelved the request for 1,169 vehicles. Fifteen months passed before a second request reached the Joint Chiefs and was approved. Those vehicles finally began trickling into Anbar in February, two years after the original request. Because of the delay, the Marines are investigating how its urgent-need requests are handled.

The long delay infuriates some members of Congress. "Every day, our troops are being maimed or killed needlessly because we haven't fielded this soon enough," says Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss. "The costs are in human lives, in kids who will never have their legs again, people blind, crippled. That's the real tragedy."

Not until two months ago did the Pentagon champion the MRAP for all U.S. forces. Gates made MRAPs the military's top priority. The plan is to build the vehicles as fast as possible until conditions warrant a change, according to a military official who has direct knowledge of the program but is not authorized to speak on the record. Thousands are in the pipeline at a cost so far of about $2.4 billion.

[Solly Mack]

6. I read the article. Money is blind to bloodshed

My government invaded a country using lies, fear and frenzied nationalism, all the while eroding rights and committing various crimes..and masking it all in "national security" and "love of country"

and my government did this for no other reason than to steal..steal power, steal money, steal resources...

arms deals and defense contracts are all part of that stealing...

The priority over there is to steal...and to provide cover for the stealing taking place back home

The lives of the troops and the Iraqis won't be getting in the way of that priority...their only job is to die so my government can have political cover for its stealing

I want Bush Inc, every single one of his cowardly enablers, and all the war profiteers in prison for the rest of their lives.

The invasion alone shows me that no low is too low for my government - selling arms to Iraq over the needs of American troops? That's just par for my government....

[Kagemusha]

4. Okay, this explains why BAE's buying Armor Holdings.

Eliminates competition and puts more of this segment of the marketplace under BAE's control... since BAE was already in the light armored vehicle business.

[formercia]

8. Armor holdings owns a good share of the companies in the US

making body armor and police equipment.

Big Brother Inc.

[babylonsister]

7. .

[EFerrari]

9. This is insane. Doesn't anyone know how to supply our military

any more?

More proof that our service people are merely window dressing for BushCo's oil grab. :mad:

[babylonsister]

10. It's deliberate and it's disgusting. nt

[EFerrari]

11. What are you thinking when you say "deliberate"? n/t

[babylonsister]

12. From Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2170455/nav/fix/

The failure to provide more MRAPs wasn't caused by ignorance, since the Pentagon knew of their superiority, and, in fact, while denying requests from U.S. troops, military leaders were pushing to get these vehicles for the Iraqi army. So, why the delay? Part of the reason is that officials simply didn't expect the war to last this long, so the investment was seen as unnecessary, and, perhaps more interestingly, the big, expensive vehicles didn't fit former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's vision of turning the military into a "lighter" and "more agile" force.

From me:

So, the Pentagon knew of the efficacy of these MRAPs, still refused to order them for American soldiers, but pushed for the Iraqis to get them. Officials didn't know when this illegal occupation would end; they were playing with funds, and risking lives.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

13. Donald Rumsfeld is going straight to hell. Thank you.

:hi:

[Strelnikov_]

14. Problem is, MRAPS are vulnerable to EFP's

which seem to be doing the most damage now.

The 'enemy' always gets a vote.


The only way to win is not to start in the first place.

[babylonsister]

15. The MRAPs are supposedly better than what they were originally

sent over there with; makes me wonder how many lives could have been saved.

[Ganja Ninja]

16. Not surprising at all.

Bush's priorities are Iraq first and everything else a distant second.