Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

USA Today Op/Ed: Pentagon Dithering Turned U.S. Forces Into Sitting Ducks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:29 AM
Original message
USA Today Op/Ed: Pentagon Dithering Turned U.S. Forces Into Sitting Ducks
Edited on Tue Jul-17-07 01:29 AM by Hissyspit
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/pentagonditheringturnedusforcesintosittingducks

Opinion
Pentagon dithering turned U.S. forces into sitting ducks

Just when you think the poor planning and bad management that have characterized the Iraq war couldn't get any worse, a new outrage emerges.

On Monday, USA TODAY reported that the Pentagon has known for years that vehicles called MRAPs could keep U.S. troops safer from most roadside bombs, but until recently it did little to deploy the vehicles to Iraq, even as hundreds of Americans died. The Pentagon has numerous explanations for this. Planners didn't think the war would last this long. MRAPs are more expensive than armored Humvees. Adding armor to Humvees seemed like a quicker, better solution.

Not one of these excuses holds water.

- snip -

All along, though, the USA TODAY story pointed out, the Pentagon knew it had a much safer option than the Humvees. Experience has shown that the high-riding MRAPs can deflect the force of blasts that destroy Humvees, which have flat undersides that sit much closer to the ground and absorb blast forces.

The Defense Department could have launched a crash program as early as 2004 to build MRAPs and ship them to Iraq. It did not. Infuriatingly, officials approved construction of some MRAPs for Iraqi forces, while insisting that U.S. troops stick with armored Humvees. When Marines made an urgent request for 1,169 MRAPs in February 2005, the answer was to wait for development of a new combat vehicle — in 2012.

The Defense Department declined to provide an opposing view to this editorial for today's paper.

MORE


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. They give the Pentagram too much credit. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spinzonner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. Where are Rumsfeld's fingerprints on this ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KeepItReal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. Always remember to follow the money.... Are any of Bush & Co's buddies in the MRAP biz?
If Halliburton or Carlyle Group were in the MRAP-building business, they'd be cracking them out - no-bid-cost-plus contract style.

List of MRAP makers in the wiki entry below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP_(armored_vehicle)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ninkasi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-17-07 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. Damn them
Damn every one of them. They lied in order to pursue whatever corrupt, twisted vision they had, and many, many men, women, and children, citizens of the U.S. or Iraq, have died. Many others have been so severely injured that they might have considered death a blessing.

For MONEY, for POWER, they have caused unimaginable suffering to hundreds of thousands of people. There is no punishment which can adequately fit the crime.

Damn them all to a hell I never believed in, until now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC