|
Monday, December 13, 2004
Media vs. the Military 2: The Armor Flap
Media vs. the Military 2: The Armor Flap
Once again, members of the so-called "mainstream" media leave no stone unturned in their quest to embarrass the Bush administration and undermine support for the war America is already committed to win. This time their target is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and their issue is armored HMMWVs (High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, or "hummvees"). Their tool is the very military that will be hurt the worst if they're successful.
While Rumsfeld was in Kuwait last week, he visited a group of National Guard soldiers that were about to be deployed to Iraq. He took questions from them, but not from the press. The briefing and questions were not in the least adversarial until one soldier demanded to know why "we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal" to armor the HMMWVs. Naturally, the media went wild with glee over this "evidence" that the US military is ill-equipped to fight a war.
The first problem is that the media planted the question and arranged for it to be asked. Edward Lee Pitts, a Chattanooga Times Free Press reporter embedded with the 278th Regimental Combat Team, wrote in an email: "I was told yesterday that only soldiers could ask questions, so I brought two of them along with me as my escorts. ... Beforehand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld about the appalling lack of armor their vehicles going into combat have."
Now, some might say that the question was entirely legitimate, asked by a soldier with very real concerns over the vehicle he would be asked to drive into Baghdad. Fortunately (for our military; unfortunately for our media), HMMWVs that haven't yet been up-armored are not driven, but carted on flatbed trucks to a safe area. Any concerns the soldiers might have had came not from their own experience -- since they hadn't been in Iraq yet -- but from the media misrepresentation. The fearmongering media created the worries they then reported as "legitimate concerns." Reporters like Pitts (and there are far too many like him) have long ago forgotten anything they knew about journalistic integrity. Instead of reporting facts fairly and accurately, they create the news to further their agenda, engaging in a "gotcha" game designed to attack those with whom they disagree.
The fact is that HMMWVs are normally unarmored except for military police use. They're simply not designed to carry heavy armor -- the suspension and transmission aren't built to handle the extra weight. In late 2003, the terrorists in Iraq began using more IEDs (improvised explosive devices) on roadways to attack our troops, so the military realised they had to ramp up production of armored HMMWVs, and come up with a lightweight armor that could be added to the 30,000 wheeled vehicles (including HMMWVs) already in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point, there are only about 8,000 vehicles without some armor on them, and a large number of those are "tool trucks, communication vans or vehicles that don't leave the base camp," according to Lieutenant General Steven Whitcomb, the CFLCC commander in Kuwait. Reports of soldiers digging through trash heaps to find scrap metal were likely based on soldiers recycling steel plates from vehicles that had been hit and couldn't be repaired, Whitcomb said. This makes sense, as scrap metal wouldn't do much to armor a vehicle (old A-Team reruns notwithstanding), and would unbalance the load on its suspension. For extra protection, some soldiers have used "hillbilly armor," as it's called, and that also may be the basis for media reports of widespread shortages.
HMMWVs can be given three levels of armor. Level one includes complete armor and bulletproof glass. Those have to be built from the ground up, and production has increased in just a year from 30 a month to 400 a month. Approximately 6,000 vehicles have level one protection. Level two protection is provided with an add-on kit, which covers the sides of the vehicle but not the top and bottom. Approximately 10,000 vehicles have level two armor. Level three armor is used more for trucks than HMMWVs; it consists of steel plates bolted onto the vehicles' sides. About 4,500 vehicles currently have level three protection.
Because of this manufactured armor flap, the enemy knows exactly how many and what types of vehicles are armored, and how to tell one from another. Good job, members of the mainstream media. Doesn't our military have enough to do without your invented scandals and information leaks? As for the military, I suggest that when speaking to the press, you restrict any conversation to the following topics: names of cities fought in, amount of ground taken, and number of enemies killed. Anything you say can and will be used against you by the enemy.
Posted at Monday, December 13, 2004 by CavalierX
 |  |  | Jamie December 13, 2004 09:01 AM PST
Naturally, the media has pounced on this with both feet in an effort to embarass the administration. And they always love to embarrass Rummy. They could care less that it helps the enemy identify which vehicles to target. Or wait, maybe they DO care.... Think about it, the more unarmored vehicles that are hit, the more of our soldiers that are injured, thus more "good" stories for them to report. (Their idea of "good" is that any bad news to report from the "illicit" war is good news to them.) |  |
  |  |  | Lea December 13, 2004 09:51 AM PST
You are on target as usual. Great explanation. |  |
  |  |  | Jamie December 13, 2004 11:08 AM PST
I have noticed one thing about this latest story - our local media came out with a story a day or so later, quoting the stats about just exactly how many of the vehicles have been uparmored. And I've seen more support out on the net, too. So, it seems that this latest attempt by the msm to negatively influence people about the war is not going to get quite the support that they would hope for. |  |
  |  |  | Name December 13, 2004 12:31 PM PST
Bravo! |  |
  |  |  | Hillary December 14, 2004 09:23 AM PST
~Rumsfeld has performed poorly in his position, from proporting a lie to fool the American public into accepting and supporting an invasion of Iraq, to the condoned offenses at prisons in Iraq, to underestimating the war, it's costs and planning as if it was a weekend jaunt in the woods for the troops there, he has done nothing to promote his cause...This "war" you speak of, what exactly is it? The "war" was over when Bush dressed up in military garb and landed on an aircraft carrier for photo ops, now we are fighting, and thousands are dying for what? To instill a puppet leader in a country that will fall to civil war the second the US leaves, or are we staying, as in Vietnam, to fight a battle against a "foe" (as the commies were in the 60's/70's that will only make the military establishment richer????~ |  |
  |  |  | Angrydog December 14, 2004 10:52 AM PST
I'm a bit disappointed that you didn't provide a more reliabe source for your "findings" then that of KENTUCKY.COM, which screams conservative redneck. (In other words, Bush's people)
As far as the HMMWVs, they were initially protected by heavy armor and in some cases still are. However, a lighter armor package was developed for them, which is on "back order." See the link below:
http://www.defense-update.com/products/h/humvee-kit-battelle.htm
Oh and yes, scrap metal CAN be used to armour light-skinned vehicles. See the link below:
http://www.dcmilitary.com/marines/hendersonhall/9_11/national_news/28050-1.html
QUOTE: "The Marines are additionally fashioning devices out of scrap metal to make their hardened vehicles even tougher." - March 19, 2004 |  |
  |  |  | Sister Toldjah December 14, 2004 10:54 AM PST
You are on the money as usual! |  |
  |  |  | JM December 14, 2004 10:41 PM PST
>you didn't provide a more reliabe
>source for your "findings" then
>that of KENTUCKY.COM
I don't suppose you happened to notice that the Lexington Herald-Leader at kentucky.com was reprinting an article from the Chicago Tribune, did you? I guess not. I imagine you would prefer CNN. Very well:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/12/09/rumsfeld.reporter/
>they were initially protected by
>heavy armor
No, they weren't. That's the point.
>scrap metal to make their
>hardened vehicles even tougher
Didn't you read the words you yourself posted?? Hardened vehicles, as in armored with upgraded suspensions, capable of carrying heavy load. |  |
  |  |  | Jamie December 14, 2004 11:07 PM PST
No, he saw "Kentucky" and his brain shut down. Tsk-tsk. And I thought liberals (you know, "Kerry's people") were open-minded. |  |
  |  |  | The Psychic Ferret December 15, 2004 03:53 PM PST
BTW - an rather interesting read can be found at:
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTARM.HTM
Starts on the 2nd paragraph.
|  |
  |  |  | The Inside Guy December 15, 2004 07:52 PM PST
I hate you. |  |
  |  |  | skye December 15, 2004 09:30 PM PST
Hey! I like You! |  |
  |  |  | JM December 15, 2004 10:12 PM PST
>Hey! I like You!
Woohoo! That's certainly worth enduring the hatred of some anonymous idiot! :) |  |
  |  |  | Jamie December 15, 2004 10:34 PM PST
I like you, too, And I think that those of us who like you far outnumber the ones who don't like you (or hate you).
BTW, Inside Guy - "hate" is such a strong word. Might you be suffering from Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST)? You know, there are clinics providing therapy for that now. You might consider signing up for some sessions soon. |  |
  |  |  | JM December 16, 2004 05:30 AM PST
>I like you
:-D |  |
  |  |  | Jamie December 16, 2004 09:24 PM PST
McCain, the RINO, came out and publicly said he had no confidence in Rummy. Then yesterday, surprise, surprise, Bill Kristol wrote a column about how he didn't like Rummy and that Pres Bush should remove him and replace him with someone better. I'm sure that he thinks McCain is that certain someone. |  |
  |  |  | Jamie December 16, 2004 11:00 PM PST
McCain, Hagel, and now Trent Lott are all on Rummy's case. THis article in NRO talks about this drive against RUmmy:
http://tinyurl.com/57gbn
"The get-Rumsfeld crowd — mostly Democrats, joined by the McCain-Hagel caucus and a few stray hawks — takes great umbrage at Rumsfeld's answer to a National Guardsman's question about an insufficient number of up-armored Humvees. Hagel intoned, “those men and women deserved a far better answer from their secretary of Defense than a flippant comment.” But Rumsfeld wasn't being flip. "
|  |
  |  |  | JM December 17, 2004 04:35 AM PST
I'm shocked that Trent Lott joined the usual McCain-Hagel-Lugar trio of Bush-bashing Republicans. |  |
  |  |  | Psychic Ferret December 17, 2004 08:29 AM PST
I'm normally a McCain Supporter, but he has been making some really dumb-sh*t comments.
Rumsfeld's answer was not flippant IMHO, he was being brutally honest, something the media wouldn't recognized if it walked up to them and began humping their leg.
Anyone can come up with the invicible (read: fantasy) army from the safety of their easy chair or editorial desk, but the real world has real world problems.
Our military is adapting, and unfortunately, that adaptation takes time, which costs lives. One of the adaptations that I would like to see come out of this is a greater emphasis by our military on urban combat or close-combat warfare (CCW). We are great in big battles against standing armies, but have inadequate experience in guerilla warfare. We need a branch devoted to that end, similar in conept to Delta but with much greater resources assigned to it in terms of personnel and equipment.
Anyway, just my $0.02.
|  |
  |  |  | Jamie December 17, 2004 08:59 AM PST
Many say that all McCain (and others) are doing now is positioning themselves for 2008. That is what Hillary Clinton is doing with her sudden "hawkish" behavior.
They just don't get it, do they? That by undermining the President, the Secretary of Defense may boost their chances in 2008, but it seriously hurts what our military is doing and our security here at home. Yammering on and on, going out of their way to point out just exactly where our security is lax, just exactly how many and which ones of our military vehicles are under-amored does not help us in the long run? |  |
|
|