Who Is Really Undermining the War Effort?
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war;" said Karl Rove. Perhaps they did, but not all that well. And they aren't catching up that well either.
The New York Times tells us:
I've seen Dick Durbin criticized for making his comments about Guantanamo, on the basis that, reported by Al Jazeera, they "emboldened" the jihadis, and led to the deaths of more brave American soldiers. Why haven't I heard these same people shouting about this vendor? It seems to me that they are a lot more directly responsible for the deaths of Americans.
Where aren't Karl Rove and W. and Rummy making these self-interested corporate honchos the object of widespread public scorn and ridicule? We aren't mass-producing the armor we need because it would harm their "competitive position?" Are we all in this together, or not? Are they working for the terrorists? In the past, limiting the production of the enemy's munitions was a major objective of warcraft. Now we do it to ourselves, and we have to wait for the NY Times to get around to telling us before we hear about it. Talk about giving aid to the enemy.
If Karl wants to be talking about traitors, why not these guys? Do you suppose they have "Support Our Troops" stickers on the backs of their cars? True patriots would have given the design to the Army, and offered to send their experts to the other companies to help them get set up, not held on to their exclusive contract.
Not that armor on the Humvees would solve all that much. It's pretty hard to defend against IEDs built with high-explosives stolen from unguarded munitions dumps like al Qaqaa. But you do what you can.
One way is by building vehicles with V-shaped hulls, instead of the flat bottoms that Humvees have. Sadly, the Pentagon procurement system is so screwed up that we have to borrow such vehicles from Halliburton when we send Cabinet officials to visit Iraq, and are further behind on producing them than Humvee armor. The multi-page Times article has the story.
File this article for reference the next time you get caught trying to explain why speaking out against Americans using torture isn't the problem. You might want to combine it with the reminder that, back in the 40s, a Democratic administration had managed to produce enough armaments to defeat two different industrial powers on multiple continents, in less time than it's taken this Republican one to get its Humvees equipped. And if you're really angry, you might also point out that it was the same Democratic administration that was responsible for that dreaded "liberal" New Deal. Because, while the Bush administration is fond of saying that "9/11 changed everything," December 7th really did.
The New York Times tells us:
Marine Corps generals last week disclosed in a footnote to their remarks to Congress that two of their best-armored Humvees were destroyed, while a Marine spokeswoman in Iraq said five marines riding in one such Humvee were killed this month in a roadside bomb attack.Excuse me? "Current and future competitive position?" Have they heard there is a war on?
Still, thousands of Humvees in Iraq do not have this much protection.
The Pentagon has repeatedly said no vehicle leaves camp without armor. But according to military records and interviews with officials, about half of the Army's 20,000 Humvees have improvised shielding that typically leaves the underside unprotected, while only one in six Humvees used by the Marines is armored at the highest level of protection.
The Defense Department continues to rely on just one small company in Ohio to armor Humvees. And the company, O'Gara-Hess & Eisenhardt, has waged an aggressive campaign to hold onto its exclusive deal even as soaring rush orders from Iraq have been plagued by delays. The Marine Corps, for example, is still awaiting the 498 armored Humvees it sought last fall, officials told The Times.
In January, when military officials tried to speed production by buying the legal rights to the armor design so they could enlist other venders to help, O'Gara demurred, calling the move a threat to its "current and future competitive position," according to e-mail records obtained from the Army.
I've seen Dick Durbin criticized for making his comments about Guantanamo, on the basis that, reported by Al Jazeera, they "emboldened" the jihadis, and led to the deaths of more brave American soldiers. Why haven't I heard these same people shouting about this vendor? It seems to me that they are a lot more directly responsible for the deaths of Americans.
Where aren't Karl Rove and W. and Rummy making these self-interested corporate honchos the object of widespread public scorn and ridicule? We aren't mass-producing the armor we need because it would harm their "competitive position?" Are we all in this together, or not? Are they working for the terrorists? In the past, limiting the production of the enemy's munitions was a major objective of warcraft. Now we do it to ourselves, and we have to wait for the NY Times to get around to telling us before we hear about it. Talk about giving aid to the enemy.
If Karl wants to be talking about traitors, why not these guys? Do you suppose they have "Support Our Troops" stickers on the backs of their cars? True patriots would have given the design to the Army, and offered to send their experts to the other companies to help them get set up, not held on to their exclusive contract.
Not that armor on the Humvees would solve all that much. It's pretty hard to defend against IEDs built with high-explosives stolen from unguarded munitions dumps like al Qaqaa. But you do what you can.
One way is by building vehicles with V-shaped hulls, instead of the flat bottoms that Humvees have. Sadly, the Pentagon procurement system is so screwed up that we have to borrow such vehicles from Halliburton when we send Cabinet officials to visit Iraq, and are further behind on producing them than Humvee armor. The multi-page Times article has the story.
File this article for reference the next time you get caught trying to explain why speaking out against Americans using torture isn't the problem. You might want to combine it with the reminder that, back in the 40s, a Democratic administration had managed to produce enough armaments to defeat two different industrial powers on multiple continents, in less time than it's taken this Republican one to get its Humvees equipped. And if you're really angry, you might also point out that it was the same Democratic administration that was responsible for that dreaded "liberal" New Deal. Because, while the Bush administration is fond of saying that "9/11 changed everything," December 7th really did.
posted by Paul at 10:15 AM |
|
email this
