[w4rma]

http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2004/04/04/features/0404040051.txt

Although Democrats have spoken out (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1212a.html) and have tried to pass laws (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_1207a.html) the Republican-controlled Congress, apparantly, has still not acted on reimbursing troops for body armor they had to purchase because there haven't been enough available to go around. Since the GOP in Congress, and especially in the White House, does not listen to Democrats, I'm hoping that maybe some Republicans and Libertarians here can work to put pressure on them act on this.

[Iain]

Hoon 'sorry' over soldier's death


excerpt from - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3401879.stm

Would appear that it is not just us then if US soldiers face similar shortages.

[SAG0282]

This is highly unacceptable if this is indeed the case, and not merely the product of unfortunate anecdotes. I told my brother that if he were ever short on body armor or any other combat necessity (including an offer to take one or both of my SIGs if PDWs were somehow allowed), that I would not hesitate to buy him anything he needed to take into combat. He however does have the newest body armor, as do his fellow Marines in the 2nd Radio Btln, and every Marine at Camp Lejeune that he knows.

[Drizzt]

I was just reading a story earlier today, about a Marine in CA who had sold $80k worth of stolen brand-new vests, ceramic inserts and all, on E-Bay. If I can find the story again, I'll let you know...

[Unlucky]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,116344,00.html

[Jeff White]

The Bush administration is not at fault. The way the Army chooses to equip the force is the problem. Intercepter Body Armor was adopted as the standard in 1998. IIRC Mr. Clinton was president then. But the Army didn't buy enough for every soldier to have it. They never have. They bought enough to equip a force they projected they would have to deploy. This was not enough to get the production capability up to what it needed to be. Then the GWOT came along and all of a sudden there was a need for it (along with a lot of other equipment) and we had no way of rapidly equipping the force.

I saw thie happen repeatedly in the almost 30 years I served. It happened in both democratic and republican administrations. We adopt an item of equipment and then move on to something else. It's institutional with the military. You can't buy a lot of M1A2s, F22s and other high dollar items if you're spending the defense budget on things like body armor.

During Desert Shield in 1990-91 we couldn't deploy most of our helicopters near the Iraqi border for months because we had no suppression kits to proctect them against heat seaking missiles. These kits had been in the supply system since around 1973, but they weren't procured in quantity because of other more pressing needs to spend the defense budget on.

It's a national disgrace the way we procure things for the military and it needs to be fixed. But you can't blame the administration. The entire defense establishment is to blame.

Funny thing is, I don't see it changing anytime soon. If you look at John Kerry's voting record, we'd not have any IBA at all. Our soldiers would be going into harms way with steel pots and Vietnam era nylon flack jackets.

Jeff

[w4rma]

Jeff White, Dems are out of power. This isn't happening under a Democratic administration and it hasn't happened under past Democratic administrations. In addition the Democratic nominee is pushing to rectify this so that alone blasts your point out of the water that it would have happened under a Democratic admin.

So enough with the "what ifs". You going to do something about this or not? Please, contact your Congressfolks.

[Jeff White]

W4RMA,
I served under every president since Ford. This type of procurement mess did happen under both the Carter and Clinton administrations. It's happened ever since the Civil War under administrations of both parties.

The way it seemed to work during my career was that you depended on democrats for pay and benefits and republicans for decent equipment.

I have already contacted my congressman. My point was that there is no cohesive defense policy in the United States. There hasn't been in my lifetime. Yes, it's happening under the Bush administration now. But that great forward thinker Richard Cohen could have ordered the procurement of IBA in 1998 when it was type classified, but he didn't. The system is not just broke, it's non-existant. Our elected and appointed leaders in both parties never once, in their wildest nightmares ever conceived of deploying this many troops into harms way at once. When the Berlin Wall fell we systematically began dismantling what structure we had in place to support the Peace Dividend. The leaders in both parties gambled and lost and now we're paying in the blood of our young men and women.

The fact is, that not everyone can make the Level III ceramic plates that go in IBA or the level IV plates that go into BALCS. It used to be during the bad old days of the cold war, we paid the contractors a bit more so they could maintain surge production capabilities to meet wartime needs. We don't do that any longer. All the forward thinkers in both parties truly believed that we'd never deploy more then a couple brigades at a time. People who suggested that we might still have to fight a big war somewhere were considered outdated cold warriors and called dinosauers (among other things).

No my friend there is plenty blame to spread around in both parties.

As for what happened under democratic administrations, don't even get me started on what it was like serving in the Carter and Clinton administrations.

Jeff

[Unlucky]

Dems are out of power. This isn't happening under a Democratic administration and it hasn't happened under past Democratic administrations.

We know democrats are for instant gratification, but it does actually take time to place and fill orders in the real world. Could the reason it hasn't happened in past democratic administrations be that we haven't had one sthat sent troops in harm's way in any significant quatity since we went to Vietnam? Kosovo, Haiti and Somalia don't count as major military operations.

In addition the Democratic nominee is pushing to rectify this so that alone blasts your point out of the water that it would have happened under a Democratic admin.

The same one who voted down nearly every defense related item during his senate career, or did you mean the "new and improved" candidate who sees political capital out of being "for" such an issue (same one with the $.50/gal. gas tax increase who now wants to force the price of gas down to buy votes)? :rolleyes:

[w4rma]

Could the reason it hasn't happened in past democratic administrations be that we haven't had one sthat sent troops in harm's way in any significant quatity since we went to Vietnam? Kosovo, Haiti and Somalia don't count as major military operations.Yes, imho.

[TaurusCIA]

This isn't happening under a Democratic administration and it hasn't happened under past Democratic administrations. Oh omniscient one...what else do you see in your crystal ball. :uhoh:

[w4rma]

… it hasn't happened under past Democratic administrations.Crystal balls have 20/20 hindsight. :p

[Cactus]

If John "War Criminal" Kerry is so concerned, why doesn't he spring for it out of his pocket? Selling just one of his five multi-million dollar palaces should cover the bill!:scrutiny:

[TaurusCIA]

I served under every president since Ford. This type of procurement mess did happen under both the Carter and Clinton administrations. It's happened ever since the Civil War under administrations of both parties.


No, no, no Jeff. w4rma is omniscient and he said it didn't happen so you must be wrong.

Your personal knowledge is irrelevant since it does not agree with his supposition. Sorry!

[Jeff White]

w4rma said,
Crystal balls have 20/20 hindsight

What does your crystal ball say about the events of April 25, 1980? IIRC a democrat was commander in chief at the time. I seem to remember that President Carter inherited a battle hardened Air Force Special Operations capability in 1977 when he took over as CINC, but by 1980 when we needed them, we could barely put together enough aircraft to mount a rescue operation into Iran. The technology advanced a couple generations during Carter's time in office, yet there were not enough MC130s or MH53s left in the Air Force to pull the mission off. What might have happened if we had been able to lead the RH53s into Iran with an MC130 like we led the CH53s into North Vietnam in 1970 for the Son Tay raid? Would we have got enough rotary wing support on the ground to carry out the mission, and would reaching into Tehran in 1980 have given the Islamic revolutionaries reason to fear us? Don't even begin to tell me that these kinds of things never happened under a democratic administration. Carter neglected SOF aviation and good men died on his watch because of it. :fire:

In August 1993, the Clinton administration sent a joint special operations task force into Somalia to capture a warlord who was interfereing with UN aid operations. The TF commander asked for AC130 Spectre gunship support that would have allowed him to support his men with precision fires in all weather and for light armor to protect his men during ground operations. Spectre gunship support and light armor were denied as we didn't want to make too big a show of force. Six weeks later on October 3, 1993 around 100 men went into an enemy held part of Mogadishu to capture some of the warlord's henchmen and were met with thousands of armed Somalis. After a brutal firefight they brought the prisoners out. 18 American soldiers died that day and many were wounded. Les Aspin, Clinton's Secretary of Defense resigned and Clinton insulted the men he sent to bleed and die for him by pulling them out before they accomplished their mission.

How did the 20-20 hindsight crystal ball miss these two examples of democratic military prowess.

I've got a modest library, perhaps in the next post we can talk about the Johnson administration's brilliant military operations....... :what:

Jeff

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Getting hot in here. :neener:

If one had ever spent time in the military, one would understand Mr. White's point. Often times by the time you get gear, it is already obsolete. Then by the time you get the new stuff, some other "low bid" contractor is providing it, and it don't quite work the same. And that is just personal gear.

Then you have to deal with "supply" personnel which make warlords look benevolent. :what:

[Jeff Thomas]

Everything currently seems to be an opportunity to bash Bush / Republicans, and paise Kerry / Democrats. How tiresome, and inane.

Regards from TX

[ThreadKiller]

I do recall that shortly after Mr Reagan took office, my sea pay and my base pay increased markedly. Seems like the sea pay went from $13/month to $250/month. All kinds of ships were built and the US had themselves a true blue water Navy.

So in my short 6 years of service anyway, the GOP took better care of the military.

Irrespective of that experience, I'm still votin' for Bush.

Tim

[Warbow]

Originally posted by w4rma:

… it hasn't happened under past Democratic administrations.

Crystal balls have 20/20 hindsight.

Let's see. Between your crystal ball with 20/20 hindsight and someone with direct, firsthand experience, who should I believe? What a difficult choice! :o

[Sergeant Bob]

WR4ma In addition the Democratic nominee is pushing to rectify this so that alone blasts your point out of the water that it would have happened under a Democratic admin.
Well then, why the (unprintable) wasn't John Effin" Kerry pushing to rectify this in 1998?
Could it be because he wasn't running for President at the time and didn't need to score political points with his Liberal, anti-war, hate big oil, anti rich, electric car driving, bunny hugging, tofu eating, guns are b-a-a-a-ad, anti freedom, flag burning, spitting on military personnel, America hating, (did I leave anybody out?) sycophants?

[Leatherneck]

As an aside, I'd like to point out that every single decision made in weapons procurement is subject to the largesse and oversight of Congress. If you had enough time in your life to read the entire Federal Acquisition Regulation and supplements thereto, you'd understand why it takes so long to procure off-the-shelf body armor. BTW, that's a separate problem from why it takes so long to develop ships, tanks and aircraft.

TC
TFL Survivor

[TaurusCIA]

Could it be because he wasn't running for President at the time and didn't need to score political points with his Liberal, anti-war

Now don't go confusing us with the truth.

[flatrock]

Crystal balls have 20/20 hindsight.

Not if you keep your eyes shut.

You claim the problem didn't exist because we never had to deploy enough troops during a recent democratic administration for it to come back and bite us.

You're simply ignoring the fact that the problem did exist. You're further ignoring the fact that if the Clinton administration had purchased enough body armor to equip our troops when the armor was adopted, then we would have had enough when we needed it.

The truth of the matter is that the government doesn't have unlimited funds. If they buy body armor for every person we have in the military then they can't afford other necessisary item, and can't fund the development of the next generation of body armor as well. There's also the issue that if we don't have to deploy as many troops as we have sets of body armor, that armor will eventually be replaced with a newer version without ever being used.

Keeping our military stocked with the items they need for a major war is obscenely expensive. Not doing can put our soldiers lives at risk when we go to war. However there isn't an infinate pool of money. Buying more body armor may mean not providing as much money to other programs that save lives elsewhere.

The reasonable solution seems to be to purchase a bit more armor than we think we'll need, and make sure the people producing it can ramp up production if they need to do so (which costs more money).

[Sean Smith]

it hasn't happened under past Democratic administrations.

Spoken like a partisan zombie. :rolleyes:

[w4rma]

Well then, why the (unprintable) wasn't John Effin" Kerry pushing to rectify this in 1998?Because there wasn't anything to rectify in 1998. Except for the PNAC crowd (who are now in power), noone was even thinking about invading Iraq or any other nation and especially not two at the same time.

Our military is overstretched and part of the reason for that is extremely poor planning on the part of the folks who pushed for these invasions.

[w4rma]

dupe

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Although Democrats have spoken out and have tried to pass laws the Republican-controlled Congress, apparantly, has still not acted on reimbursing troops for body armor they had to purchase because there haven't been enough available to go around.

How kind of Senator Kerry to speak out against not having enough body armor for the troops after voting against an $87 billion appropriations bill to buy, among other things, body armor for troops in Iraq. :rolleyes:

At least he spoke out though... I guess actions no longer speak louder than words.

[w4rma]

He supported and voted for an alternate funding bill. It was voted against by the same folks who voted for the version that passed.

...
While the ad implies these were separate votes, the information is based on one vote on the entire $87 billion package, which passed the Senate 87-12. Kerry defended his vote by saying Bush had managed the war badly by not gaining international support. "The way you support the troops is to guarantee we do this right," Kerry said at the time.
...
Kerry's campaign issued a rebuttal Tuesday saying the Bush administration has proposed cutting veterans' benefits and citing a long list of increases in defense spending, military pay and benefits that Kerry supported.
http://www.beaconnewspaper.com/news/2004/03/18/News/Bush-Ad.Criticizes.Kerrys.Vote.Against.Iraq.Funding-635452.shtml

Kerry was referring to a measure he co-sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00373) 57-42.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155

[Logan5]

Observe this March 10th story from the Coalition Provisional Authority:

http://cpa-raq.org/pressreleases/20040310_Police_Body_Armor_Ceremony_31003.html

IRAQI RAILWAY POLICE RECEIVE 300 SETS OF BODY ARMOR;
EVERY OFFICER NOW BETTER EQUIPPED
TO CARRY OUT HIS WORK


Baghdad Central Train Station, Iraq. Today, the Iraqi Railway Police (IRP) received 300 sets of body armor from the US military. At a ceremony in downtown Baghdad, Marine Colonel Dennis Arinello presented the body armor to IRP officers in a ceremony that united Coalition Forces and Iraqis with a common goal – to protect their country, rebuild their economy, and make a safer future for all citizens. The body armor will help the Iraqi Railway Police search for explosive devices on trains and rail tracks with greater security.

Colonel Arinello told IRP officers the 300 sets of body armor had previously protected US Marines who served in Iraq. To demonstrate how safe Colonel Arinello felt in his body armor, he removed his personal flak jacket and gifted it to Colonel Asad, Head of the Iraqi Railway Police.

Colonel Arinello told IRP officers that “these flak jackets have protected Coalition Forces, now they will protect our Iraqi brothers. We are proud to work alongside you to rebuild a strong railroad infrastructure, safe for train passengers and secure for commerce”. The Iraqi Railway Police officers cheered as Colonel Arinello and Colonel Asad embraced – a symbol of their friendship and close professional relationship.

I can't figure it out, are they flack jackets, or are they body armor?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

He supported and voted for an alternate funding bill. It was voted against by the same folks who voted for the version that passed.

That is not strictly correct w4rma. Everyone here just went through the blow-by-blow of S.1805 in the Senate. We know how these bills work.


While the ad implies these were separate votes, the information is based on one vote on the entire $87 billion package, which passed the Senate 87-12. Kerry defended his vote by saying Bush had managed the war badly by not gaining international support. "The way you support the troops is to guarantee we do this right," Kerry said at the time.

What ad are you talking about? I didn't mention any ad. The vote was on an $87 billion package (including body armor) for troops in Iraq. Up or down vote on the whole package. Kerry voted "no" - how is that supporting the troops or "doing this right"?

Kerry's campaign issued a rebuttal Tuesday saying the Bush administration has proposed cutting veterans' benefits and citing a long list of increases in defense spending, military pay and benefits that Kerry supported.

Well he supported the war in Iraq too, didn't he? Or is this another one of his "nuanced" positions? I notice that during S.1689 (the funding bill for Iraq) Senator Kerry couldn't be bothered to vote for several veterans benefits that were proposed as amendments to that bill, though he had time to vote for his tax increase and against the final bill after his tax increase was rejected:S. Amdt. 1823 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00379) - To provide emergency relief for veterans healthcare
S. Amdt. 1811 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00381) - To amend title 10, United States Code, to reduce the age for receipt of military retired pay for nonregular service from 60 to 55.

Kerry was referring to a measure he co-sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected 57-42.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155

That was an AMENDMENT (S.Amdt. 1796 108th Congress, 1st Session) to S.1689 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_108_1.htm). The Amendment said:

SA 1796. Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. CORZINE, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, and Mr. LAUTENBERG) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1689, making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes; as follows:


At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. __. (a) PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR SECURITY AND STABILIZATION OF IRAQ THROUGH PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF REDUCTIONS IN HIGHEST INCOME TAX RATE FOR INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS.--Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax imposed) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

``(j) PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR SECURITY AND STABILIZATION OF IRAQ THROUGH PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF REDUCTIONS IN HIGHEST INCOME TAX RATE.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--In the case of any taxable year beginning in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, the 35 percent rate of tax under subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) shall be adjusted to the percentage determined by the Secretary to result in an increase in revenues into the Treasury for all taxable years beginning in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 equal to $87,000,000,000.

``(2) ADJUSTMENT OF TABLES.--The Secretary shall adjust the tables prescribed under subsection (f) to carry out this subsection.''.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning in 2005.

So in other words, the ONLY thing this amendment did was raise taxes on a specific portion of the American public that already pays better than half the taxes in this nation - and when Kerry didn't get that amendment, he suddenly decided that $87 billion for troops (including body armor) was no longer a priority. I support the troops as long as you are willing to stick it to the rich? There is a principled stand. Though personally, I can't stand those principles.

[444]

So what ?


Wasn't FDR a democrat ?
The whole of WWII was fought without body armor.

[Don Gwinn]

444, that doesn't make it OK in my book. We didn't use night vision in WWII, either. We should still be issuing it today, though.
No helicopters in WWII, either, but they sure are important now.


Black Bart, Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. I hope that clears things up for you. Those are his own words, by the way, not mine.

:banghead:

[thefitzvh]

Guys, don't feed the trolls.

James

[444]

I think you missed the point Don.

[Sergeant Bob]

Because there wasn't anything to rectify in 1998. Except for the PNAC crowd (who are now in power), noone was even thinking about invading Iraq or any other nation and especially not two at the same time.
Using your (and your idol's) reasoning the military probably wouldn't have needed weapons ( ie, F-16, F-18, M1 Abrams, Bradley, etc) until we decided to invade someone.
Our military is overstretched and part of the reason for that is extremely poor planning on the part of the folks who pushed for these invasions.
Our military is overstretched and part of the reason for that is the massive force reductions (approximately 40%) instituted under a Democratic administration