Support the troops?

[Kaj]

Claim: For all the bluster on all sides, the US has failed to support the troops and continues to do so, even in the most easily implemented manners (and by the "US" I mean the leadership of the military, administration, Congress, and throw in the media for that matter, as well as population at large who is ultimately responsible for the state of affairs).

Whether it is body armor or vehicles which can withstand blasts, leaders in this country have failed to make them a priority while at the same time constantly waving the "support the troops" banner to promote themselves. It is a flat-out disgrace that 4 years after invading Iraq, and going on 6th year in Afghanistan, the Army still does not have an urban combat vehicle fit for this fight. The administration repeatedly claims that this war is so important -- along with all the bobbleheads on the air and elsewhere -- well then how can you continue to neglect properly outfitting those charged with winning it? I'm not talking about revolutionary technologies -- just the simplest innovations to build a vehicle designed for urban combat, and the like.

I hope this doesn't become a debate on why the US should have started or continued this war. My opinions on this matter are not relevant to this thread. Instead, I just want to say how tired I am with those who support either party in power and sport the support your troops banners, but don't hold leadership in this country accountable for their woeful neglect.

===============
SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- A group of soldiers has been busy testing a series of high-tech military concept vehicles outfitted with remote weapons systems, night-vision capabilities and enough strength to sustain the concussion of a roadside bomb.

The vehicles, while only in the concept stage, are part of the Army's $60 million program to modernize its aging tactical fleet for the challenges of today's military missions.

"What we're running with now has become antiquated," said Tim Connor, a Defense Department contractor who is overseeing the project. [They were antiquated for this type of warfare long before the war even began...]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/29/a...rss_topstories

[danlux]

If they really supported the troops, they wouldn't pay them 1/8th of what they pay the contracters.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
just the simplest innovations to build a vehicle designed for urban combat, and the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps troop losses are acceptable and are preferable to the costs of building a new urban combat vehicle?

Soldiers die. If supporting the troops means ensuring that none do then no one has ever supported the troops in all of history.

[Dan.]

If anyone really supported the troops, they would not recklessly put them into harm's way, funding and equipment neglect notwithstanding.

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
If they really supported the troops, they wouldn't pay them 1/8th of what they pay the contracters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you all take a look at the documentary Iraq for Sale
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...86727392146155
http://iraqforsale.org/

A very compelling documentary that looks at the outsourcing we are doing in Iraq and the problems it is causing.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just the simplest innovations to build a vehicle designed for urban combat, and the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps troop losses are acceptable and are preferable to the costs of building a new urban combat vehicle?

Soldiers die. If supporting the troops means ensuring that none do then no one has ever supported the troops in all of history.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between "soldiers die, get over it" and "soldiers die due to need for a simple, adequate vehicle for the war we're in while we purchase billions of dollars of other hi-tech equipment for some faceless future enemy"...

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just the simplest innovations to build a vehicle designed for urban combat, and the like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps troop losses are acceptable and are preferable to the costs of building a new urban combat vehicle?

Soldiers die. If supporting the troops means ensuring that none do then no one has ever supported the troops in all of history.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between "soldiers die, get over it" and "soldiers die due to need for a simple, adequate vehicle for the war we're in while we purchase billions of dollars of other hi-tech equipment for some faceless future enemy "...

[/ QUOTE ]

[GtrHtr]

We have plenty of adequate body armor. Where does this idea come from that there is some lack of adequate body armor?

The Iranian built and supplied IED's blow through an Abrams tank, the vehicle with probably the best armor in the world. Break that down and rewrite your OP and define what the problem is again.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
We have plenty of adequate body armor. Where does this idea come from that there is some lack of adequate body armor?

The Iranian built and supplied IED's blow through an Abrams tank, the vehicle with probably the best armor in the world. Break that down and rewrite your OP and define what the problem is again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our humvees are utterly inadequate for this fight and soldiers are improvising solutions to protect themselves (literally welding together turret armor in back shops, amongst other things)... 4 years into the fight the Army has a paltry $60M to look at better concepts which may be fielded years from now if they're lucky --- that's hardly being responsive to immediate needs of our troops.

[casey_brick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We have plenty of adequate body armor. Where does this idea come from that there is some lack of adequate body armor?

The Iranian built and supplied IED's blow through an Abrams tank, the vehicle with probably the best armor in the world. Break that down and rewrite your OP and define what the problem is again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our humvees are utterly inadequate for this fight and soldiers are improvising solutions to protect themselves (literally welding together turret armor in back shops, amongst other things)... 4 years into the fight the Army has a paltry $60M to look at better concepts which may be fielded years from now if they're lucky --- that's hardly being responsive to immediate needs of our troops.

[/ QUOTE ]

U asked the Army answersThe Stryker

Kaj, FWIW I welded extra armor onto a Humvee in Iraq. But what is the Army or Marines supposed to do? They have new vehiches to take their place but they weren't/aren't ready yet. Theres not like a used car lot where you can got pick these things up at.

BTW-- new technology hits Iraq everyday everything from new ammo to new smartbombs.