Clearly taken aback, and having to ask for the question to be repeated, he
was less than happy to be told in front of the world's press that soldiers
at the sharp end of conflict felt let down by the US Administration which
seemed to have little regard for their health or safety.
Faced with complaints that soldiers were having to scour junkyards and make
do with whatever they could find to armour their vehicles, Rumsfeld's reply
was that troops should make the best of what they have and claimed that the
Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armour to produce it as fast as
humanly possible - It's not his fault.
Unfortunately for Rumsfeld, the most cursory of investigations revealed that
the manufacturers of armoured vehicles had plenty of capacity to provide
additional vehicles and armour and were actually only waiting for an order to
come through to ramp up production.
Rather than doing everything humanly possible to protect US troops in Iraq, the
impression left by Rumsfeld is that they are considered as little more than
cannon fodder.
It is no surprise that US troops have rebelled and refused to drive convoys
in vehicles they consider to offer inadequate protection, and it may go
some way to explaining the high number of casualties and injuries which have
occurred amongst troops while on duty. It would certainly explain the low levels
of troop morale which have been reported on many occasions.
The situation is as damaging to America as a whole as it is to the troops
deployed in Iraq. Many observers in the Middle East and around the world are
watching the US and its army with an intensity which comes from knowing they
could be next on the list of countries the US may choose to liberate or engage
with.
If this is the best the US can offer then many will consider it to be sorely
lacking. If a simple jaunt in the desert can sap army resources so low then
it's in a pretty sorry state.
It has the potential to not just make the US Army a laughing stock in the eyes
of its enemies but offers encouragement to those currently fighting the US, and
encouragement and confidence to those who may face the US in the future. It
works as a morale booster to Iraqi insurgents, who will consider that their
efforts to undermine the occupation are obviously working.
With friends like Rumsfeld, US soldiers in Iraq may well feel that they don't
need enemies.
It has been admitted that the question was 'planted' by a reporter at
the troop's meeting with Rumsfeld, but that doesn't mean the complaints can
be dismissed when the evidence is overwhelmingly that there are problems as
described. Cheers coming from the entire ranks of a regiment when a criticism
is made against a Defense Secretary is convincingly indicative of the validity
of the complaint, and its seriousness.
Some have jumped to Rumsfeld's defence, and say that the situation is nothing
to worry about; the US army can handle itself.
What they appear to forget is that these are members of US forces who are
complaining, not some anti-war group which is trying to undermine or disparage
whatever the US and it coalition does. These are men and women who have been
asked by America to put their lives in harms way.
Do those who have asked others to defend America on their behalf not think that
soldiers doing so are deserving of their support and being given what they need
to do the job while offering every chance to come home safely ?
Isn't that a simple 'no-brainer' ?
Mother's sons are dying in Iraq while Rumsfeld and those who rush to his defence
don't appear to give a flying f--k. A soldier's life is worth very little in
their eyes it would appear, and they're more than happy to see soldiers go
into battle ill equipped, unprotected and lacking in essentials.
I have never supported the invasion of Iraq, and I am against almost all of what
has gone on there, but I respect soldiers in regard of the job that we ask them
to do. What they are being asked to do I consider to be very wrong, and I will
continue to urge them to consider what they are doing and reject it.
But in terms of giving a soldier what they need to do a job and what they need
to protect themselves while doing the job and from adversity I stand in full
support of them.
I find it odd, as someone so solidly against the war on Iraq, that I should be
more concerned about the plight of US soldiers in Iraq than Rumsfeld and his
defenders are. I am surprised that they aren't morbidly ashamed of themselves in
such circumstances.
The sad truth is that some Americans have put their absolute trust in the
Bush Administration, believing everything it tells them, and refusing to believe
it can ever be wrong. Their patriotism has become so distorted that they now
believe more in the Administration than they do in America and its people. They
have hung onto every word it says, believed everything it says to be an
unquestionable absolute truth and have become yes-men of agreement for so long
that they are simply unable to criticise it when it is due or deserved. Faults
are ignored and dismissed; the Administration can do no wrong.
They would rather see soldiers die in Iraq than criticise the Administration.
