Interesting article

[ThaSaltCracka]

Here is an interesting article about the shortage of armor that the troops are experiencing in Iraq.

Armor Shortage (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4825948/)

[andyfox]

I found the list of the number of troops in Iraq interesting:

United States 130,000
Britain 12,000
Albania 70
Australia 1,000
Azerbaijan 150
Bulgaria 470
Czech Rep. 92
Denmark 496
Dominican Rep. 300
El Salvador 360
Estonia 55
Georgia 70
Honduras 370
Hungary 300
Italy 3,000
Japan 250 (750 on the way)
Kazakhstan 25
Latvia 120
Lithuania 105
Macedonia 28
Moldova 25
Mongolia 180
Netherlands 1,100
New Zealand 60
Nicaragua 230
Norway 150
Philippines 95 (175 on the way)
Poland 2,400
Portugal 130
Romania 400
Singapore 200
Slovakia 69 (120 on the way)
South Korea 675 (3,000 on the way)
Spain 1,300
Thailand 443 (30 on the way)
Ukraine 2,000

So we have about 82% of the total troops in the "coalition."

[Clarkmeister]

82% is a much lower % than I thought we had. I'd have guessed in the low 90's.

[Ed Miller]

Frankly, I had no idea that there were 30-odd countries in the "coalition," including two or three countries with significant islamic populations.

[andyfox]

I'm including Britain in the 18%. Britain and the U.S. combined are about 90%.

[sam h]

When you look at the percentage doing typical soldier-things, being in harm's way and handling volatile situations on the ground in the key urban areas, I'm guessing it's a lot higher than 90%. I think most of those troops from the smaller nations are really just symbolic, guys sitting around doing clerical or maintenance work in the more secure areas.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm including Britain in the 18%. Britain and the U.S. combined are about 90%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you implying Britain is somehow part of the US? I thought you were the history buff Andy. Don't you remember reading about a little uprising we call The American Revolution? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Jimbo

[andyfox]

I'm probably one of the oldest posters here, but even I don't remember the American Revolution.

I am, however, going to see Simon and Garfunkle soon. That dates me plenty, thank you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

Thanks Andy for making everyone focus on something other than what the article said. I really think the army and the marines are being blasted because of the poor planning of the defense department.

[andyfox]

I didn't realize I had the power to make "everyone" focus on something. I was simply pointing out something I found interesting.

So, to the article: It's beyond me that anyone cannot now understand that the inamtes are running the asylum. From the article:

"For the Bush administration it has been a mantra, one the president intones repeatedly: America's troops will get whatever they need to do the job. But as Iraq's liberation has turned into a daily grind of low-intensity combat—and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld grudgingly raises troop levels—many soldiers who are there say the Pentagon is failing to protect them with the best technology America has to offer.

A breakdown of the casualty figures suggests that many U.S. deaths and wounds in Iraq simply did not need to occur. According to an unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now circulating through the Army, of a total of 789 Coalition deaths as of April 15 (686 of them Americans), 142 were killed by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket-propelled-grenade attacks. Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs. [emphasis added]

But the Pentagon has yet to come to grips with its armor crisis—or its human cost."

Lies, secrecy, poor planning. The hallmarks of the Bush administration.

Time for a change.

[ThaSaltCracka]

This was what stood out the most to me:
Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them, the study suggested. Thousands more who were unprotected have suffered grievous wounds, such as the loss of limbs.

[ QUOTE ]
Lies, secrecy, poor planning.

[/ QUOTE ]
poor planning indeed

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Lies, secrecy, poor planning.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hallmarks of all modern administrations it seems. Not a justification, just a fact.

With that said I believe the Rumsfeld has to go. Bush is crazy for sticking with him. He may be gone by January irregardless of what Bush thinks /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Most people say Iraq is Bush's war, but ultimately it is Rumsfields war. My brother, who is in the army, has told me that a lot of the troops doing the patrols in Iraq were never trained for that kind of duty. Apparently a lot of them are supply and logistics soldiers. Clearly the planning in Iraq, especially after "Major Combat" was over, is clearly lacking. The idea that they could drive humvees through the cities and that our troops would be safe was a huge mistake.

BTW, in case people didn't know, the humvee was suppose to replace the jeep. Would you want to drive through a hostile city in a jeep or a tank???

Please someone fire rumsfield.