Jesus.
Tapdancing.
Christ.

“if troops wanted to be “safe” all the damn time, they would not elect to join the military”

That is officially the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read ever.

Wow. God. I am quitting the internets for the evening.

Translation:
“If Americans wanted to be safe all the time, they would never have been born.”

Why do frothing right-wing hacks hate freedom?

If you’ll excuse me I have some questions to ask Alice about logic and proportion, since she is X feet tall, or “small”.

Seriously, cuz those dead troops are so useful now. They run ghost patrols. We need to compare the effectiveness of dead troops with the effectiveness of troops with hampered mobility. I think hampered wins.

One time I got in a fight with my hamper.

Klintoon? That’s the stupidest damn excuse for an insult name I’ve ever seen. Not that I’d expect Michelle Merkin to do better.

Doh!

Not that I’d expect Michelle Merkin to do better.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Merkin

You might want to take that Freudian slip back to JCPenney for a refund…

If Senator Klintoon and “Soldiers For Truth” had their way, US troops would be put into 100 pounds of ceramic plates, be forced to conduct patrols from tanks, and live in underground bunkers. And then presumably blamed for the failure to keep the peace.

Dead soldiers don’t do much for a unit’s combat effectiveness. Given the statistical crappiness of insurgent marksmanship and the American tendancy to pack far more firepower than is necessarily required, I believe the tradeoff of eliminating a fair number of casualties for a minimum of lost efficiency is a worthwhile investment. With that said, figuring out a way to make that stuff breathe better is something that needs to be worked on, because wearing body armor gets very uncomfortable very quickly in heat.
In a more cold-hearted perspective, keeping these investments of time and money functioning as long as possible is more efficient than replacing dead soldiers. Even if it means degrading their combat efficiency- firepower can always be upgraded, health can’t.

I always thought you were “Bad Motherfuckin’ G” because you wouldn’t stop playing those crappy smooth jazz cd’s while pretending your broom was one of those pussy saxes.

My mistake.

Earth to idiots:

This is Malkin’s attempt at snark and it is sad.

Like, she is so, totally valley girl, oh my gawd!

It sounds like she is chanelling Rush Limbaugh.

Malkin wasn’t even honest about Hillary’s comments:

http://johnlombard.blogspot.com/2006/01/malkin-lied-about-hillary-clintons.html

Actually, you managed to cherry pick my post as well. My main point here is the idea of moderation in all things-including body armor.

Anyone who joins the military for the money is a fool. Anyone who joins the military to be “safe” is a damn fool. Like I said, and you left out,

“Earth to idiots: if troops wanted to be “safe” all the damn time, they would not elect to join the military. Which is a dirty, dangerous, thankless job even in peacetime. If anyone joined up to be “safe”, then may I suggest a career change?”

The current set of body armor has chest and back plates, a codpiece, a neck protector and other assorted pieces that are hooked on. Which is great if you are just sitting on a post somewhere. Not so great if you have to actually chase down the Jumpin’ Jihadis on foot.

All I am asking is that the troops get to give their feedback on this issue. Something that does not sit well with you, since their opinions are “stupid”.

Well, here are some more “stupid” thoughts from people who actually do this for a living:

The debate between protection versus mobility has dominated military doctrine since the Middle Ages, when knights wrapped themselves in metal suits for battle, said Capt. Jamey Turner, 35, of Baton Rouge, La., a commander in the 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment.

“You’ve got to sacrifice some protection for mobility,” he added. “If you cover your entire body in ceramic plates, you’re just not going to be able to move.”

“These guys over here are husbands, sons and daughters. It’s understandable people at home would want all the protection in the world for us. But realistically, it just don’t work,” said Sgt. Paul Hare, 40, of Tucumcari, N.M.

Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Mo., said he already sacrifices enough movement when he wears the equipment. More armor would only increase his chances of getting killed, he said.

“You can slap body armor on all you want, but it’s not going to help anything. When it’s your time, it’s your time,” said Suthoff, a platoon leader in the brigade’s 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment. “I’d go out with less body armor if I could.”

Are they all “stupid” now? Or should we all be silenced because you think our opinions are not worthy, cannot stand up to the staggering military experience of Shillary Klintoon?

My opinions on this matter may be “stupid”, but at least they are INFORMED “stupid” ones.

Peter Bland
USMC Active 199-2004

I didn’t post on this because it made me so goddamn angry and no time to research, but essentially these soldiers, even the ones that Malkin quotes who are serving currently, are assuming that the study refers to simply tacking on armor to the current interceptor jackets which are pieces of shit to begin with.

What the study says is, if we weren’t so married to procuring from the lowest bidder/crony bidder, we could get the kind of armor that those bake sales are buying, which meet all the requirements AND are easier to move around in.

Addendum: The 33rd Cavalry is a chopper unit. The other guy is in the 101st Airborne.

So it seems we’ve got some special cases here, right? If we listen to Malkin, we’re not exactly hearing from the guys who have been screaming about their crappy body armor for years.

Malkin also lifted a paragraph of her column from the ABC News story. Does she do this often?

So does anyone have quotes from “the guys who have been screaming about their crappy body armor for years”?

I have a few quotes from some troops who disagree a smidge:

http://www.accessnorthga.com/articles/afullstory.asp?ID=99960

http://baghdadguy.blogs.com/baghdad_guy/

But they are “stupid” too. Of course.

A correction to your “addendum”-33rd Calvary Squadron, 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division is an infantry unit. The “Calvary Squadron” signifies how they are carried into battle, not what they are.

And if the pilots, crew chiefs and gunners on our combat helicopters are not warriors, as you seem to insinuate, then who is?

The 33rd. Cavalry and the 101st Airborne have in common that they’re inserted into battle from the air — in the first case via chopper, in the second case via parachute.

This gives them different equipment requirements, no?

The same armor. More or less.

Precisely- they are talking to Air Assault, not the regular heavy infantry mooks who make up the bulk of the “going out on patrol” bit. Those NG boys like their body armor quite a bit- I’ve got a few friends either there or ready to deploy in the Iowa National Guard, and they inform me that ceramic plate is their best friend (heavy and hot- but better than being shot and not having it on). Although, incidently, a few of them hate the helmet design (not wholly relevent, but an interesting point).
One of my aquaintances in the Guard is the father of a couple school friends- he was in Desert Storm and Bosnia in addition to this go around in Iraq- hardcore Republican- the only thing bad I’ve ever heard him say about the administration is that they did a “damned disgraceful job” at providing adequate body armor.
Now granted, that’s all anecdotal- but then, so is the cited article.

Air Assault and Airborne, as I understand things, fight as “light infantry”. Not quite “elite”, but certainly better trained than your average infantryman.

The one link is the 101st guy again.

The link from the North Georgia newspaper is not a column by Lt. Micah Garrison, but a column by the right-wing talk-radio host Martha Zoller, one of our fave ‘journalists’ (= paid political operatives) who ‘toured Iraq’ (= Green Zone) courtesy of the GOP front group, the Move America Forward Foundation. In these columns, she rewrites, interprets, and possibly completely makes up things attributed to Lt. Micah Garrison.

The body armor column appeared yesterday — quite a quick turnaround on a 1,000+-word piece of freelance writing from an active-duty Army officer.

We don’t know what’s Garrison’s and what’s Zoller’s, but we do know that the Move America Forward Foundation is an erupting lie-cano of super-lietastic lying, semiofficially backed by the GOP and the Pentagon.

True, but the cited examples I use are hyperlinked-and the barest tip of the milblogging iceberg on this topic.

The main thrust of my arguments was perhaps “stupid”, but mine own opinion.

Simply put, why did the august senator, who has no personal experience with the military at all, choose to make this a banner in her drive to the White House?

It may read well in Paducah, but it does not do well with anyone who has actually worn the body armor in Iraq. Such as yours truly. And the gentlemen I quoted.

Shouldn’t our opinions mean something, since we have to wear the shit for a living? And fight in it?

Incidentally, I hate the helmet design too-but there are ways to make them more comfortable to wear.

Now I will ask you what the difference is between “heavy ” and “light” infantry.

From my understanding, which may differ from the Army since I grew up militarily in the Marines, is this: “heavy” infantry refers to guys who ride around in armored vehicles, such as the Stryker and the Bradley. “Light” infantry refers to troops who can also ride around in vehicles all day, but are trained to hump hills as their primary means of locomotion.

So by this definition, Marines are “light” infantry, and so are the guys in the 101st. Ironically, the “light” infantry guys have to carry a lot more shit into battle.

And, um, where was she when her husband could have got these things to the military a LOOOOOng time ago? Why is it I had the old flak jacket until I was sent to Iraq? Is this concern for the troops? Or is it (don’t say it too loud) purely political?

Just sayin.

The same armor. More or less.

Um, I believe not. I think we’re talking ‘less.’

Let’s simplify for a sec. The Times prints results of a study that says 80% of whatsis, bla-bla body armor, troops didn’t have to get killed.

Clinton is like, Ok, let’s do a study and work on this body armor thing.

Malkin and a bunch of other coordinated right-wing spokespeople suddenly become anti-body-armor, using an argument that’s totally different from what the Times said and Clinton said.

Now, this doesn’t convince me that a different design of body armor is a bad idea. You see how this whole thing kind of blossoms out?

And you are saying that we need more, while at the same time totally disregarding the opinions of those who have served or are serving in the theater.

And a lot less troops would die if they were not forced to live with incredibly difficult ROEs.

Safety is relative. At what point does it become more important than accomplishing the mission? Given a choice between wearing the stuff we have now and wearing “safer” armor, I would choose to be more exposed.

You could change the mandatory maximum speed limit to 10 mph,and thereby significantly reduce the traffic fatality statistics. But would anyone want to drive across the country at 10 mph?

To air! Jesus Pogo-Jumping Christ, it get hot in Iraq. Really hot. And covering more square inches of body with more armor invites more cases of heat exaustion. I saw several myself-and watched someone die from it.

That is the tradeoff.

This whole thing is too political for me, tailor-made to snipe Bush. Hate him all you want, but leave me and mine out of it, if you please.

Are you suggesting that I am “coordinated”? More or less to the same degree that Micheal Moore has “massaged” Cindy Sheehan for media consumption? Do you think my superiors ordered me to blog? Do you think that I have a direct line to Karl Rove?

What is this nonsense?

And where did I say that I was anti-armor? Please do not place words in my mouth. I am saying that I am anti-making the troops lives harder for no good reason as a cheap political ploy.

I have spent six years on the military rolls. I have known people who have been died, wounded what have you. Most of them took almost direct shots from RPGs and IEDs. Things that no armor would be able to protect against.

But you are right, let’s simplify the debate a bit. A lefty pundit site gets a leaked memo, publishes it to the internet, the mediots pick it up and Shillary wants an investigation. Since she has such a vast depth of military experience, particularly in Iraq. Right before the election season to the crucial ’06 campaigns begin.

I appreciate real dissent, but hate pratisanship. Calling someone with real military experience who happens to disagree with you “stupid” is partisanship at its slimy worst.

Hate the message, not the messenger.

Their fucking parents have been buying body armor retail and shipping it to them!

What’s…? How…?

You can do Google! Why do I have to do all the Google around here?

I mean, jeez!

Hyperlinks?

And so what? This was not an issue when parents bought their sons and daughters stuff in the past, but we are made to believe that it is a terrifying new development.

Please.

Are we going to see hysterical pundits announce that we have “lost” the war because the troops get candy in their care packages? That we now have a “candy gap”?

All I am asking is that our voices are heard, and not called “stupid” when someone does not agree.

You support the troops alright, just not this one it would seem.

That’s all I am around here, is the Googler…

1,230,000 cites coming up:

http://www.google.com/search?hs=zJv&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=buying+body+armor+iraq&btnG=Search

All I am asking is that our voices are heard, and not called “stupid” when someone does not agree.

Ok, that’s fair. But you’re attacking liberals on your blog, and that’s what we do too.

Wait, you’re not actually a punk from OK, are you? Do you know a guy named Rusty, was in a band called NOTA?

Well, this is certainly not a new theme for y’all, is it?

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/001592.html

Y’all still stuck on stupid after a year and 3 months?

Can you give me a percentage rundown of how many lives this technology has saved? Or did they forget to leak that bit of data while they were at it?

I will come back in a couple days with a graphical rundown of the causes of death amongst the troops so far-and I am willing to predict that the vast majority would not have benefited from more armor at all.

Naw, my handle comes from where I was stationed for awhile, Okinawa, and how one of my NCOs (we did not get along) called me a “punk”.

That’s all.

But I do like punk as a genre. NoFX particularly.

And yes, I do make fun of liberals. But only public figures, in case you never noticed.

And I also make fun of a lot of other things too: Ahmadiwhackjob, Kofi Annan, Ted Kennedy, etc.

I concentrate my scorn on liberals because I feel that their positions are idiotic, being as I am a reformed leftie. And I have not found anything said on this site to make me think otherwise so far.

I knew NOFX a little bit back when I was playing in bands. We toured at the same time once and ended up running into each other in different cities, in all kinds of weird circumstances.

Where else were you stationed?

Several points you’re correct about:

The distinction between heavy and light infantry- as you say, the light infantry carry a lot more shit, which inclines them to try to save weight as efficiently as possible so they don’t drop from exhaustion (who can blame them?). They are more inclined to want to wear less body armor- and they have a legitimate reason. The Marines are in a special catagory of their own (though you are well aware of that, I suppose, ex-Jarhead you are). That said- the interviees shouldn’t be taken as a scientific sample size of the troops (actually, that is something I’d like to see…), as they represent a certain job which has (moderately) differant needs than those of most of the on the ground guys over there.
As for Bill not doing enough on the armor front: Damn right. However, doesn’t make her actions now any more or less altruistic. She’s a politician- what are you going to do?
I think you bring up a fair point- we do need to hear the feedback from the troops, and see the data from the DoD before we can make a determination definitively.

On a side note- my Dad’s college roomate (Dad was US Army 73-76, 4th Infantry Division) is the current CinC of SOCPAC. Great guy- I’ve met him a few times.

I concentrate my scorn on liberals because I feel that their positions are idiotic, being as I am a reformed leftie. And I have not found anything said on this site to make me think otherwise so far.

Nope, we’re annoying-lefty all the way. We aim to offend, and sometimes succeed.

Not counting training-Camp Pendleton and Iraq.

That’s all I really meant. Perhaps I should have been more clear that I believed Hillary was jumping the shark on this onem before all the facts are in.

And I also should have made it clear about my horror of politicians micromanaging war-of any party. A lesson that my uncles, who fought in Vietnam, made sure I learned well. *Shudders*

In my own defense, I certainly never expected my musings to get dispersed to such a wide audience. Mheh.

We aim to offend, and sometimes succeed.

Sometimes spectacularly, right Gav?
**cough**DEAN!**cough**

The Marines are in a special catagory of their own

Get stuck with crappier gear, for one thing. First-line invasion force, low-budge equipment…

**cough**DEAN!**cough**

Shhh! (it’s been so quiet lately!)

Get stuck with crappier gear, for one thing. First-line invasion force, low-budge equipment…

Ain’t it the truth…
I read Clancy’s book on the Marine Expeditionary Unit, and he touched on that a few (dozen…) times.

Shhh! (it’s been so quiet lately!)

Heh heh heh…

Peter:

Hillary isn’t popular on the ‘left’ — most of us also tend to think that she’s motivated mostly by politics.

But if I can make a grand truth-claim, we’re much more concerned with the administration that’s currently in power, and with what they’re doing, than with possible Hillary Clinton antics in the future. It just sort of doesn’t come up on the radar.

So if she gets a good idea or policy goal, then great. Body armor — fantastic. Go do it.

You know?

I read Clancy’s book on the Marine Expeditionary Unit, and he touched on that a few (dozen…) times.

Wait, which book?

It was one of the non-fiction series, called “Marine”, appropriately enough. 10 years old now, if I recall correctly.
I got it about 6 years ago- back in the day, I was dead set on joining up through the Academies or ROTC, so I ate that stuff up. Multiple medical problems killed that dream, but I’m still a military history freak (now ancient military mostly).

Weren’t about 80 to 90% of our casualties in the Gulf War from friendly fire?
Someone was probably trying to frag that wingnut. And I don’t blame them

Not that I’d expect Michelle Merkin to do better.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Merkin

You might want to take that Freudian slip back to JCPenney for a refund…

Posted by: The tECHIDNA | January 12, 2006 02:15 AM
–
I don’t know, I think that comparison to Malkin is quite appropriate…

I’m staying right out of this one, I’m more of an “argue why we’re in Iraq” commentor than someone who understands the nuts and bolts of combat equipment. Hillary’s a political hack, and my knowledge of this issue extends to “I like the assault guy’s armor on battlefield 2” so that’s all i’ll say.

Are they all “stupid” now?

No, but you are for thinking that “Shillary Klintoon” is in any way witty or clever.

And, um, where was she when her husband could have got these things to the military a LOOOOOng time ago?

Ask the Republicans who controlled the pursestrings for almost the entire Clinton presidency.

Here’s my problem with the “Klintoon” phenomenon:

This attitude of “Anything the Clintons or anytone associated with them say and do is automatically wrong, stupid, motivated by politics, and must be ignored at all costs” is a huge, huge problem.

So when Condi is told “You will spend most of your time focusing on Al Queda”, she ignores it. When W is told “Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States”, he ignores it. When Ashcroft is told there are suspicious circumstances surrounding Saudis entering flight school, he ignores it.

The problem is this: Even a broken clock is right at least once a day (twice if it doesn’t have am/pm). Even if you sincerely believe that every word that came out of everyone associated with the Clinton administration is a lie, you can’t forget that the most effective lies always contain at least a grain of truth.

Just because W says it, it doesn’t make it true. And just because “Hitlery” says it, it doesn’t make it false. Face reality, find the facts, and react accordingly.

So let Hillary have her hearings. In fact, you should encourage her. Let the troops step up and say what a dumbshit she is. If you are actually right, you should have nothing to worry about.

Shouldn’t our opinions mean something, since we have to wear the shit for a living? And fight in it?

If you wanted your opinion to mean something, then why’d you join the military? Maybe it’s time for a career change.

pratisanship

Peter, I don’t know if this was a typo, but I think it’s a damned good new word. ‘Cause they’re all really prats anyway, aren’t they?

This was not an issue when parents bought their sons and daughters stuff in the past…. Are we going to see hysterical pundits announce that we have “lost” the war because the troops get candy in their care packages?

Do you really see no difference between parents mailing candy and equipment? Hell, why not allow the families to provide all the munitions, too?

It’s obviously a tricky issue. The numbers say that if the armour were improved, casualty rates would go down; but the troops wouldn’t be able to move as fast. Not something we can decide on the fly.

(It’s quite possible, for example, that the better armour would be far too heavy to patrol in on foot, but it would still be a good thing to have if you were riding around doing top cover from a vehicle.)

Why doesn’t some senator call for an inquiry into this, so we can get a reasoned decision for or against? Would that really be such a bad thing, Paul?

I don’t know, I think that comparison to Malkin is quite appropriate…

Oh, I thought it was beautiful. I knew I forgot that “^_^” somewhere…

I guess I don’t have an opinion–the last time I wore body armor was in South Vietnam in 1970. I wore the flack jacket around the firebase ’cause the primary concern was rockets/mortars, just shrapnel. Outside the perimeter I left it at home. The primary concern was small arms and MGs and frankly I prefered trying to get real small and call in some arty than any John Wayne shit that the vest might encourage…

mikey

Safety is relative. At what point does it become more important than accomplishing the mission?

Better question: What, precisely, is The Mission?

At what point does it become more important to understand the Nature, Purpose and likelihood of success of The Mission, than to just go along with it regardless of how clueless, agenda-driven and incompetent the civillian ideologue clusterfucks who intiated The Mission might happen to be.

In my experience, the closer you get to a real battlefield, the less political troops are.

Just want to get the mission done and go back to sleep. That’s all. Questioning the motivations of the civilian leadership is all fine and dandy.

But is it too much to ask that “the troops” are left the fuck alone? We have a chain of command that goes up and down, but decidedly does not go sideways. I’ll leave congresscritters alone when they leave me alone.

*sigh*

If you have to hear what THE MISSION is, perhaps you should read this. After all, it is not as if this is a new strategy. Or hasn’t been said, over and over again.

I question the conclusion that we are bound to lose in Iraq, but that is fine. After all, we are free to disagree are we not?

Finally, before I hit the sack, I must state for the record that “pratisan” was a typo. But that does not mean that I will not use the word mercilessly in the future. Mheh.

The problem with those mission descriptions, Peter, is that we here have a bit of a problem with the President’s honesty. Ã…nd yes, we are free to disagree, though some seem to think that disagreement is treason.

Did you ever hear me say that the “anti-war” crowd? Or Bush for that matter?

I merely question their sanity.

How is, say, Code Pinko giving $600,000 to the “other side” in Iraq during the Battle of Fallujah treasonous?

Keep up the “Bush lied, people died” idiocy by all means. We haven’t heard THAT message enough, it would seem.

Yeah, so disposable rationale #8,790,654 is The Mission

Emperor Whistle-ass hopes to defeat global terrorism by inciting more of it through his administrative incompetence and malevolent stupidity.

This whole “war on terror” plan hinges on the idea ther there is only a finite number of “terrorists” and that they can all eventually be brought to bear if 1) we eventually kill them all (assuming that no more rise to take their place)and 2)phony-tough suits in and around the White House who have never gotten their hands dirty keep waving their dicks emphatically enough

Nice fuckin’ plan.

You’ll have to excuse me if i don’t think “Yee-haw, Git-r-done and damn the collateral damage” is a passable excuse for strategy.

I mean, seriously, after the initial invasion and deposition of Saddam, the first phase of the reconstruction was handed over to a bunch of patronage-hired swinging dicks from Administration-friendly so-called “think-tanks” like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation who had a few cute ideas that looked good on paper, but since they were drawn up without any practical base of knowledge from which to build crumbled when confronted with the reality of the degree to which that place was in total fucking chaos.

The nearly religious degree to which the administration’s apologists have tried to assert that the removal of Saddam, however cool that might have been, somehow trumped all of the other problems and issues that came to light afterwards would be laughable if they didn’t also regard it is some unpardonable heresy to suggest otherwise

Shorter Wingnuts: “clap louder or tinkerbell will die…[esmay]and then we’ll make sure you do too…dead, dead, dead”[/esmay]