Bureaucrats’ “Gross Mismanagement” Blamed For Hundreds Of Marines’ Deaths
Does Bush care about the troops?
HP-Hundreds of U.S. Marines have been killed or injured by roadside bombs in Iraq because Marine Corps bureaucrats refused an urgent request in 2005 from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, an internal military study concludes.
The study, written by a civilian Marine Corps official and obtained by The Associated Press, accuses the service of “gross mismanagement” that delayed deliveries of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks for more than two years.
Cost was a driving factor in the decision to turn down the request for the so-called MRAPs, according to the study. Stateside authorities saw the hulking vehicles, which can cost as much as a $1 million each, as a financial threat to programs aimed at developing lighter vehicles that were years from being fielded.
This is sad indeed, and while I want the illegals out of here, my rage is reserved for business and government officials who brought them here in the first place.
Now watch crime continue to increase in this sector.
Oops, posted in error to wrong thread. Sorry!
I’m not sure about all the hurdles good products have to go through before reaching our troops but we’re probably talking about the GSA, payola, political contributions, ect…
And we’ve addressed issues here about “Dragon skin”, the “FLEA” armored vehicle and other items. And just because “military contractors” are supporting a particular candidate doesn’t mean the troops are going to get the best stuff.
While I believe in equiping the military with proper, up-to-date gear, I have said it and will continue to say that the highest levels of training will prevent the most casualties on the battlefield. “A gallon of sweat in training prevents a drop of blood in battle,” as the Drill Instructors always said.
In my opinion and from what I’ve seen with my own eyes, the military is tending more and more to rely on technology to do the fighting; and, while a billion dollar machine gun is great, a properly trained soldier or marine has to operate it.
I’ve said this before too: I’ll take 10 Alvin Yorks over a hundred modern soldiers.
Unfortunately, you can’t manufacture a Sergeant York.
It’s also a sad commentary on our modern youth that most military-age Americans today have nowhere near the literary capacity that a soldier from a poor farming family had in 1918.
I totally agree with your second statement. My grandfather and his father each had to learn Latin in their New Hampshiire middle schools (or so I’ve been told).
The first statement I do not agree with, though. While we can’t re-create SGT. York, we can raise the bar when it comes to training standards. The bar is already set so very low and if you still can’t pass that – there are waivers to be had. What good does a waiver do on the battlefield? You got me there. Does the enemy recognize the waiver and goes a bit easier on you?
Do you think we need a large standing army Aubrey?
Define ‘large.’ If we are to remain powerful, militarily, we can’t cut the military in sheer numbers and quality. We can have a moderately sized military as long as they are trained to a high level. Right now, I’d say that our troops are decently trained. The non-commissioned leadership is lacking and has been lacking since promotions were handed out based on skin color and gender instead of merit. Well, that’s one of many gripes I have.
In my book, you can reduce the size but then must greatly improve the quality. We can afford a poorer quality soldier (and have more Abu Gharaibs) as long as we also maintain large numbers.