Bush: meer soldaten nodig tegen terrorisme

[Praetorian]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door john bell hood

Er worden zonder problemen voldoende soldaren gerecruteerd en de uitrusting is beter dan deze van welk ander leger.

Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor

By MICHAEL MOSS
Published: January 7, 2006

A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

The ceramic plates in vests now worn by the majority of troops in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.

Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.

For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops.

Officials have said they are shipping the best armor to Iraq as quickly as possible. At the same time, they have maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents in Iraq. Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets.

The vulnerability of the military's body armor has been known since the start of the war, and is part of a series of problems that have surrounded the protection of American troops. Still, the Marine Corps did not begin buying additional plates to cover the sides of their troops until September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine officials acknowledge.

The Army, which has the largest force in Iraq, is still deciding what to purchase, according to Army procurement officials. They said the Army was deciding among various sizes of plates to give its 130,000 soldiers, adding that they hoped to issue contracts this month.

Additional forensic studies by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's unit that were obtained by The Times indicate that about 340 American troops have died solely from torso wounds.

Military officials said they had originally decided against using the extra plates because they were concerned they added too much weight to the vests or constricted the movement of soldiers. Marine Corps officials said the findings of the Pentagon study caused field commanders to override those concerns in the interest of greater protection.

"As the information became more prevalent and aware to everybody that in fact these were casualty sites that they needed to be worried about, then people were much more willing to accept that weight on their body," said Maj. Wendell Leimbach, a body armor specialist with Marine Corps Systems Command, the corps procurement unit.

The Pentagon has been collecting the data on wounds since the beginning of the war in March 2003 in part to determine the effectiveness of body armor. The military's medical examiner, Dr. Craig T. Mallak, told a military panel in 2003 that the information "screams to be published." But it would take nearly two years.

The Marine Corps said it asked for the data in August 2004; but it needed to pay the medical examiner $107,000 to have the data analyzed. Marine officials said financing and other delays had resulted in the study's not starting until December 2004. It finally began receiving the information by June 2005. The shortfalls in bulletproof vests are just one of the armor problems the Pentagon continues to struggle with as the war in Iraq approaches the three-year mark, The Times has found in a continuing examination of the military procurement system.

The production of a new armored truck called the Cougar, which military officials said had so far withstood every insurgent attack, has fallen three months behind schedule. The small company making the truck has been beset by a host of production and legal problems.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is still relying on another small factory in Ohio to armor all of the military's principal transport trucks, the Humvee, and it remains backlogged with orders. The factory, owned by Armor Holdings, increased production in December after reports in The Times about delays drew criticism from Congress. But the Marine Corps said it was still waiting for about 2,000 of these vehicles to replace other Humvees in Iraq that are more lightly armored, and did not expect final delivery until June.

An initiative begun by the Pentagon nearly two years ago to speed up production by having additional companies armor new Humvees remains incomplete, Army officials said.

Body armor has gone through a succession of problems in Iraq. First, there were prolonged shortages of the plates that make the vests bulletproof. Last year, the Pentagon began replacing the plates with a stronger model that is more resistant to certain insurgent attacks.

Almost from the beginning, some soldiers asked for additional protection to stop bullets from slicing through their sides. In the fall of 2003, when troops began hanging their crotch protectors under their arms, the Army's Rapid Equipping Force shipped several hundred plates to protect their sides and shoulders. Individual soldiers and units continued to buy their own sets.

The Army's former acting secretary, Les Brownlee, said in a recent interview that he was shown numerous designs for expanded body armor in 2003, and had instructed his staff to weigh their benefits against the perceived threat without losing sight of the main task: eliminating the shortages of plates for the chest and back.

Army procurement officials said that their efforts to purchase side ceramic plates had been encumbered by the Army's much larger force in Iraq compared with the Marines' and that they wanted to provide manufacturers with detailed specifications. Also, they said their plates would be made to resist the stronger insurgent attacks.

The Marine Corps said it had opted to take the older version of ceramic to speed delivery. As of early last month, officials said marines in Iraq had received 2,200 of the more than 28,000 sets of plates that are being bought at a cost of about $260 each.

Marine officials said they had supplied troops with soft shoulder protection that can repel some shrapnel, but remained concerned that ceramic shoulder plates would be too restrictive. Similarly, they said they believed that the chest and back plates were as large as they could be without unduly limiting the movement of troops.

The Times obtained the three-page Pentagon report after a military advocacy group, Soldiers for the Truth, learned of its existence. The group posted an article about the report on its Web site earlier this week. The Times delayed publication of this article for more than a week until the Pentagon confirmed the authenticity of its report. Pentagon officials declined to discuss details of the wound data, saying it would aid the enemy.

"Our preliminary research suggests that as many as 42 percent of the Marine casualties who died from isolated torso injuries could have been prevented with improved protection in the areas surrounding the plated areas of the vest," the study concludes. An additional 23 percent might have been saved with side plates that extend below the arms, while 15 percent more could have benefited from shoulder plates, the report says.

In all, 526 marines have been killed in combat in Iraq. A total of 1,706 American troops have died in combat there. The findings and other research by military pathologists suggests that an analysis of all combat deaths in Iraq, including those of Army troops, would show that 300 or more lives might have been saved with improved body armor.

Military officials and contractors said the Pentagon's procurement troubles had stemmed in part from miscalculations that underestimated the strength of the insurgency, and from years of cost-cutting that left some armoring companies on the brink of collapse as they waited for new orders.

To help defeat roadside ambushes, the military in May 2005 contracted to buy 122 Cougars whose special V-shaped hull helps deflect roadside bombs, military officials said. But the Pentagon gave the job to a small company in South Carolina, Force Protection, that had never mass-produced vehicles. Company officials said a string of blunders had pushed the completion date to this June.

A dozen prototypes shipped to Iraq have been recalled from the field to replace a failing transmission. Steel was cut to the wrong size before the truck's design drawings were perfected. Several managers have left the company.

Company officials said they had also lost time in an interservice skirmish. The Army, which is buying the bulk of the vehicles, asked for its trucks to be delivered before the Marine vehicles, and company officials said that move had upended their production process until the Army agreed to get back in line behind the Marines.

"It is what it is, and we're running as fast as we can to change it," Gordon McGilton, the company's chief executive, said in an interview at its plant in Ladson, S.C.

On July 5, two former employees brought a federal false-claims case that accuses Force Protection of falsifying records to cover up defective workmanship. They allege that the actions "compromise the immediate and long-term integrity of the vehicles and result in a deficient product," according to legal documents filed under seal in the United States District Court in Charleston and obtained by The Times.

The legal claim also accuses the company of falsifying records to deceive the military into believing the company could meet the production deadlines. The United States Attorney's office in South Carolina declined to comment on the case. The Marine Corps says the Justice Department did not notify it about the case until December.

Force Protection officials said they had not been made aware of the legal case. They acknowledged making mistakes in rushing to fill the order, but said that there were multiple systems in place to monitor the quality of the trucks, and that they were not aware of any deficiencies that would jeopardize the troops.

NY Times
Published: January 7, 2006


US military 'at breaking point'

The US military has become dangerously overstretched because of the scale of its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, two reports have warned.

One, by former officials in the Clinton administration, said the pressure of repeated deployments was very corrosive and could have long-term effects.

The second, ordered by the Pentagon and yet to be released, reportedly calls the army "stretched to breaking point".

The US defence secretary dismissed the claims as out of date or misdirected.

About 138,000 US troops remain in Iraq, on top of deployments to Afghanistan and Kosovo.

'Enormous strain'

The first study, commissioned by Democratic members of Congress, listed former Defence Secretary William Perry and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright among its authors.

It said the US military had performed admirably in recent operations but was under "enormous strain".


The studies warn of future problems in recruitment and retention

"This strain, if not soon relieved, will have highly corrosive and potentially long-term effects on the force," it stated.

The report predicted problems recruiting new troops and retaining current ones in the face of repeated overseas tours and shortfalls in vital equipment.

It accused the Bush administration of having failed adequately to assess the size of force and equipment needed in post-invasion Iraq, creating "a real risk of 'breaking the force'."

The report also warned that the lack of a credible strategic reserve "increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to challenge the United States".

Recruitment

The second study, conducted for the Pentagon by military expert Andrew Krepinevich, suggested that the military at its current rate of deployment might not be able to outlast the insurgency in Iraq.

He cited the problems experienced by the army in meeting its recruitment targets last year.

Speaking in Washington, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected the warnings given in both reports, saying: "The force is not broken."

He said the US military was enormously capable and battle-hardened and any report suggesting it was close to breaking point was "just not consistent with the facts".

Difficulties

The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says the reports echo the view held by some in Congress and even by some within the armed forces.

They fear that if the Iraq commitment lasts a great deal longer, or if the US is drawn into new conflict, the US armed forces could find it difficult to meet their commitments.

The report came as the British government announced the deployment of thousands of extra troops to Afghanistan as part of a Nato expansion plan in the region.

The troops are likely to be deployed to the south of the country. BBC correspondent Rob Watson says it is unclear whether their role will be to provide support to the Afghan government in the region or to participate in counter-insurgency operations.

BBC, 8/01/06

[Praetorian]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pietje

Voor zover dat een referentie zou zijn. En ondertussen zit 10% van de bevolking wel onder de armoedegrens. En 10% = zo'n slordige 30.000.000 mensen.

35%, niet 10%. En 23% is werkloos.

[baseballpolitieker]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door nubian

verdad, en snap het nog steeds niet dat Bush aan zijn 2de ambtstermijn zit.

Het was een kwestie van tijd, waren de verkiezingen een half jaar later konden we nu allemaal op de kop van Kerry zitten scheiten!

[Pietje]

Let's impeach the president for lying
And leading our country into war
Abusing all the power that we gave him
And shipping all our money out the door
He's the man who hired all the criminals
The White House shadows who hide behind closed doors
And bend the facts to fit with their new stories
Of why we have to send our men to war

Let's impeach the president for spying
On citizens inside their own homes
Breaking every law in the country
By tapping our computers and telephones
What if Al Qaeda blew up the levees
Would New Orleans have been safer that way
Sheltered by our government's protection
Or was someone just not home that day?

Let's impeach the president
For hijacking our religion and using it to get elected
Dividing our country into colors
And still leaving black people neglected
Thank god he's racking down on steroids
Since he sold his old baseball team
There's lot of people looking at big trouble
But of course the president is clean
Thank God

(Neil Young)

[badkarmazen]

Ge moet begrijpen dat een land bezetten iets anders is dan een land bevrijden. Zelfs dat laatste is nog moeilijk als je niet onmiddelijk een militaire/politionele structuur kan opzetten om het land niet in chaos te laten storten.

Geen enkele (of toch bijna) Irakees steunt de inval en bezetting door Amerika.
150000 man is heel weinig om zulks groot land te bezetten. Vooral met de 3 grote elkaar hatende fracties. Gelukkig werken de Koerden wel mee. Iedere week zal meer en meer gaan kosten aan onderhoud, interne (iraakse) opleidingen en zo meer. Er is zelfs een voorstel om de oudgedienden van Sadams leger terug actief te maken om toch maar een Iraaks Leger te kunnen hebben. Maar zonder wapens (en niet die speelgoed wapens die zijn aangekocht) zal het leger het lastig hebben.

Ondertussen krijgt de taliban als maar meer vaste voet in hun zelf uitgeroepen staatje binnen Pakistan (Blijkbaar heeft het Pakistaanse leger zich daaruit terug getrokken). En zijn de aanvallen op de geallieerde troepen in Afganistan verdrievoudigd.

Ze zullen de extra troepen, die voor niets anders zullen dienen als menselijk buffer, hard nodig hebben. Het is voor de ameriakaanse burger te hopen dat er niet ergense anders nog een conflict uitbreekt of ze moeten daar ook nog troepen naar toe sturen. Denk maar aan Venuzuela, Iran, Syrie, Noord-Korea ...

[baseballpolitieker]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door badkarmazen

Geen enkele (of toch bijna) Irakees steunt de inval en bezetting door Amerika.

Alle vrouwen mag je wel al aan de kant van de Amerikanenen rekenen dus dan bekom je wel iets meer uit dan wat jij zegt!

[badkarmazen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door baseballpolitieker

Alle vrouwen mag je wel al aan de kant van de Amerikanenen rekenen dus dan bekom je wel iets meer uit dan wat jij zegt!

Waarom denk je dat

[democratsteve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door badkarmazen

Waarom denk je dat

Dat was ik me ook aan 't afvragen.

[baseballpolitieker]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door badkarmazen

Waarom denk je dat

De vrouwen zijn bevrijd door de Amerikanen onder de taliban werden ze als een minderwaardig object behandeld. Maar na de komst van de Amerikanen en het omverwerpen van het regime is dus ook daar een eind aan gekomen. Natuurlijk gaat zoiets niet op een twee drie maar er zijn grote verbeteringen voor de vrouwen!

[badkarmazen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door baseballpolitieker

Oorspronkelijk bericht door badkarmazen [IMG]images/misc/backlink.gif[/IMG]
Geen enkele (of toch bijna) Irakees steunt de inval en bezetting door Amerika.

Alle vrouwen mag je wel al aan de kant van de Amerikanenen rekenen dus dan bekom je wel iets meer uit dan wat jij zegt!

We hadden het toch over Irak.

Wat je zegt over Afganistan zullen niet alleen de vrouwen blij zijn maar reken daar maar vlug tot 80% van de bevolking die het verdrijven van de taliban een goede zaak vonden.

Maar over IRAK dat is een geheel andere kwestie. Irak was niet door de islam geregeerd wat wel het geval was in Afganistan.

[ministe van agitatie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door baseballpolitieker

Alle vrouwen mag je wel al aan de kant van de Amerikanenen rekenen

Noch in Irak noch in Afghanistan staan de vrouwen aan de kant van de VS. Waarom zouden ze ook? In Irak waren vrouwen en mannen voor de illegale inval gelijk. Vrouwen genoten onderwijs, hadden belangrijkse posities (sociaal, cultureel en politiek), abortus en echtscheiding waren legaal, scholen goed uitgebouwd en quasi gratis en gezondheiszorg op zeer grote schaal zeer goed uitgebouwd.
Waarom zouden die vrouwen aan de kant van de VS staan? Omdat ze sinds de invasie verplicht een hoofddoek moeten dragen en omdat hun broers, vaders en kinderen voor hun ogen opgeblazen worden?

Als je wil weten wat de Afghaanse vrouwen van de VS vinden, check dan bijvoorbeeld eens http://www.rawa.org

Om maar een stukje te citeren:

RAWA has consistently emphasised the fact that the Taliban, Osama & Co., and other fundamentalist bands in Afghanistan are creatures of myopic US policies vis-�*-vis the Afghan war of resistance against Soviet aggression. As long as such Frankenstein monsters were useful for the pursuance of US policies, successive US governments supported them and persistently turned a blind eye to the higher interests of the people of Afghanistan and to the consequences of such support for freedom and democracy in our country and the region. RAWA takes great pride in the fact that we persistently condemned this US policy and never caved in to pressure nor "circumspection", nor to the lure political or financial opportunism.

The bloodshed and misery visited upon our innocent fundamentalism-scourged people -the euphemistically called "collateral damage"- in consequence of the US punishment meted out to its rebellious former agents cannot but incite our opposition to America's war in Afghanistan.

[badkarmazen]

Een bijkomend probleem is dat in Afhanistan de Taliban en Al Qaida niet zijn overwonnen. Ze zijn slechts gedeeltelijk verdreven naar een oninneembaar gebied in de grensstreek van Pakistan, Afghanistan en Tjajikistan allen Moslim naties.

[baseballpolitieker]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ministe van agitatie

Noch in Irak noch in Afghanistan staan de vrouwen aan de kant van de VS. Waarom zouden ze ook? In Irak waren vrouwen en mannen voor de illegale inval gelijk. Vrouwen genoten onderwijs, hadden belangrijkse posities (sociaal, cultureel en politiek), abortus en echtscheiding waren legaal, scholen goed uitgebouwd en quasi gratis en gezondheiszorg op zeer grote schaal zeer goed uitgebouwd.
Waarom zouden die vrouwen aan de kant van de VS staan? Omdat ze sinds de invasie verplicht een hoofddoek moeten dragen en omdat hun broers, vaders en kinderen voor hun ogen opgeblazen worden?

Als je wil weten wat de Afghaanse vrouwen van de VS vinden, check dan bijvoorbeeld eens http://www.rawa.org

Om maar een stukje te citeren:

Misschien kunnen we er een beetje economie bijhalen. Laten we het misschien zo zeggen: op dit moment is de situatie in Afghanistan een lage-conjuctuur maar er komt altijd wel weer een hoge-conjuctuur die de vorige zal overtreffen!Zo zal uiteindelijk misschien toch alles veel beter worden, maar moeten we eerst nog door een dalletje omdan hoge pieken te scheren!

[democratsteve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door baseballpolitieker

Misschien kunnen we er een beetje economie bijhalen.

[badkarmazen]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door baseballpolitieker

Misschien kunnen we er een beetje economie bijhalen.

Dit kan misschien gelden voor Afghanistan (ik hoop het van harte) maar dit klopt totaal niet voor IRAK

Trouwens er is nu al een verbetering van de economie in KAbul, maar daar blijft het ook bij. Zolang de economie niet draait in het binnenland kunnen ze het vergeten. En daar, in dat binnenland hebben de geallieerden het niet voor zeggen. En zijn er nog veel Stamheren die de Taliban steunen.

[ministe van agitatie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door baseballpolitieker

Laten we het misschien zo zeggen: op dit moment is de situatie in Afghanistan een lage-conjuctuur maar er komt altijd wel weer een hoge-conjuctuur die de vorige zal overtreffen!

Qua teelt van opium en export van heroine zitten ze sinds de oorlog en de val van de Taliban in ieder geval in een hoogconjuctuur.

Zo zal uiteindelijk misschien toch alles veel beter worden, maar moeten we eerst nog door een dalletje omdan hoge pieken te scheren!

Leg dat maar uit aan de vrouwen die al sinds 1977 in dat 'dalletje' zitten ... Serieus 'dalletje' moet ik zeggen.

[democratsteve]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ministe van agitatie

Leg dat maar uit aan de vrouwen die al sinds 1977 in dat 'dalletje' zitten ... Serieus 'dalletje' moet ik zeggen.

[baseballpolitieker]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door ministe van agitatie

Leg dat maar uit aan de vrouwen die al sinds 1977 in dat 'dalletje' zitten ... Serieus 'dalletje' moet ik zeggen.

Wist niet dat de Amerikanen afghanistan al bijna 30 jaar bezet hebben?!

[TomB]

Vreemd nieuwsbericht, Bush heeft nl. gisteren nog uitdrukkelijk gezegd dat hij enkel maar meer troepen naar Irak wenst te sturen als hij er volledig van kan overtuigd worden dat die troepen voor een specifieke missie met een specifiek resultaat zullen ingezet worden. (bron: Mijne radio, maar het was wel zijn stem )

[FISHERMAN]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door badkarmazen

Geen enkele (of toch bijna) Irakees steunt de inval en bezetting door Amerika.

De meeste Koerden steunen de Amerikanen.