H&I* Fires: 26 FEB 2008

I disagree with Phil in a sense that its either "Iraq or Afghanistan". It's both. Whining about it is never going to change it. I am basically trying to figure out which group is being the realists: me or guys like phil. I mean that, as in, having read so much history on war, including the multitudinous and various ways in which logistics, availibility, DoD (DoW) procurement, R&D, add in the spice of congressional oversight, causing, as Gunny Highway once noted: a cluster f@^k! has ever been new or more prevalent in one war or the other? throughout our various wars, I have never, ever read anything that purports some masterful quatermastering of the various needs of our armed forces without the various insufficiencies of the system, overloaded bureaucracy and, as Phil actually describes, down right petty selfishness hasn't interfered in large ways and many, many small ways, with supplying the guys and gals on the front line. Yes. Why are those incredible Humvees sitting around on base with those great radios inside? Did president Bush issue a direct executive order to maintain those lovely jeeps in pristine shape for fobbit officers? Or, was that directly because some officers saw the shiney new toys and decided they should have the best? Exactly, wherin does that become an indictment of Iraq or the administration? Except in Phil's long standing opposition to both?

Or how I traded Peet's Coffee (shipped by my family) with one unit for GPS transceivers, or bought pizza for an outgoing unit in exchange for their basic load of ammunition. Our troops in the field face situations like this every day because the U.S. military is inefficient and unwise about the way it allocates scarce resources

Could phil be honest about why he had to do these things? Like, his unit wasn't originally designated through some military manual on unit requirements to have GPS transceivers, but, once in theater, their mission or area of operations makes it necessary? Or, maybe they are, but the latest and greatest were not available in enough quantities to throw around because the manufacturer only had X in the warehouse when the military decided that GPS receiver was "it" and he got back ordered for those instead of issued the old, less reliable ones that are stacked up in a warehouse? Or, the QM just extremely poor witted at ordering the appropriate equipment in a timely fashion, not making the right priorities or maybe, he had other priorities like getting that 10,000 gallon fuel bladder replaced so it didn't leak all over the place and blow the ammo dump sky high? Here's a question: Did anyone requisition them or were they expecting them to show up like magic beneath their pillow like the tooth fairy brought them? Does he even know or is he satisfied with his supposition as the best and only explanation? I mean seriously, that is the problem with all these anecdotes. People are whipping them out as if they represented the global "truth" as opposed to window in a moment in a place. You've got DeeBow and various others who were in Afghanistan and Iraq discussing how they were awash in ammo and other supplies while Phil and Capt. Ahab talk about the lack thereof in Afghanistan. I am highly sympathetic to the situation and part of me, when reading these stories, would like to fly in, grab the QM, various chain of command, on the ground officers and logistics, and shake them until their eyes were rolling around loose. However, the other part of me is pretty sure that, if I asked the logistics guys what the problem is, they'd just tell me about how its something else, explain to me about the thirty cargo air craft that went down for maintenance due to high utilization and age, a contract glitch, how some unit ordered 3,000 new uniforms accidently for their 300 troops causing a shortage for other units, etc, etc, etc. Maybe some other unit had a better power point presentation or requisition writer who could explain why their unit needed something better than another? Yeah. I do feel for these guys who are trying to work it out, get the things they think they need and absolutely need to go out and take the fight to the enemy. And if we hear about it in real time, we ought to rattle some cages about it, even if it is some stupid glitch closer down the ranks than up. But, Phil, et al, keeps acting like we can't do a two front war because the military logistics doesn't add up to his idea of supply and demand. Maybe someone should write Lincoln and tell him that it's a bad idea to let Sherman march to the Sea through Georgia, far ahead of supply lines, deep in enemy territory while Grant pursues Lee and various other generals are alternately fighting in multitude of places or "departments" because, well, one or more of those armies or some unit might not be supplied adequately? Or, hey, may be we shouldn't have been in the Philippines, Burma, North Africa, Sicily and eventually the rest of Europe in WWII because there is a likelihood that somewhere, someone, isn't supplied the way they should have been? In fact, according the the brilliant logic of these folks, we apparently should have called the entire war in the Pacific off. In the end, there are two issues. One is perfectly legitimate to call out. That being, if our troops in one area are not getting the necessary supplies, we should be raising a rucous to get it resolved, whoever is responsible, because we should be perfectly capable of doing it. The other, the idea that one front, Iraq, should never have happened or should be ended because some troops in another front, Afghanistan, aren't getting all the things they need or the shiney pieces that they want, is perfectly ludicrous. Then there is that little voice keeps whispering in my ear: welcome to the suck!

Carter's point is... from his perspective, with the DoD we've got today, it's Iraq or Afghanistan.

NUTS!

Phil Carter is contemptible not because he pointed out the flaws and screw ups in the Army, but because he did so gleefully. His whole schtick is to get the baboons on the left howling in agreement with his slander of our military. When I was in the Army, it was one thing to complain and moan to your fellow soldier, but I always looked down on the weasly soldier who wrote their congressman or the IG to complain about something. Somethings should be kept in house. Carter has sold his honor because he knows that on the left side of the blogosphere he gets alot of accolades for being a veteran. He just needs to remember they like him because he tells them what they want to hear, not because they have any respect for his service or the unifrom he wore. That's great because he's obviously calculated it would be more advantageous to his career goals to be the critic than to stand with his fellow soldiers.

Vaildog - congrats for coming in with feeling!

Finally. Got some talking going on!

Thanks a lot! I've already added you to "MY PERSONAL RECOMMENDATIONS" section. I look forward to hearing you and others...on your site and mine. Take Care

That was Damien's second comment of the day over here. He's learned the first lesson of blogging: "When you begin, comment everywhere, and leave a link."