Rumsfeld took office determined to transform the U.S. armed forces into a high-tech, computerized, lean, mean fighting machine that would be invincible.
Instead, the U.S. Army today remains becalmed in Iraq, stuck in the middle of a low intensity guerrilla war it has been unable to tame. And that war is now morphing into a no-holds-barred civil war. Meanwhile, U.S. military preparedness, retired generals and respected military analysts warn, is now lower than it was in the immediate aftermath of the Vietnam War — when Rumsfeld was U.S. defense secretary for the first time.
Instead, the vaunted Future Combat Systems program is now a shambles.
Unprecedented billions of dollars have been poured into FCS and it has been given top call on Army resources even while U.S. combat troops in Iraq went short of low-tech body armor and steel protection for their combat vehicles.
The CBO says that the FCS program is on track to eventually eat up between 40 and 50 percent of the Army’s procurement accounts, leaving scarce dollars to buy other needed gear…
Rumsfeld seems to be the only figure in the Pentagon who still remains optimistic about the FCS program’s prospects. Recent experiences in Iraq have taught senior U.S. Army planners not to trust in optimism.
Lots of meat and detail in the article.
Leaves you with a picture consistent with the Walt Disney school of history — there must be a single hero who’s going to save us from the evil dragon [or evil empire]. And Rumsfeld obviously thinks he’s Saint George. Or is that the other guy?
I always wonder what decisions would be made if the children of these high ups were serving our Country. Last I checked, there were very few of our govt.’s children in the military.
Political leaders children in the Military? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Money talks, shit walks. These children will be your future leaders. How could you even suggest that they risk themselves in combat? You must hate your country. /end sarcasm
“Lots of meat and detail in the article.” – The article is just a LITTLE slanted…but if you believe that way, then yes.
The kids of the majority of leaders of both parties aren’t in the military… However, that may not be entirely true. What’s the national percentage of eligible kids that are in military? Maybe 1% or less…of the 465 members of congress…1% of that would be 5 (4.5, but that gets messy) kids. I’m betting there are at least 5 members of congress with/ had kids in the military (that’s assuming that ALL members of congress have kids that are/were eligible for military duty).
Poor Rummy, a leader without a clue.
#4 I’d think that the age of congress skews a little older than the population in general. So the question should be and is not in the ABC News report how many of the children of curently sitting congressmen are in the armed forces now but how many of there children ever served. Also, too compare the 2.14% number we would need the number of children of congressmen that are 18-34.
ethanol: thank you. However, I agree with Gig (as stated in my original post). If you’re taking ALL the people in congress, then you must take ALL the people in the US. 296,410,404 people (estimate as of 2005 – taken from the same link you posted above). 1.4 total people in the military. 0.47% of the popluation.
The FCS was meant to allow the military to cut it’s forces down at least by 20%, and thus save money. McNamara and Rumsfield have a lot in common. Both thought they had all the answers and shoved it down the everyone’s throat, whether they liked or not. They both got rid of any generals that didn’t tow their propaganda line. Both had/have it wrong. McNamara just like Rumsfield was obsessed with getting rid of the heavy equipment, like tanks and armour. Whether this was to conform to the UN agreement on reducing National militaries to purely internal policing forces isn’t clear, but both have headed in that direction.
China hasn’t lost sight of the need to heavy armour, either has Russia. High-tech missles and computer systems are nice, but once you’ve finished the first few days of fighting with this type of hardware you end up going back to the equipment that can survive a hostile environment. Hi-tech doesn’t take the place of either soldiers or heavy armour, and the striker armoured car doesn’t qualify as heavy armour. Most this ground has been covered before, but just like Iraq no one seems interested in history so we’re doomed to repeat it again.
traaxx
Bush etc. planned it this way.
“the primary concern and the measure of success for civilian militarists lies in the mere act or continuation of war, as this would ensure increased military spending and higher dividends for military industries and war-induced businesses.
In other words, the standard of success for corporate beneficiaries of war, which operate from behind the facade of neo-conservative forces in and around the Bush administration, is based more on business profitability than on the conventional military success on the battlefield. ”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH16Ak01.html
Watch Farenheit 911 if you want to see some actual footage of Congressman being asked this very question…
Definitely a NIMBY response!
Tom
>>>>I always wonder what decisions would be made if the children of these high ups were serving our Country. Last I checked, there were very few of our govt.’s children in the military.
I must say that I’m surprised to see you using The Reverend Moon as a source, Eidard. 🙂
#36 Sagrilarius –
Interesting, but what alternatives do you suggest to “vehicle transportation”?
Milo –
While that’s an interesting article, you should have noted that it’s basically a letter to the editor, not a column, from the Asia Times.
Frank, you’re such an amateur troll.
Some right-wingers are smart enough to not screw up corporate investments by requiring their politics of the corporation. If you just discovered UPI is owned by Moonies — well, it’s about time you looked beyond the world according to Rush and Rove.
And it doesn’t make the George brothers any less incompetent.
You know what they say about assumptions, don’t you?
Reinstituting the draft would give all you potential heroes on this discussion to walk the walk instead of talking the talk between session of playing those macho 1st person shooters. Everybody who volunteered to serve their country raise your hand.