Gunny
Gold Member
Oh. In that case, why not send them out with no armor? Look. Some armor is better than no armor.
You are correct, and all military personnel deployed in a combat status have had personal body armor since the 70s. In case you are misunderstanding, the argument here is not whether or not they had personal body armor, it's the dishonest, unrealistic expectation being superimposed that they be provided the most cutting-edge technology of the moment. That NEVER happens, and isn't likely to.
I still contend that Bush should have waited until we were fully prepared with more than enough of our finest armor readily available.
By military standards, we were fully-prepared and each person had the body armor purchased by the US military and provided to its personnel. That's how it works.
I guess that I hold the commander in chief (no matter the political party) to a higher standard. The buck stops with the president and it would not have taken too much time and trouble to check with his military armament suppliers and others to make sure that all was ready. Isnt the president ultimately the boss of those professionals? Again, the president calls the shots. He ultimately makes the decision. He pushes the big red button. He pushed it way too soon when not enough was ready.
You obvioulsy don't have a realistic viewpoint of the bureaucracy. There's a chain of command and each level of that chain of command is responsible for certain areas.
I personally wouldn't want ANY politician choosing my 782 gear nor weapons for me. Bad enough bureaucrat officers do it without a clue, much less a TXANG pilot or a lawyer.
I dont see that as a good comparison. Someone sending soldiers out to risk death without sufficient top-quality armor is not the same as someone neglecting the cleanliness of a toilet seat
It's a fair comparison if you understand how the chain of command works. I'm comparing THE responsibility, not the importance of the individual responsibilities.
The Base Commanding General is technically responsible for each and every head on the base. If one doesn't work, does the CG get blamed, or does Facilities Maintenance since it is in their area of expertise to keep the shitters flushing?
Blaming the guy at the top for specifics that are not in his job description IS political. I guarantee you if you dig up a job description for CinC, it won't say in charge of testing, choosing and purchasing supplies for individual combat infantrymen anywhere.
It's someone else's job.