An open message to every soldier and sailor in the U. S. Military:

[Lefty48197]

No Democratic President would EVER send you off to war without providing the proper armor for vehicles
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/08/rumsfeld.questioner.ap/
No Democratic President would EVER send you off to war without the proper body armor http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101061,00.html
No Democratic President would EVER send you off to war without enough bullets. http://www.detnews.com/2004/business/0405/07/b03-145733.htm

The Republicans will spend the rest of their lives telling you that they "support the troops". Their actions have shown otherwise:
They have controlled the Senate, the House of Representatives, the White House, and yes, the military, for the last four years, yet they still haven't done whatever is necessary to provide these basic protections to our soldiers.
They have found the money to cut taxes for their rich campaign contributors on three different occasions. They have found the money to fund corporate welfare. Pork barrel spending is at it's highest level in American history, yet the Republicans still cannot find enough money to provide the basic life saving equipment to the very people who have put their lives on the line for America.
I cannot imagine a more irresponsible way for the Republicans to treat our troops and their families.

[Florida_Geek]

1. The Troops love Bush and voted for him

They are like minimum wage ppl loving their new tax cut.

[Lefty48197]

2. I am hoping that they will decide that their "conservatism" ends when

Bush puts them in harms way.

[rebelskypirate]

7. What exactly DOES the military do............

BUT fight wars, kill the enemy, and get shot at/hurt/killed? We didn't join the PEACE CORPS, it is our DUTY to be in harms way, and we all CHOSE to be in the service, there is no draft!(yet)

I have fought wars for both Democratic and Republican presidents, and it doesn't matter WHO sends you to war, it is ALWAYS dangerous, not more or less based on party....

Also, I would say 5% of the military people I currently work with voted for Sen Kerry. As to the overall total, the overseas military paper(Stars and Stripes) published an article showing a 74-24 Bush/Kerry military vote. In my 20+ years, I would say 90% of my military co-workers across 4 different jobs were self IDed Republicans, a few INDs, and a very, very few Democrats. Of course, I know that the entire military would have a fair number of non-Republicans, but certainly nothing matching the rough divide among the total American people

Sorry to be the bearer of news some here may not like, but thats what I have seen and heard for 20+ years......

Take care all, have a great holidays!

[BamaGirl]

14. This has not been our experience and I

suppose it could be as simple as the company we keep. In 12 years of service (between me and my husband) we've mostly seen about a 60(R)/40(D/I) split. This year the split with people I talked to about it was closer to 50/50, and I'm talking I polled my friends, especially the ones in 1ID and the 101st. They told me they were hearing a 50/50 split too. Most people who oppose the administration are not going to speak publically about it, or to people they don't know well. I don't expect to hear any military personnel that I don't know well to say they voted Kerry or that they are Dem. Most of the support for Bush that I am hearing is from people are very young, new in the Army, or haven't been to I/A. I think age and deployment will swing some of them to the Dem party. Most of our friends are MP's, which is a pretty insular group. I can't see that really making a difference in the numbers, but you never know.

I haven't seen the numbers for military absentee ballot. Has anyone? What were they?

[Lefty48197]

18. Sending the troops off to fight in a senseless war, without proper

protection. Toss in the "backdoor draft", and I think Bush is pushing the majority of soldiers into the Democratic fold.

[MADem]

28. I agree with your numbers

My experience has been the same.

[Kate12780]

30. The Stars and Stripes? Please..

The "Stars and Stripes" are published especially for those serving because they want to lie to you so you will keep supporting Bush. I think one of the saddest things about this mess is how oblivious some soldiers still are. What exactly has been accomplished, my friend? Is Iraq "liberated"? Are we helping to reconstruct Iraq? I mean, since we have know played a huge part in obliterating it, it only seems right. But, who actually believes that the Bush Administration is going to put out the money for that? They're taking money from "homeland security" funds in N.Y, like $11.9 MILLION (that was granted to the state since they have high risk of terror activity) so he and his rich friends can party on the crisis bank account on 1/20. They're not looking out for us, and you can be damn sure they're not looking out for Iraq. Stars and Stripes should be renamed "Bull and Shit".

[Jackie97]

27. It already happened.

All the troops heard in the media (what little they could hear) was that Kerry voted against better arming them. Kerry said he would have voted for it if the rich paid for it more. Republicans used this against Kerry like crazy (saying he didn't support the troops). Fine. What about the Republican dominated congress that voted with Kerry on this? Nobody paid attention to that because we didn't have that in the media like crazy.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Absolutely not true based on military absentee voting results.... n/t

[noamnety]

4. I fell for that at first

But now I'm not convinced the military really favors Bush at all. The lack of press about the absentee votes combined with the almost even contributions to dems and republicans from the army, and the stop loss and recruitment problems makes me think Kerry creamed them in the military vote.

I can't imagine all those soldiers riding around day after day in substandard equipment getting shot at, thinking "wow, whoever planned this is a genius sent from God."

[diamondsoul]

25. That's funny-

My husband's unit was out on the live fire range when the election results were announced. He said they were pissed and there were bullets flying afterwards.

Now they're in Iraq and not very happy about it.

[Kate12780]

29. Nah.

Not all troops "love" Bush. In fact, I think that a lot of troops would like to shoot him dead straight between the eyes. You think that after being out in the sh*t storm for so long that they're oblivious to what's going on anymore?

[beanball]

5. Service people

most do what they are told to do.I live near a large military base and most of the service members I've spoken to seem to think Bush is a great guy,(shallow thinking by small minds.)

[Florida_Geek]

6. Bingo

the Air Farce and Navy love him. If the Army went for Kerry then places like Fort Bragg NC would have had Kerry winning. But didn't.

[haele]

24. Navy doesn't "love him"

Maybe the Orificers and rug huggers do, but it's about 50/50 here in San Diego. I've seen as many Kerry/Edwards stickers as "W" stickers on the bases around here - even at MCAS Miramar.
I have never had problems driving on base with my DemocraticUnderground bumper sticker - before or after the election.

The military personnel that have deployed have some serious questions as to why we are in Iraq.

Haele

[rebelskypirate]

8. I agree, but disagree

1st off, I agree with you about the lack of up-armoured Hummers and lack of body armour, as well as logistical issues. However, these are not NEW issues with the military.....and to fully explain why this is a very complex thing beyond the space of this post. David Hackworth's writings do a better job than I can, check him out.

http://www.hackworth.com/

As for no Democratic president would ever send our troops into harms way without proper equipment.....3 words........BLACK HAWK DOWN!


Nuff said

[Florida_Geek]

9. Who was the President that sent the troops over there

without proper equipment. As I remember it was George 41 Bush. President Clinton was handed that mess.

As for Repugs are better for the military than Dems, after 12 years of Reagan/Bush, a high percentage of enlisted were on Food Stamps. Clinton lowered that percentage with his raises.

For eight years I watched the Repugs play the same game of one upping the President. If Clinton requested a 4% raise for the military, the "we love the troops more than that draft dodger" Repug would give them 4.1%. BIG FUCKING DEAL

If you maded $20,000 per year, the diff between what Clinton wanted and what the Repug pass would be $20 fucking dollars per year. The troops got $800 per year raise from President Clinton, and the Repugs add on the "extra" $20.

[rebelskypirate]

10. BHD facts

It seems the 3 words didn't explain what I meant, here goes historical fact:

this is all 1993, President Clinton, or more specifically, his Sec Def, Les Aspin, is running the show.

Aug-Sep 1993: The US mission morphs from peacekeeping to actively hunting warlord Adid, several attempts are made to capture him.

Sep 1993: US Commanders, realizing the danger of urban ops without proper fire support, request both armour(M1A1 tanks) and AC-130 Spectre gunships. Both are denied by Sec Def due to political concerns.

Oct 3rd, 1993. 18 US troops are KIA and 75 WIA in a gun battle with Somali gunman and are pinned down for over 12 hours due to the lack of armor/AC-130 support.

I am not trying to defend the 1st President Bush here, I agree he got us into this mess. But it is simple fact the President Clinton DID expand our mission there, and his Sec Def refused to provide the support requested by ground commanders, and "Black Hawk Down" happened.


I understand that in war mistakes are made, and I will give President Clinton credit for forcing the Sec Def Aspin's resignation due to this deadly error.

Before you respond, know this: I KNEW some of those 18 KIA........so this isn't just a movie for me, I couldn't even watch it for the 1st two years it came out, was just too personal.

War is always an ugly business, and mistakes are sadly made, we should not be afraid to point them out on either side of the political fence.

Excellent points on military pay however, but I would say the one change that resulted in the most net dollars to the troops was changing the Earned Income Credit rules to reflect only taxable income, this was almost a 10% raise to troops deployed, as well as increases in Hostile Fire pay/Family Sep, and these occured in 2002. In fairness, President Clinton also increased these two special pays during his term.

Thats all for now, have a great holidays everyone

[BamaGirl]

11. Your time line is incomplete

Of course, this kind always is. Do us MP's a favor, and don't forget the 4 MP's who were ambushed and killed in Somalia on Aug 7, 1993. The day I enlisted incidentally.

I am not trying to defend the 1st President Bush here, I agree he got us into this mess. But it is simple fact the President Clinton DID expand our mission there, and his Sec Def refused to provide the support requested by ground commanders, and "Black Hawk Down" happened.

The thing that has always made me so angry about this incident was there was a precursor. Those 4 MP's I mentioned above, and still no one was on the ball. Of course I don't judge the Clinton administration based on this screw-up. Bush's mistakes are huge in comparison. They should have studied Somalia and perhaps some of the current mistakes could have been prevented.

I couldn't even watch it for the 1st two years it came out, was just too personal.

Watch it from an MP's perspective--not one mention of the MP's who died first, like BHD just happened out of the blue with no warning. What a horrible waste of life. I hate this damned movie. It took me 4 hours to watch it. I kept having to walk away. Not the thing to try to watch while you're husband is deployed anyway.

[rebelskypirate]

12. I stand corrected

BamaGirl,

I stand corrected, and you are right, there were other KIA and WIA before 3 Oct, and other "Black Hawks" damaged by enemy fire. In the end, I feel the blame rests squarely on Sec Def Aspin, as it was he who refused the ground commander's requests for armour/air support. Any president is only as good as those who administer their policies, and at least President Clinton DID remove Sec Def Aspin for this deadly error. You are also right about lessons learned(or not learned) esp about the effectiveness of the RPG-7 in MOUT against Hummers....(and MH-60s)
I have nothing but respect for MPs (Security Forces in the USAF), I do have a couple years in the US Army Reserve prior to enlisting in the USAF, was at Ft McClellan for a while, sure you know where that is!(LOL).

Best wishes to you, and stay safe.

[BamaGirl]

13. Well, I hope

the Lounge grammar police don't head over here. :eyes: I was in such a hurry when I posted earlier to get to the pharmacy before it closes that I made all kinds of mistakes. Too late to edit.

Don't get me started on MOUT. I've heard several people say they never had that kind of training, and you gotta wonder why the hell not? We had a good MOUT area at McClellan, and we improvised elsewhere.

I have a lot of good memories of McClellan, but I actually liked Basic lol. My husband hates the place. Now that I have some time, I'm going to reply to something you said up above too. Our experience is obviously different. It would interesting to explore why.

[rebelskypirate]

15. You are welcome

BamaGirl,

You went to Basic there too huh? I went to Ft Jackson, "Tank" Hill vet....LOL....sure you heard a story or two about that place!

We all have different experiences in our military service, but also much of the same, the "band of brothers" (and sisters) stuff, loyalty, honor, and above all the best and worst of times. War brings out the very best side of humanity, and its very worst, and often at the same time, and thats something you and I can understand and HOPE that the vast majority of the American people NEVER do.

Best Wishes to you, stay safe, and have a great Xmas!

[BamaGirl]

16. Lol, bet you've heard this one...

the best assignment is the one you just came from or the one you're going to.


While I wouldn't wish war on anyone, I do wish more people served. I do wish more people understand what it is like to have kids under such circumstances. And I have always been a supporter of mandatory service. We would not be in this war if we had madatory service in this country.

I've heard the Tank Hill stories, but I'm an early 90's MP lol. I laugh at your Tank Hill. ;) It doesn't help that I know people who were MP's at Jackson. Hey, I ran my final pt test on TWO stress fractures lol. I am all about physical endurance and not a little pain lol.

[Dzimbowicz]

17. I disagree

It was not sending the troops into harm's way without the proper equipment, but rather improper planning on the part of the ground commanders.

[rebelskypirate]

19. You are wrong, sir

As someone who was directly involved with the events in question, I can say that is not correct. Both M1A1 tanks and AC-130s were requested but refused by Sec Def Aspen, with the AC-130s being refused due to, and I quote, "They are too warlike and would send the wrong message for our mission" I do not profess to understand THAT one, so I will not try to explain it. In the end, there is no question that had either of these two assets been there, the battle would have been very different in its results, and at least some of those 18 men would been alive. It is indeed possible that the very presence of either would have PREVENTED the fight altogether.
As I said in previous posts, the Sec Def made a BAD call, and was properly fired for it. I have no issues with President Clinton here, as I said, all presidents are only as good as those who administer their visions.

If you specific questions, I will do my best to answer within the limits of public domain information.

Take care, and enjoy the holidays!

[Dzimbowicz]

20. I will accept your personal knowledge of the event

as I was unaware of the directive by the Secretary of the Defense; I should have read more of what was posted here. I do agree that if the Rangers had had the proper support, the outcome probably would have been much different.

As a former NCO (USMC, 1974-80, SCARNG 80-83) and commissioned officer (SCARNG, 1983-90) I consider the commanders of specific operations responsible for their execution. That, however, is just my opinion; and what I was taught in all of my leadership training from the NCO Leadership Academy (3rd Mar Div) to the Armor Officer's Basic Course (USAAR School, Ft. Knox).

I would like to commend you on your politeness when you have a point to the contrary.

Here is one question I have which you might answer: were/are you a Warrant Officer or commissioned?



On Edit: I understand how you might feel about "Black Hawk Down". I have certain feelings about the Mayaguez Incident in 1975 which may be similar to yours. However, not that many people know about that event, or may be old enough to remember it. Here, eighteen Marines were KIA and over 40 WIA after the Cambodians had released the ship and its crew. We know today that three Marines were left behind and met their fate at the hands of the Khmer Rouge.

[rebelskypirate]

21. Thanks

Thanks for your kind words, there seem to be enough rude people in the world that it doesn't need me to be(LOL). Besides, I have always felt personal attacks show a weak position.

As to your question, I am not an officer, and the USAF doesn't have warrants(should, but thats another story). I do 100% agree with you about the responsibility of command, be it at the unit level or the top. As the Sec Def took it upon himself to "micro manage" those on the ground, I feel that he was responsible.

I know a little about the Mayaguez incident, several of my instructors were involved as was my stepfather. It was FUBAR, for sure, like Eagle Claw to follow in a few years.

Best wishes to you, and thanks to you for your service to our nation.

[Dzimbowicz]

22. The main problem with the Mayaguez Incident

was that it too was micro-managed from the top. Unfortunately, information did not travel as fast then as it does today. I was personally involved and will never forget that experience, but as I was only an eighteen year old PFC (in the Marines that is an E-2) not much information was shared with me. Only later on did I learn of the larger picture. The reputation of the Marines to never leave anyone behind was one of the reasons I chose the Corps over the other branches. To discover that three Marines were left behind owing to command error, alive, I might add, really cuts me to the quick. In addition to these three men, one KIA was left on the beach. This has been verified by the Joint Task Force for Full Accounting by DNA evidence.

You mentioned that it took you two years before you could watch the film "Black Hawk Down". To make a long story short, it took me ten years before I could go to the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. Panel 29E, line 102 has a very personal effect on me.

All the best to you and thank you for your service to our country.

[vitointn]

26. Re: Wrong sir

Rebel

More specifically, the request was for <b>Bradleys</b> and use of AC-130s.

The narrow streets of Mog would have meant easy mobility kills on an M-1.

I was at the Mog airport with 86th CSH until Jun 93 and also knew a couple of the killed.

One point that doesn't get alot of press was that the Armor mission was relegated to the Pakistanis (armored cars along the lines of the LAV-25). Seems they didn't want to leave the base to help with the extraction once word got out how hairy it was getting downtown. Probably still afraid from the 25 they lost a few months earlier.

[dems4israel]

23. I agree 100%

We have never fought such a poorly planned war even in Vietnam we were better armed.

[Charon]

31. No Democratic President

BS. Have you ever seen the photographs of Sherman Tanks stacked high with sand bags in a vain effort to slow down the German 88mm projectiles (Mr Roosevelt). How about the m-16 that did not work in Viet Nam (Mr Johnson). How about the Armor that was requested for Somolia and rejected by the Clinton Administration. Every Administration makes mistakes.

[Charon]

32. No Democratic President

Dont forget the thousands of sever frost bite cases from Korea because of a lack of proper winter gear (Mr. Truman.)

[Charon]

33. No Democratic President

During WWI the Wilson administration would not allow U.S. Soldiers to take the Browing Automatic Rifle (BAR) to Europe with them. The reason,they thought the Germans would make copies of it.
As a result, U.S. Doughboys had to use the piece of junk French Sho-sau (sic) light machine gun.

For the first two years of WWII,(Roosevelt) American torpedos failed 90% of the time. Hard to sink Japanese ships when your torpedos just bounce off their hulls without exploding.

[Herkdrvr]

34. Perspective

I by no means am trying to pick a side...just some things to consider:

As for armored vehicles, the "up-armor" Humvee is the first general-purpose light vehicle to be armored in such a way. WWII, Korea and Vietnam had jeeps. Few, if any, were armored, and lots of soldiers lost their lives in ambushes in those things.

In WWII, the Sheridan tank was the tank of choice but was vastly inferior to the German Panzers and Tigers of the day...many tank crewmen lost their lives because of a tank design that was about 10 years out of date.

As for the body armor situation, some people don't quite understand the real story behind it. EVERY soldier over there was issued some type of body armor. There were two kinds...the older kevlar style that entered service in the late 1980s and the newest Interceptor body armor that was just being fielded when OIF kicked off. Yes, the Interceptor body armor is much better than the older kevlar armor, and yes some families were buying soldiers this armor after those soldiers saw how well it worked compared to their older style armor. Most of the Interceptor armor went to soldiers in special forces units or front-line active infantry units...Guard and Reserve support units were among the last to get it. The new armor wasn't fielded as fast as some would have liked, but it's not quite the same as claiming soliders were sent without any body armor.

As for bullets? I never saw a shortage of rounds, but supply situations vary across the region.

As to military preparedness, you wrote your post as if Democrat presidents have always had well-prepared militaries...that's not true either. In fact, regardless of the party affiliation of the president, the US military historically has always been caught unprepared.

Ask any WWII Navy pilot about the F2A Buffalo fighter or the TBD Devastator torpedo bomber...both were horribly obsolete compared to rivals, but were front-line aircraft in the beginning of WWII...and many were lost (of all the TBDs that were sent against Japanese ships in the Battle of Midway...all were shot down and only one crewman survived...and they caused little or no damage to the Japanese fleet).

The Army Air Forces started WWII with the P-40 Warhawk...a modest fighter that had it's heyday in the mid 1930s. Only it's rugged design kept them from getting downed in greater numbers.

During the Battle of the Bulge, the 101st Airborne famously held Bastogne despite going into battle without proper winter clothing or enough supplies. In Korea, US forces were badly outmanned and out-equipped and were nearly defeated by the North Korean army. In Vietnam, the M-16 was brand new and jammed often (later fixed), and LBJ is often cited as the reason the excellent scout helicopter, the OH-6, was removed from service and replaced with the mediocre OH-58 (made by Bell Helicopter, a Ft. Worth company that Lady Bird owned stock in). In fact, the Army rejected the original OH-58 design (called the OH-4) in preference to the OH-6.

Again, not trying to pick on anyone in particular. Just saying that mistakes have been made in the past (some much larger and more spectacular than the mistakes made now), and some were made by Democrat administrations and others made by Republican administrations.

[Charon]

35. Perspectives

Excellent Post