Rumsfeld, armor, and reactions: Part 1

Rumskull's initial comments on armored vehicles

On December 8, 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a trip to Camp Buehring in Kuwait to give a pep talk to members of the 278th Regimental Combat Team of the Tennessee Army National Guard before they deployed to Iraq. Next time Rumsfeld does something like this (assuming there will be a next time), he should emulate what Bush does in such staged events and not allow unknown questions. Instead, Rumskull opened up the floor for questions from the troops. Oops! As reported by the AP, there was an interesting exchange between Rumskull and Spc. Thomas Wilson.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.

A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson said after asking again.

Given that Rumsfeld bought some extra time by having Wilson repeat his question, one might think that he would come up with a really good answer. You can judge for yourself from the transcript of the exchange.

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. My question is more logistical. We’ve had troops in Iraq for coming up on three years and we’ve always staged here out of Kuwait. Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromise ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles and why don’t we have those resources readily available to us? [Applause]

SEC. RUMSFELD: I missed the first part of your question. And could you repeat it for me?

Q: Yes, Mr. Secretary. Our soldiers have been fighting in Iraq for coming up on three years. A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We’re digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that’s already been shot up, dropped, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament vehicles to carry with us north.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I talked to the General coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they’re not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I’m told that they are being – the Army is – I think it’s something like 400 a month are being done. And it’s essentially a matter of physics. It isn’t a matter of money. It isn’t a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It’s a matter of production and capability of doing it.

As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe – it’s a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment.

I can assure you that General Schoomaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but that they’re working at it at a good clip. It’s interesting, I’ve talked a great deal about this with a team of people who’ve been working on it hard at the Pentagon. And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up. And you can go down and, the vehicle, the goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on.

And General Whitcomb, is there anything you’d want to add to that?

GEN. WHITCOMB: Nothing. [Laughter] Mr. Secretary, I’d be happy to. That is a focus on what we do here in Kuwait and what is done up in the theater, both in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. As the secretary has said, it’s not a matter of money or desire; it is a matter of the logistics of being able to produce it. The 699th, the team that we’ve got here in Kuwait has done [Cheers] a tremendous effort to take that steel that they have and cut it, prefab it and put it on vehicles. But there is nobody from the president on down that is not aware that this is a challenge for us and this is a desire for us to accomplish.

SEC. RUMSFELD: The other day, after there was a big threat alert in Washington, D.C. in connection with the elections, as I recall, I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They’re not there anymore. [Cheers] [Applause] They’re en route out here, I can assure you.

(emphasis added).

Initial analysis of Rumskull's statements

• "You go to war with the Army you have..."

I will start with the comment that has received the most attention--"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." Now I know that I am nothing but a freedom-hating, smart-ass heathen civilian, but it seems to me that when you choose to go to war and when you choose the time that you go to war, you should not go to war until you have the army you want.

• "Production and the capability of doing it."

Rumsferatu said that getting more armored vehicles was basically a "matter of production and the capability of doing it." He also stated that the Army had greatly expanded the production of armor from what existed previously, but added that the Army believes this rate is "all that can be accomplished at this moment." When I first read these statements, I thought this seemed like a reasonable explanation, then my mind went back to "you should not go to war until you have the army you want." I wanted to know why production had not been ramped up before the war.

Before leaving this issue (for now), I point out that it is not clear what Rumsfeld was talking about specifically. Was he referring to production of armored humvees? By this I mean humvees that come out of the factory armored (these are called "up-armored"). Or was he referring to armor that is added to vehicles once they are in theater? General Whitcomb seemed to address armor being fitted on vehicles that were already in Kuwait. Also, what vehicles was Rumsfeld talking about? Just humvees, or other vehicles as well? These questions are relevant to the production and capability issue.

• Vehicles can still be blown up.

Rumskull talked about how every effort was being made to armor vehicles, and then he said, "And if you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored humvee and it can be blown up." Why the hell did he say that? It seems like he was basically saying "Why are you soldiers so concerned about armored vehicles? You can still get blown up, so quit your whining." He was there to pump up morale, and these comments certainly don't measure up to "Win one for the Gipper."

• The Pentagon Humvees

Rumskull closed with something that got applause and showed what a neat guy he is: "The other day...I looked outside the Pentagon and there were six or eight up-armored humvees. They’re not there anymore. They’re en route out here, I can assure you."

That's great, Don, but why were they at the Pentagon in the first place instead of in a war zone where our troops are getting killed? And why did it take until November 2004 for you to get them en route to Iraq?

Preview of subsequent analysis

The production and capability issue really is key. Essentially, the explanation given by powers that be is that 1) production could not be increased immediately, and 2) no one knew there would be such a great need for armored vehicles because 3) the need was created by the tactics that the insurgents started using beginning in August 2003. I will evaluate this explanation.