>Edward Lee Pitts, the reporter who planted the
>question about armored Humvees, explains his
> motivation:

Ha ha ha! What a tool! Thinking that he might be in personal danger and wanting to find out why! I mean, seriously, what was he _thinking_? Get out there and report naked, the same way we expect our soldiers to fight!

density,

appropriate name. hey tell us this: how much time have you spent in the military?

you go from lack of armor on some subset of vehicles to full nakedness of our soldiers as if they have no equipment at all, when truth of the matter is they are the best equipped military in the history of the world.

typical idiotic liberal logic: ie none. Dense, is the sky falling where you live?

One thing I don't understand: at what point did that 'sic' after 'found' come in?

But..but...Michael...a representative of the mainstream media has uncovered the disturbing fact that some vehicles might be destroyed if hit by ordnance! Therefore they're all under-armored! WHAT MORE DO YOU NEEEEED?

Connected with him once I understood his butt was in danger too. Wasn't about JFK2 for once.

‘foud’ and was auto corrected, but wrong in original, but now made wrong again.

Quote three is an overlooked comment in the notorious email exposed by the Drudge Report. Edward Lee Pitts, the reporter who planted the question about armored Humvees, explains his motivation:

I have been trying to get this story out for weeks- as soon as I found (sic) out I would be on an unarmored truck - and my paper published two stories on it. But it felt good to hand it off to the national press.

This seems like a rare example of good reporting to me.

Since many are apparently missing the point, a paraphrase:

"I started caring furiously the minute I discovered my own ass was on the line!!!"

I cared before, I care now, but I'd start caring "furiously" if my butt was on the line too. Furiously? Maybe feverishly, certainly selfishly and probably accompanied by lots of whining and complaining. Call the reporter self-serving if you want...or credit him with a brilliant idea for getting his question asked. But I'm pretty darned tired of people suggesting that he "used" that GI. Any soldier with the guts to ask that question had more than enough guts to tell some punk reporter to stuff-it if he didn't agree with what he was being asked to do. Mr. Pitts obvious glee at "getting one past the handlers" seems a little sophomoric, but it's hardly a stretch of journalistic ethics to have done the deed.

Wow, Army Sergeant Dennis Edwards was found to be making up war stories, what's he gonna do next, run for President?

>appropriate name. hey tell us this: how much
> time have you spent in the military?

I guess it takes a military mind to understand why sending unarmored jeeps into an ambush zone is considered acceptable.

The other soldiers' reaction would seem to indicate that the question was neither unfamiliar nor unwelcome. I don't doubt that the reporters overstated the crowd reaction; I'd guess it was a few loudmouths rather than "the whole room" that burst into applause, but it's not as though there was a shocked hush and some dire muttering. And Rumsfeld's response was classic dumb-politico quote fodder. "You go to war with the Army you have"? Buddy, we're at war with the Army we had two years ago. In this day and age there is no reason for that to be the case.

I certainly understand that there is a mission to be carried out here, and I don't expect that the troops will be cowering in the bunker because their truck has sandbags on the floor instead of a purpose-built blast deflector. But the fact of the matter is that the military command is not doing its utmost to ensure that the armed forces in Iraq have the equipment needed for their mission. I would gladly pay extra taxes if it meant that some kid in the back of a hummer had more under his ass then the seat of his pants, and in fact I've done that through private donations. But I'm not being given that option.

Dense, you're grossly mis-informed in the matter. But I'll blame that on media spin, not personal failing. Virtually everything you've stated in your comment is wrong - see the 5 or so other entries on the topic (or any other MilBlog) on this site. Joe Galloway (no friend of the current admin) used the term 'miraculous' in his report on the progress made over the last 2 years.

That 'tax' bit is the underlying motivation of the left on this issue (I'm not claiming that's your political leaning) rest assured. But money isn't the problem here. As I said, read a few of the other entries here.

As to whether the reporter 'sneaking' his question in was valid or not, who cares? The Spec certainly wouldn't have asked it had he not been inclined to already.

The point of this particular post was simply the reporter's own motivation (self preservation - a natural instinct to be sure), but worth noting lest anyone mistakenly think he gave a damn about the lives of the GIs he was covering.

Bear in mind I'm in Iraq - not a requirement to have an opinion on the issue, but like the reporter's position it's something to weigh when considering my opinion.

>Joe Galloway...used the term 'miraculous'
>in his report on the progress made over
>the last 2 years.

But you can improve from "suck" and still suck.

>The point of this particular post was simply the
>reporter's own motivation...but worth noting
>lest anyone mistakenly think he gave a damn
>about the lives of the GIs he was covering.

So, what, if your own personal interest is tied up in a particular issue, you're not allowed to ask questions about that issue? I'm not sure what point you're trying to get across here. I didn't see the reporter claiming any kind of moral superiority here. Or is it the "hey I did pretty good" nature of the email? Whatever.

So I'm looking at your other posts, and I'm not really seeing convincing statements that the current situation is acceptable. My point here is that with American industrial capacity there's no reason why every vehicle patrolling in Iraq should NOT be properly equipped. You talk about "can-do attitude and perseverance", but why isn't that just as applicable to the guys up in Detroit? Iraq is clearly a dangerous place that requires a level of protection higher than canvas doors.

The fact that soldiers are bolting pieces of scrap metal to the sides of their overgrown SUVs does not make everything okay. Vietnam is often used as a comparison, but the most obvious example of vehicles changing to meet their requirement--the ACAV--was a conversion kit that was designed and installed at FMC. (And the later-model gun trucks consisted of an ACAV on the back of a truck.) Other posts discuss long-ranged aircraft removing armament and armor to improve speed, but those lighter aircraft were clearly not expected to perform the same way in combat. You wouldn't pull all the guns off a Hellcat and then send it out to intercept Kamikazes, and a long-range recon plane would be expected to flee rather than fight.

I'm sure that these issues are being addressed, and quickly. My feeling, though, is that they are not being addressed as quickly as possible, and that there is a general sense that "it's being taken care of and so it's not a problem anymore".

While I'm here...

"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." Thanks, Mister Secretary. That's a real confidence-builder, that is.

Oh come on, Density is right guys. You don't go to war unless you have every damn thing you need right down to the bullet. THEN you crank up those tanks.

Right?

And until women in Iraq have free and unrestricted access to abortion, the entire war is a complete and abject failure.

"Tanks can be blown up" was no surprise to anyone who knows tanks. Had all the devastating impact of "the sun rises in the east".

At least, on my world it does.

It's pretty simple.

We aren't going to armor every single multipurpose vehicle in the Army. No matter who's ass is on the line.