Difficulty Telling The Truth About Iraq

Listening to Republican House member Heather Wilson from New Mexico speak in the debate over a resolution calling the Bush administration to task regarding Iraq, with specific focus on the troop surge, the "new mission" and the "new plan," one would imagine that the resolution called for a complete unfunding of every operation in Iraq. She very dramatically, and very emotionally, called upon the House to include in the resolution specific statements that the current operations would continue to be funded so that the troops on the ground would receive body and vehicular armor. Listening to Ms. Wilson, one would assume that the troops on the ground were actually receiving such equipment at present. But such is not the case.

General Schoomaker, the Army Chief of Staff and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently indicated that 40% of all military equipment was in depots awaiting repairs. Schoomaker also indicated that much of the equipment currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan is not up to standards regarding armor and technology. Additionally, the Army has cited a need for $11 billion in equipment upgrades, replacements and/or newer technologies.

Army Draws Up $11 Billion Wish List To Meet Unfunded Needs

The Army will send a roughly $11 billion funding wish list for fiscal 2008 to Capitol Hill that includes a desire for additional money for new vehicles and other gear, Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker told the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Friday morning.

Testifying at a budget hearing that turned bitterly partisan, Schoomaker outlined a list of so-called unfunded requirements -- items that did not make the cut for inclusion in the Army's fiscal 2008 wartime and base budgets -- that is substantially higher than similar requests in fiscal 2007 and fiscal 2006, which together totaled $12.2 billion.

The list includes additional funds for the Mine Resistant Anti-Ambush Protected Vehicle, an Army-Marine Corps program whose V-shaped hull will offer better protection from roadside bombs, Schoomaker said. It also includes more funding for aircraft survivability equipment for Army planes and helicopters not deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as more money to buy night-vision devices and fix the service's truck fleet, he said. It also includes $2 billion to make up shortfalls in fiscal 2007 base closure accounts.

So, if the Army is seeking an $11 billion upgrade, why is it that there are statements coming out of the Pentagon indicating our troops are entering combat areas with adequate gear? Why is it Representative Marty Meehan, a Democrat from Massachusetts, countered Wilson's statements on providing our troops with the proper equipment by citing facts released to Congress that indicate our troops are still going into combat situations without the proper ceramic inserts for the Kevlar vests and without proper armor on Humvees and other vehicles? Why is it that even the statements from the Pentagon indicate that, despite the statement that our troops are fully equipped, there will be some troops that will not receive their gear "right away"?

Iraq-Bound Troops Have Adequate Gear, Army Officials Say

Army leaders attempted Wednesday to allay mounting congressional concerns that thousands of additional soldiers deploying to Iraq do not have adequate protective gear and other equipment.

Army Secretary Francis Harvey told the House Armed Services Committee that all of the 21,500 troops deploying under President Bush's "surge" will be fully trained and equipped. However, with non-deployed forces experiencing lagging readiness levels, some units will not receive all of their gear until they arrive at a staging base in Kuwait, Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker said.

Last time I checked, there were numerous reports that non-combat troops--those not specifically assigned combat missions but who might be deployed on supply caravans and transport missions--are still not receiving the ceramic body armor inserts 100% of the time. Here it is almost four years into operations in Iraq, almost two years after Rumsfeld's infamous quote regarding the "Army we have", and our troops still do not enter combat areas (Kuwait and the Persian Gulf are within the combat zone) with proper equipment.

Not Supporting Our Troops

How do you explain to the thousands of American troops now being poured into Baghdad that they will have to wait until the summer for the protective armor that could easily mean the difference between life and death?

It’s bad enough that these soldiers are being asked to risk their lives without President Bush demanding that Iraq’s leaders take any political risks that might give the military mission at least an outside chance of success. But according to an article in The Washington Post this week, at least some of the troops will be sent out in Humvees not yet equipped with FRAG Kit 5 armor. That’s an advanced version designed to reduce deaths from roadside bombs, which now account for about 70 percent of United States casualties in Iraq.

The more flexible materials used in the FRAG Kit 5 make it particularly helpful in containing the damage done by the especially deadly weapon the Bush administration is now most concerned about: those explosively formed penetrators that Washington accuses Iran of supplying to Shiite militias for use against American troops.

Older versions of Humvee armor are shattered by these penetrators, showering additional shrapnel in the direction of a Humvee’s occupants. The FRAG Kit 5 helps slow the incoming projectile and contains some of the shrapnel, giving the soldiers a better chance of survival.

Then again, the Army is also cutting back in some places that might not make a lot of sense to most of us:

Army Trims And Stretches Future Combat Program

The Army acknowledged Wednesday it sliced $3.4 billion over the next six years from its principal modernization program to fund more immediate needs of the heavily deployed service.

The decision to cut Future Combat Systems was "strictly budget driven," given the enormity of the Army's needs, service officials said while briefing reporters at the Pentagon. They emphasized that the $160 billion technology transformation program, in development since 2003, is meeting cost goals and is largely on schedule.

One has to wonder at the above statement that projects currently in development are meeting cost goals, budgets and schedules. In my entire life I have yet to find a military project that met all the cost goals, followed the initial budget allocations, and/or met with all the schedules.

Somehow, I do not think we are getting the truth from our leaders. Aren't our political leaders supposed to be telling us the truth? Aren't our military leaders supposed to report matters in an accurate and truthful manner? If we cannot trust them to report the truth on these matters, can we really trust them on other matters? Can we rely upon the statements offered to us that reinforce their entrenched views and ideology regarding what is or is not occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan?

On top of all of the Army's requests and delays, the Marines are submitting an additional wish list for similar equipment:

New Mine Resistant Vehicles Top Marines' $3.2 Billion Wish List

The Marine Corps has sent a $3.2 billion wish list to Capitol Hill detailing equipment -- including new vehicles designed to better protect U.S. forces in Iraq -- that did not make the cut for the Defense Department's massive fiscal 2008 budget proposal.

In particular, the service would like another $2.8 billion next year to buy 2,700 additional Mine Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles, whose V-shaped hull offers much better protection than armored Humvees against roadside bombs, by far the deadliest threat to U.S. troops in Iraq.

The Marine Corps already has received enough funding for this fiscal year to buy 805 vehicles, known as MRAPs. And service officials have requested enough money in the fiscal 2007 wartime supplemental to buy another 244 vehicles later this year, fulfilling the service's initial MRAP order.

It seems that the statements that our troops are fully equipped is not the "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Then again, the Army and Marines are not the only branches of the military suffering from equipment woes. The Navy and the Coast Guard are experiencing major problems with ships, boats, arms and more. The Coast Guard's problems have been occurring for quite some time, going back to at least 2004. But the Navy's problems are more recent, but equally frustrating and wrought with embarrassing issues.

Navy Official 'Embarrassed' By Cost Overruns On Combat Ship

Chief of Naval Operations Michael Mullen said Tuesday he is "embarrassed" by hefty cost overruns on the Littoral Combat Ship, but said he expects to get the program back on track as early as next month.

There is "plenty of blame to go around" between the defense industry and Navy officials who failed to adequately oversee the program, Mullen told the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee during a hearing on the Navy and Marine Corps fiscal 2008 budget request.

Again, where is the truthfulness of the situation involving the overall military picture? We cannot rely upon the executive branch to provide us with accurate, truthful and professionally reliable statements on the condition of our military, or the conditions present in Iraq. So how can we rely on statements that report new threats being presented by Iranian agents in Iraq? Given that President Bush has authorized the unlawful detention of Iranian citizens present in Iraq under conditions of diplomatic immunity, as well as the unlawful execution of Iranians present in Iraq and suspected of aiding insurgents, without any legal process whatsoever, how can we rely on statements coming regarding the nature of the Iranian presence in Iraq. In all likelihood, there are Iranian factions present in Iraq that are aiding the insurgency. But we cannot trust the statements, evidence, intelligence or claims offered by anyone in the executive branch. We were lied to regarding the weapons of mass destruction. We were lied to regarding the ties of Hussein to Al-Qaeda. We were lied to regarding the effectiveness of operations in Iraq. What evidence is there that we are not being lied to once again? With all of the lives of military troops currently on the ground in Iraq at risk, and the potential for almost 40,000 more troops to be at risk in the near future, can we rely upon the assurances from the Bush administration? I think not. My grandmother used to warn me that one of the worst human beings ever to exist was a liar... and President Bush is a proven liar.

Bush Declares Iran’s Arms Role in Iraq Is Certain

President Bush said Wednesday that he was certain that factions within the Iranian government had supplied Shiite militants in Iraq with deadly roadside bombs that had killed American troops. But he said he did not know whether Iran’s highest officials had directed the attacks.

Mr. Bush’s remarks amounted to his most specific accusation to date that Iran was undermining security in Iraq. They appeared to be part of a concerted effort by the White House to present a clearer, more direct case that Iran was supplying the potent weapons — and to push back against criticism that the intelligence used in reaching the conclusions was not credible.

Speaking at a news conference in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Bush dismissed as “preposterous” the contention by some skeptics that the United States was drawing unwarranted conclusions about Iran’s role. He publicly endorsed assertions that had until now been presented only by anonymous military and intelligence officials, who have said that an elite branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps known as the Quds Force has provided Shiite militias in Iraq with the sophisticated weapons that have been responsible for killing at least 170 American soldiers and wounding more than 600.

“I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated I.E.D.’s that have harmed our troops,” Mr. Bush said, using the abbreviation for improvised explosive device. “And I’d like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds Force was ordered from the top echelons of the government. But my point is, what’s worse, them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and its happening?”

But the desperate condition of our military is not limited to equipment needs. We are so stretched in terms of trained personnel that we are not only calling up National Guard units, recycling those who have already served tours in combat areas, and placing stop-gap measures on troops seeking to leave military service, but also lowering the recruiting standards to allow criminals to enlist. A significant number of those enlisting with criminal waivers are also getting into trouble with military legal entanglements. Such troubles with recruits having a criminal past have proven embarrassing and/or dangerous in the past. One has to question the wisdom of allowing so many waivers, almost double from the previous year.

US Military Accepting More Recruits With Criminal Records

US military branches continue to accept a greater number of recruits with criminal records, granting recruiting waivers, according to data compiled by the US Defense Department. The Army accepted over twice as many recruits with criminal records in 2006 than it did in 2003, granting 901 felony waivers in 2006 as compared to the 411 recruits waived in 2003. The number of waivers granted for misdemeanors rose to over 6,000 in 2006, as opposed to 2,700 issued in 2003.

Felony and misdemeanor waivers are granted upon request by the military branches, in order to allow persons to serve in the armed forces even though their criminal record would normally preclude them from doing so. Commanding officers in the Army expressed concern last year that the drop in standards associated with an increase in recruiting waivers would lead to discipline problems within units.

But then our government, despite the claims by the Bush administration that the sacrifice of our troops is deeply appreciated, is ignoring the needs of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only have returning vets had difficulty returning to the jobs they left behind when called to active duty, but the laws protecting their employment status has been poorly enforced and ineffectively processed, forcing vets to seek employment elsewhere rather than wait for the system to work. But disabled vets returning from harms' way have it even harder, demonstrating that the Bush administration is offering us even more lies about what goes on with our troops.

Report: Agencies Fail To Track Disabled Reservists' Complaints

Federal agencies are failing to track employment complaints filed by returning military reservists with disabilities, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Defense Department has mobilized more than 500,000 reservists. But "as demobilized reservists eventually return to their civilian life, their civilian employment and the difficulties they face in dealing with re-employment matters remain areas of interest," GAO said in a letter to Congress.

Reserve soldiers are entitled under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act to get their old jobs back when they return from active duty, as long as they meet certain requirements. Some reservists who have incurred disabilities as a result of military service file complaints with the government over their inability to return to civilian employment.

We need to take some serious actions so that we can change the negative direction that we are taking in Iraq. We need to take some serious actions so that we can rein in the out-of-control executive branch led by a president, vice president and cabinet more willing to spin, lie, mislead, misdirect and beguile us than provide us with the truth or reliable leadership.