Article

2005-04-25 Fifth Column

NYT: Evil Pentagon Sends Marines Away To Die Without Armor

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-04-25 11:22|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Who would have thought that the NYT was one of the Marines' biggest supporters? I bet the whole editorial board drives up to Maine every time a Marine unit is coming home to welcome them. And I bet the NYT gives hiring preferences to Marine combat correspondents looking for a job. ("You were in the Marines and you want a job here? Emily, please escort this... person from my office, and call the janitor.")

Posted by Matt 2005-04-25 1:11:26 PM|| 2005-04-25 1:11:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I remember Somalia when Clinton pulled the armor out so as not to provoke the Somali's, which didn't turn out too well as I recall. I don't believe the Times considered that a national scandal, at least I never read their call on it at the time. Most likely, they probably praised Clinton for preserving America's precious energy resources, as those tanks sucked a lotta gas.

Posted by tu3031 2005-04-25 1:19:46 PM|| 2005-04-25 1:19:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 More about the same Marine company:

Posted by Lone Ranger 2005-04-25 1:22:51 PM|| 2005-04-25 1:22:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 More about the same Marine company:

Posted by Lone Ranger 2005-04-25 1:24:30 PM|| 2005-04-25 1:24:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 More about the same Marine company:

http://www.militaryproject.org/article.asp?id=320

Posted by Lone Ranger 2005-04-25 1:25:02 PM|| 2005-04-25 1:25:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 You know I respect a GIs right to bitch and complain, but now-a-days maybe they should be selective about who they bitch to. Yes almost ALL HUMVs were unarmored prior to the Gulf War, but that was a decision made by the CLINTON administration. A decision based on saving money and addressing the current need for a lightly armored transport/utility vehicle. Ok the threat changed AFTER Saddam got booted and the need to armor up the vehicles was identified. Unless somethings changed in hte last six months most (if not all) of the HUMVs should be armored up in Iraq. To infer that President Bush or Rummy don't care and are not addressing the problem. I think Rumsfeld said they were cranking out the armor kits as fast as production would allow. Sometimes GIs have to improvise in order to get the job done and in this case they should be applauded for taking the initiative to armor the vehicles themselves.

After D-Day in 1945 the Americans found themselves fighting the Germans in the 'Hedgegrove' countryside of France. Some enterprising GIs took some anti-tank barriers and welded them to the front of tanks. They then used these to cut through the hedgegrove and defeat the Germans. Never during that battle did the Times come out with a story on how Rosevelt didn't provide the troops with hedgegrove breaching equipment.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2005-04-25 2:03:57 PM|| 2005-04-25 2:03:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 It's difficult to comment on these two stories. On the face of it, the Marines were underequipped and undermanned. Yet, reading in to the stories, they continued their aggressive patrols and took a significant toll of the enemy.

This was a week after we took out that "wedding party" in the same area. This was during the uprising in the South, as well. I think some of the answer to the supply issues is that "We're busy!"

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2005-04-25 2:09:24 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2005-04-25 2:09:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 It's unseemly for Marines to bitch about the lack of equipment when there's Army units in the vicinity with ample supply.

Posted by Shipman 2005-04-25 3:39:46 PM|| 2005-04-25 3:39:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Here, here, Ship! I believe it shows a distinct lack of initative. When my CO presented me with my Good Conduct ribbon, he laughed and said it was for 4 years of undetected crime.

Posted by Doc8404 2005-04-25 8:12:59 PM|| 2005-04-25 8:12:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 LOL Doc! When I got my first award my CO said "I will take written rebuttals after Commanders Call." I just knew how to get things done without a lot of red tape or paper work.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2005-04-25 8:19:14 PM|| 2005-04-25 8:19:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Fuck they NYT. Mattis had it right, tragic shit happens in war, adapt and overcome. It was a new kind of war in April of last year, though many reporters seem to forget that. Now we have these armored humvees where the belly plate is so heavy it takes the vehicle 400 lbs over it's max weight and slows it down by 15 mph so the engine doesn't overheat. Now they'll bitch that we are becoming slower targets to direct fire systems. 'Hardening' vehicles w/sandbags has always been sop. Humvees were never intended to take a shap charge blast from the sides or below. Making it seem like that was some new improvised method of protection is mis-leading the uninformed reader.

Posted by Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead 2005-04-25 8:49:31 PM|| 2005-04-25 8:49:31 PM|| Front Page Top

23:55 thibaud (aka lex)
23:50 thibaud (aka lex)
23:36 Frank G
23:27 Old Patriot
23:25 gromgoru
23:20 SR-71
23:17 ed
23:16 Frank G
23:15 badanov
23:07 Atomic Conspiracy
22:59 Old Patriot
22:58 Phil Fraering
22:39 SC88
22:36 Jackal
22:22 Jackal
22:20 Jackal
22:19 Jackal
22:11 Jackal
21:57 Jackal
21:48 jules 2
21:47 Dennis Kucinich
21:39 Super Hose
21:15 Matt
21:10 JKerry