Armor in Iraq

Our planning for the Iraq War is taking more hits based on the question of a soldier to Secretary Rumsfeld in Kuwait about inadequate armor.

I have only two things to add to his debate:

If the Army, over the last twenty years, had asked for the money to pay for armored Humvees and trucks (and yes they are much more expensive to buy and maintain) do you think Congress would have complied? Do you think the critics of defense spending would have said yes, our troops need the protection no matter how unlikely a future war will place them in harm's way? Or would they have complained that rear-echelon troops would not need the armor and that we can't afford the cost?

And weren't "reformer" critics of the Army complaining during the early stages of the insurgency by the Baathists that the Army was too heavy and needed to send light, mobile forces to Iraq and to get those troops out of their armored vehicles and into soft caps to walk the beat?

In peacetime, when nobody is shooting at us, we talk speed. In war we remember that armor rules. We're just remembering that rule. We really do go to war with the army we have and not the army we wish to have. We are and will successfully adapt to changing circumstances. This amazing ability to adapt is the real story of armor in Iraq. Not that the press or war critics care. They just found a new club to use against the war effort and they'll swing it. Check this out for some more perspective.

We also go to war with the enemy we have and not the enemy we wish to have. Remember that corrollary the next time somebody says nobody can face us on battlefield.

Ok, I had more than two things to say.