Originally posted by Sandman333:
Well, again, time for a little perspective. I was at Scania for the majority of my deployment. During that time, we did not have one Abrams, Bradley, or any other fighting vehicle heavier than a HMMWV. We didn't even have defensive mortar crews until mid-2004. Heaviest weapon on post was MK-19 Grenade machine gun. Nearly every logistical support item that went to Baghdad and North came through Scania.

Why weren't those defensive capabilities there? Lack of equipment (tanks go down for maintainance, and that takes a huge toll on your combat readiness) and trainted troops.


If the military was gutted during the Clinton years then why didn't Bush make it a priority to fix it? Funny, but I don't remember him making an issue of it during his first campaign or during his presidency.
One thing I do remember is military leaders stating that we would need around 300,000 troops to do the job in Iraq. The "military experts" in the Bush administration thought the job could be done with less than half that.
Also if he thought the military didn't have enough troops or equipment, why did he launch a major offensive in Iraq, when we hadn't even finished the job in Afganistan. Starting two wars without adequate troops or equipment seems a little irresponsible.
What do I know though, I'm not an expert like you.

Dueling Duratecs '95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods '04 Mazda6 S Wagon '03 Kawasaki Z1000 But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful! Friedrich Nietzsche