The Boston Globe has a troubling story about the overall state of Marine equipment readiness over the next few years, including this fabulous information:
Marine Corps units fighting in some of the most dangerous terrain in Iraq don’t have enough weapons, communications gear, or properly outfitted vehicles, according to an investigation by the Marine Corps’ inspector general provided to Congress yesterday.
The report, obtained by the Globe, says the estimated 30,000 Marines in Iraq need twice as many heavy machine guns, more fully protected armored vehicles, and more communications equipment to operate in a region the size of Utah.
The Marine Corps leadership has ”understated” the amount and types of ground equipment it needs, according to the investigation, concluding that all of its fighting units in Iraq ”require ground equipment that exceeds” their current supplies, ”particularly in mobility, engineering, communications, and heavy weapons.”
Complaints of equipment shortages in Iraq, including lack of adequate vehicle armor, have plagued the Pentagon for months, but most of the reported shortages have been found in the Army, which makes up the bulk of the American occupation force.
The analysis of the Marines’ battle readiness, however, shows that the Corps is lacking key equipment needed to stabilize Al Anbar province in western Iraq. The province is where some of the bloodiest fighting has occurred in recent months between American-led coalition forces and Iraqi insurgents aided by foreign fighters who have slipped across the border.
Not sure where to go with this other than to say that heavy machine guns should not be optional.
Where the hell is all the money going?
*** Update ***
Andrew Olmstead has some remarks that are tangentially related this issue but really deals with this post about body armor, addressing the difference between perceptions and reality. Always defer to your military superiors.
Anderson
“Where the hell is all the money going?”
To our “civilian contractors,” it seems. We’ve downsized the military so that we’re paying a civilian $100K to do the job we’d pay a grunt $25K. That probably adds up pretty damn fast.
metalgrid
At some point, I went from being outraged at such actions to being amused that we’ve just been taken for a ride by people in power to consolidate their power and money and influence. And the apologists are the enablers.
Russ
I’ll bet the Marines have pretty much what their Table of Organization & Equipment says they should have. So this sounds to me more like a dispute over what the TO&E should be.
Not, mind you, that I think a TO&E should be telling units that, e.g., the most they should have is “x” heavy MGs. If the troops need more, they should be supplied, period.
But I read this as a criticism of the inadequacy of the current TO&E… and as any vet knows, prewar plans – including planned equipment usage – rarely if ever survive contact with the enemy, or indeed any other part of the real world.
Tim F
We lost billions-with-a-b in reconstruction funds, good ol’ profiteering, embezzlement and graft. That money had to come from somewhere.
Jon H
If the government considers a draft, I hope their first round of draftees consists of all the contractors.
Tim F
Russ, you’re getting at the Shinseki Principle. Requisitions and TO&E get lowballed because commanders know that realistic requests will bring a rapid end to their careers. Troops have to write home for armor but their commanders get that extra stripe for making papa Rummy happy.
Bombadil
I thought all the money was going into painting schools.
SomeCallMeTim
I find these sorts of claims hard to believe. We could give every military person over there a 100K voucher for whatever equipment they wanted, and it would still run to around $10 bill. That’s only 10 weeks of war. How could we possibly be under supplying them? It’s just too stupid a PR move for the price. I firmly believe this Administration is as stupid and corrupt as any we’ve ever had, but they aren’t this stupid and corrupt.
Nikki
I thought all the money was going into painting schools.
It is. And the paint costs $1,000 a gallon, not to mention the $500 brushes.
Tim F
Tim: garden-variety stupid people can create incentive systems that have mind-bogglingly stupid results. If realistic requisitions get the requisitioner demoted and idiotically short requisitions get the requisitioner promoted, the outcome should be obvious. There really isn’t any other possible outcome, since promotions in the Bush administration obviously don’t take into account actual performance.
The Shinseki Principle, described above.
Anderson
I firmly believe this Administration is as stupid and corrupt as any we’ve ever had, but they aren’t this stupid and corrupt.
Right. How could anyone believe that?
Richard Bottoms
Haliburton.
No scandal though.
Nothing to see folks, keep moving.
Barry
John:
“Always defer to your military superiors.”
But stop before the bullsh*t reaches your chin, because otherwise the breathing gets harder.
This administration has had Congress eating out of their hand since 9/11. It’s actual news when the Congress acts like they’re not hirelings of the administration.
If Rumsfield wanted it, he could have asked for it, and have gotten it as fast as humanly possible.
Considering that this war has been on the front burner since before the last survivor was pulled out of Ground Zero, there has been plenty of time to make massive TOE adjustments, and to increase production of most of the shortage items.
John Cole
But stop before the bullsh*t reaches your chin, because otherwise the breathing gets harder.
I was referring to Andrew, who is a Major, while I was but an NCO.
Nice splenetic rant, though…
Barry
Sorry about the spleen, John. However, it is the truth. This war has been on the administration’s wish list since before 9/11. Afghanistan was just something that they had to do to get to Iraq.
They’ve wanted this war for years; the only special preparations that they made were a large-scale info blitz, against the American people.
They should be judged on that basis; for practical purposes, we *did* go to war with the army that we wanted, compared to most wars.
The really sick joke is – imagine if they had tried to go on to Syria and Iraq and the rest of the Middle East? They didn’t even prepare for one real war.
JG
I thought it was common knowledge that as soon as we got a republican in the White House that Saddam was gone. All through the Clinton years I and every republican I know thought that.
Rick
JG,
I was hoping that back in ’98, when it became U.S. policy. And I wouldn’t have been a chickenhawk then, because that was before my reserve retirement.
Cordially…
Barry
It wouldn’t surprise me. The heart of the matter is that this was a war of choice, one which was anticipated. It wasn’t caused by 9/11, it was enabled by 9/11.
The administration should be judged on that, and the preparations should be judged on that.
John Cole
For the love of everything holy, Barry- would you submit your comments ONCE.
If you get an error, go back twice and refresh.
Comment all you want, but pls make the same comment once. I understand the function is buggy, but I am working on it.
Barry
I’m sorry, John – I’m previewing, hitting post, getting an error message telling me to wait again, and then reposting.
I’ll keep a second window open, refresshing it to check for my post’s progress.
Again, sorry.
Barry
Found what’s going on – when I get the message that the post failed due to too frequent posting, and to wait again,
the post has actually been posted.
Does that help?
Barry
Also, the error message:
“An error occurred:
No entry_id”
doesn’t mean that the post didn’t go through.
jdm
So, Barry, the administration wanted to go to war since before 9/11, but it doesn’t want to win? Or it does want to win, but with inferior, bad, or no equipment? Or what?
I’m sure that in some feverish sort of way this makes sense to you, but I think I’ll need more insight into these contentions.
cfw
One might also question whether the IG has it wrong in saying the Marines need more heavy machine guns.
If they mean .50 calibre, with tracers, designed to take out lightly armored vehicles, Marines might have what they should have.
Under the law of war, as I recall, one does not use such weapons against infantry (absent justifying circumstances).
It is not a LOW justifying circumstance to say a .50 is accurate to a longer range and leaves huge holes in people.
Still, IG could easily be right, if the report focuses on “we need .50s to stop cars loaded with explosives 1000+ yards away that one cannot easily stop with a light machine gun.”
My sense is one cannot know if the car is a proper Iraq insurgent in-coming target at that range, at a check point, most of the time.
Jason Van Steenwyk
cfw –
There’s nothing in the law of land warfare prohibiting the use of .50 cal. weapons on troops. That’s an old wives’ tale. You can use whatever firearm you happen to have with you. You just can’t use hollow-points, alter the bullets, or poison the rounds.
I agree with the guy who said this is a criticism of the Table of Organization and Equipment.
The Marine Corps force was designed for amphibious light infantry actions. It is now fighting a totally different battle, logistically. They’re fighting as motorized infantry, with tank reinforcements. Totally different, and logistical problems are to be expected.
The operational requirement for 50 cal machine guns in the kind of fight they’re in now are on the order of two per platoon. That’s enough to equip two gun trucks, which can escort a 4 truck convoy and enable a platoon to move. Plus the two guns can provide mutually supporting fire from the flanks in a platoon level op.
But NO light battalion was designed like that – army or Marine Corps. The 50 cals are not practical for light infantry. They’re too big. It takes two people to carry one, and even then you won’t want to carry it that far. You have to mount it in a fixed position, or on a vehicle. And under the Expiditionary TO&Es, and the Air Assault and Airborne and light TO&E’s, you don’t get vehicles at the platoon level.
The ONLY units that would have two or more 50 cals at the platoon level are the tank battalions and the mech infantry battalions, which would have about four per platoon. The Army converted many of these units to mounted infantry.. They kept maybe one tank company per Bn and converted the rest to Humvees. But the platoons still have their .50 cals and two M240 Bravos per platoon.
The light/heavy difference is by design, and is decades old. It’s not going to change overnight.
Barry
“So, Barry, the administration wanted to go to war since before 9/11, but it doesn’t want to win? Or it does want to win, but with inferior, bad, or no equipment? Or what?
I’m sure that in some feverish sort of way this makes sense to you, but I think I’ll need more insight into these contentions.”
Posted by jdm
Explaining the administration’s conduct of the war without assuming hefty doses of incompetance, arrogance, fraud, and negligence is pretty impossible.
I support a combination of Rumsfieldian arrogance and the fact that the administration couldn’t afford to prepare properly for the war that was needed:
1) Rumsfieldian arrogance. He (and many in the adminstration) wanted to show that the US could win in a short, easy techno war; that most of the US Army and Marine Corps were obsolete. IIRC, he had to be talked up to 130K troops.
2) Needing to do the war on the cheap (credit: Jim Henley). If the administration had decided to go the smart route, they’d have called up every NG/Reservist in Fall, 2002, with 18 month active duty orders, and started them on intensive training for the occupation. Meanwhile, every active-duty unit which could be moved to the Middle East would have been on the way – not just the ones which were actually sent. Third, supplies sufficient to support (say) 250,000 initial troops + 100,000 coming in April would be moved to the Middle East. Production of much light (e.g., less than tank-sized) military equipment would be ramped up as fast as possible.
This would be painfully obvious to most Americans, and the administration’s line about a cheap, fast and easy war would fall flat. Congress might actually have objected to the war. Therefore, it was politically necessary for the administration to run the war on the cheap.
cfw
“There’s nothing in the law of land warfare prohibiting the use of .50 cal. weapons on troops. That’s an old wives’ tale. You can use whatever firearm you happen to have with you. You just can’t use hollow-points, alter the bullets, or poison the rounds.”
I agree that one can use any weapon in reasonable self defense. My training was from Army JAG in 1981. I do recall issues about 50s against infantry back then at least.
Until one is captured, like the US submarine crews in WWII, and accused of war crimes (there, sinking civilain freighters without warnings and shooting folks in the water with 50’s or larger weapons, as I recall), it is easy to say “who cares”.
I liked your discussion of TOE issues. I suppose it makes a difference how you plan to use the platoons. In open space, running after bad guys on the highway, the IG might have a point – more 50s seems like a good idea. More defensively, at checkpoints or in urban patrols, 50s might pose a bit too much of a risk of civilian casualties, no?