Hmmm...with that kind of background one would think that Secretary Gates would be a bit more sympathetic towards our cause.

Yes, one would think so; but so far he has not been much of a friend to Cold Warriors.

One thing I will say about him is that he actually seems to get it when it comes to the war formerly known as the GWOT.  His predecesor, Rumpswab...er...Rumsfeld didn't get it.

Do you remember that scene in Iraq where the National Guard corpral asked Rumpswab...er...Rumsfeld why he and his fellow soldiers had to go rumaging through the garbage dumps to find stuff to up-armor their Humvees?  Well, Rumpswab...er...Rumsfeld said that "we go to war with the Army we have, not the one we wish we had", or words to that effect.  What Rumpswab...er...Rumsfeld didn't tell everyone was that there were about 700 battle ready M113 armored personnel carriers just sitting across the border in Kuwait, not being used.  Rumpswab...er...Rumsfeld let our troops face IEDs, RPGs, and small arms fire in unarmored Humvees rather than allow tracked vehicles into the conflict.  They were trying to prove that the Interim Fighting Vehicle ("Interim" because it was already determined to be inadequate) now known as the Stryker could take the place of armored tracked vehicles.  The new and "improved" modular Army's light wheeled vehicle program was not going to be set back merely to protect the force under the Rumpswab...er...Rumsfeld DoD.  Funding the "next big thing" was taking priority all across the Pentagon.  Heck, I read and heard live testimony on CSPAN, that the Generals were concerned that they would not complete their pet project of force modernization in time, before the cessation of hostilities in Iraq.  That was their big concern, force modernization, not WINNING THE FRIKKEN WAR we were in the middle of fighting!!!  Hurray for Rumpswab...er...Rumsfeld and his plan.

So, when Gates took over as SecDef, he changed the focus.  He brought upgraded Super Gavins into the mix, got the MRAPs that were needed, and oversaw the troop surge recommended by the commander on the ground, Gen. Petraeus.  Guess what?  Concentrating on WINNING THE FRIKKEN WAR we were in the middle of fighting actually worked!  Who would have thought it?  Obviously, Rumpswab...er...Rumsfeld wasn't smart enough to figure it out.

Unlike Rumpswab...er...Rumsfeld, whose focus was force modernization, Gates said: 

"But I believe the risk is far greater — to that institution as well as to our country — if we were to fail in Iraq. That is the war we are in. That is the war we must win."

"I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called Next-War-itis — the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in favor of what might be needed in a future conflict,"

So, credit where credit is due.  SecDef Gates at least appears to have a clue.  Gates at least seems to grasp that we have to go about WINNING THE FRIKKEN WAR we were in the middle of fighting rather than sacrificing lives on the alter of high priced toys from defense contractors to fight possible future conflicts. 

Links supporting my statements:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062200913.html

http://www.geocities.com/armorhistory/trackedvehicleupgrades.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24600218/

While I have no use for Dumbsfeld either, I would like to point that the M113 would have been just as ineffective against IEDs because the flat box shape of the design basically contains and channels the explosive force of the IED blast right into the passenger bay thru the weak underside armor.

Early in the conflict, the IEDs were relatively low power weapons of poor design.  Also, many IEDs (not all) are/were positioned on the side of the road rather than embedded in the road surface.  I was recently privileged to utilize an IED training facility where I walked through a dismounted patrol lane.  If that was representative of the threat (and I believe that it was), then the majority of IEDs are not embedded.  Also, you may or may not know that as armor improved on U.S. vehicles, the enemy changed tactics and began placing IEDs higher up on road signs, utility poles, and trees to take advantage of weaker areas of the "armored" Humvee. 

The fact remains that the M113 provides significantly improved RPG and small arms protection compared to either unarmored Humvees that were in use early in the war or the armored Humvees of today.  Also, timing is critical in war.  The M3 Grant was an effective tank in 1942, but was lousy in 1944.  The fact that the M113s were there and available while our troops were driving around in unarmored Humvees is significant.  BTW, the MRAPS that we didn't seem to be able to manage to provide to our troops under Rumpswab's...er...Rumsfeldl's tenure; well, somehow we managed to provide 600 to the Iraqi forces while saying we could only get a few dozen for Americans.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070716/1a_iedcoverxx.art.htm

Read up on what Israel is doing with their M113s:

http://www.defensereview.com/imi-urban-fighter-apcifv-out-mraps-mrap-for-mobile-anti-iedefp-protection/

BTW, the M113 is amphibeas, parachute deployable, and faster than the Bradley.

Just thought you might like to know...

Well I'm an MP and I have yet to eat dust and sand for a year so I knowledge of M-113s and IEDs is very limited.

That was what I was told when I asked why M-113s weren't used and it made sense to me.

Of course I always bow to those with actual operational knowledge, so I'll take your word for it.

Obviously, Gates has all his medals, and adding to his already prestigious medals won't do anything more to make him feel better. He sounds like a real political type of guy based on his medals.  WHY AWARDED 3 TIMES the highest CIA medal ever like Distinguised Intelligence Medal???  That's like getting a MOH three times.   How many languages does he speak and what codes did he break?  BOOLSHIT.  Talk about repetitious awards.   I think he was just a CIA guy that never left the country and stayed CONUS his whole career rubbing elbows, saying the right thing to the right people in Washington parties.

(Message edited by LebanonGrenadaEraVet On 10/18/2009 08:41:03)

Hi Joseph (a.k.a. Shuman 14),

I apologize.  Apparently I gave the impression that I am still in service.  I am not.  I got out in 2002.  Thank you for your continued service. "ASSIST PROTECT AND DEFEND"

I did recently (last week) utilize an IED training facility where I walked through a dismounted patrol lane.  However, I did so as a civilian.  My nephew recently returned from a deployment in Iraq and we had long conversations as well as photo and video sharing of his experiences. My brother is a retired Master Gunner and I have also picked his brain on the subject. My brother-in-law was deployed for a year and I have several co-workers that were deployed (including Afghanistan). I was an Engineer (joining in 1984), and then went into Aviation (ending up in Ordinance in 2002). 

In short, I do not have first hand operational knowledge of the Iraqi theater, so no bowing is necessary, unless it is me bowing to your continued service.

I would like to point out that the HMMWV and the M113 both have flat bottoms, so that explanation does not seem adequate to me.

Sorry for any mis-impressions that may have arisen from our dialogue.  I don't believe in "stealing valor" and it was not my intent to mislead.

Regards,
George