Holy Shit...He's Loose Again!!!
More fun from the recently shamed Hindrocket:
Some politicians will take advantage of tragedy to seek political advantage. Then there's Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota, who may have set a new low when he used the death of a Minnesota soldier to launch a cheap shot against the Bush administration.
Nearly three weeks ago, Cpl. Travis Bruce of Rochester was killed by a rocket-propelled grenade while standing watch on the roof of a Baghdad police station.On Tuesday, Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., sent a letter to President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld questioning the circumstances that led to Bruce's death.In the letter, Dayton said that the day before his death Bruce told his girlfriend in a telephone call that he had been unable to obtain enough sandbags to fortify his position adequately.
First it was body armor, then armored vehicles. Now it's "immoral" that our soldiers don't have enough sandbags. Am I missing something, or is this ludicrous on its face? I can understand a soldier in Iraq being short of armor. But sand? Sand is something Iraq has in abundance; it's not exactly a commodity that the Army airlifts there from the Mojave desert.
Moreover, the Star Tribune story linked to above seems to cast considerable doubt on the "missing sand bag" theory:
In the letter, Dayton said that the day before his death Bruce told his girlfriend in a telephone call that he had been unable to obtain enough sandbags to fortify his position adequately."He gave his life heroically and importantly, but it's immoral for our command not to provide our soldiers with absolutely everything they need to give them maximum protection: body armor, armored vehicles, sandbags. ... It's immoral if our soldiers are left in any way unequipped and unprotected," Dayton said in an interview.
First it was body armor, then armored vehicles. Now it's "immoral" that our soldiers don't have enough sandbags. Am I missing something, or is this ludicrous on its face? I can understand a soldier in Iraq being short of armor. But sand? Sand is something Iraq has in abundance; it's not exactly a commodity that the Army airlifts there from the Mojave desert.
Moreover, the Star Tribune story linked to above seems to cast considerable doubt on the "missing sand bag" theory:
On Tuesday, the day before he died, he called his girlfriend and said that he was stationed on the rooftop and increasing the height of the sandbag barricade. "He said they didn't have enough sandbags up there," she said softly.
So, the day before he was killed on the roof, Bruce said that he was "increasing the height of the sandbag barricade" because he didn't think it was high enough. No suggestion that he was unable to get his hands on enough sandbags to accomplish this task. No suggestion that there was a shortage of sandbags, only that they didn't have enough on the roof. Then, the next night there was an attack with an RPG, which "hit a sandbag," ricocheted and exploded against a water tower, apparently showering Bruce with shrapnel from above. So apparently there were enough sandbags to deflect the RPG. Would more sandbags have protected Bruce from above? Who knows, but one wouldn't think so.
Sandbags are not a high-tech device. It is up to soldiers in the field to protect themselves. If they want more sandbags, they should get more sandbags, as Cpl. Bruce apparently did.
For Mark Dayton to suggest that the Bush administration somehow "immorally" deprived Bruce of sandbags is an absurdity that would be funny, if war were not a matter of life and death. Thankfully, Dayton will soon be gone from the Senate. His replacement can only be an improvement.
On Tuesday, the day before he died, he called his girlfriend and said that he was stationed on the rooftop and increasing the height of the sandbag barricade. "He said they didn't have enough sandbags up there," she said softly.
So, the day before he was killed on the roof, Bruce said that he was "increasing the height of the sandbag barricade" because he didn't think it was high enough. No suggestion that he was unable to get his hands on enough sandbags to accomplish this task. No suggestion that there was a shortage of sandbags, only that they didn't have enough on the roof. Then, the next night there was an attack with an RPG, which "hit a sandbag," ricocheted and exploded against a water tower, apparently showering Bruce with shrapnel from above. So apparently there were enough sandbags to deflect the RPG. Would more sandbags have protected Bruce from above? Who knows, but one wouldn't think so.
Sandbags are not a high-tech device. It is up to soldiers in the field to protect themselves. If they want more sandbags, they should get more sandbags, as Cpl. Bruce apparently did.
For Mark Dayton to suggest that the Bush administration somehow "immorally" deprived Bruce of sandbags is an absurdity that would be funny, if war were not a matter of life and death. Thankfully, Dayton will soon be gone from the Senate. His replacement can only be an improvement.
UPDATE: An Army Major agrees:
You nailed it 99% correct. He had a good position providing a reasonable amount of protection for the situation. My only addition - more sandbags could have provided overhead cover at this position and possibly saved the soldier's life. He would have needed wood/timber to create a structure and then place sandbags on top of the wooden roof. But you nailed it - the sandbags did their job and caused the rocket to ricochet away from the soldier, and how the shrapnel hit him was a freak accident.
We use the term "position improvement" for what was going on here. You start with the basics and always improve on the position. First some basic cover, then make it larger, then make it a walled area, then last of all add on the roof.
For the politician to blame this dead soldier on the president is just stupid. He must think we're idiots and we'll believe anything he says without doing any intelligent analysis on our own. Typical liberal.
There are several interesting things about this article. First and foremost among them is Hindrocket’s insistence that sandbags are at the heart of the problem. His main beef with Senator Dayton is that he believes that the Senator is somehow blaming the Bush administration for Corporal Bruce’s lack of sandbags in a country filled with sand. disagreement with evolution…fascinating. Hindrocket continues to utilize his highly developed scientific methodology to prove his point…he supplies us with rock solid, undeniable evidence from (drum roll please)….
UPDATE: An Army Major agrees:
You nailed it 99% correct. He had a good position providing a reasonable amount of protection for the situation. My only addition - more sandbags could have provided overhead cover at this position and possibly saved the soldier's life. He would have needed wood/timber to create a structure and then place sandbags on top of the wooden roof. But you nailed it - the sandbags did their job and caused the rocket to ricochet away from the soldier, and how the shrapnel hit him was a freak accident.
We use the term "position improvement" for what was going on here. You start with the basics and always improve on the position. First some basic cover, then make it larger, then make it a walled area, then last of all add on the roof.
For the politician to blame this dead soldier on the president is just stupid. He must think we're idiots and we'll believe anything he says without doing any intelligent analysis on our own. Typical liberal.
There are several interesting things about this article. First and foremost among them is Hindrocket’s insistence that sandbags are at the heart of the problem. His main beef with Senator Dayton is that he believes that the Senator is somehow blaming the Bush administration for Corporal Bruce’s lack of sandbags in a country filled with sand.
He comments about how sandbags are not high-tech; he comments about how sandbags wouldn’t have saved Corporal Bruce in the first place because of the nature of the attack; he trots out an anonymous Army Major who talks a lot about positions and overhead cover…sandbags, sandbags, sandbags!!!
Presumably, because of his clear stance on the issue, Hindrocket also has a big beef with Corporal Bruce’s father, Kenneth Bruce, a 25-year Army veteran who is upset that his only son was killed standing guard on top of an Iraqi police station. Read on...
Unlike Hindrocket, both Mr. Bruce and Senator Dayton never really said all that much about sandbags. You see, their frustration arises from US Soldiers performing the jobs that Iraqi Police and Security Personnel should be performing….a point apparently lost on both the idiotic Hindrocket and his anonymous Army Major. First, the full text from Dayton’s letter to the President (which is what started all of this):
Dear Mr. President:
Last Monday, I attended the funeral of Corporal Travis Bruce in Rochester, Minnesota. Corporal Bruce was killed by a grenade’s explosion, as he stood watch on the roof of a Baghdad police station.
According to his mother, that watch was a regular assignment for Corporal Bruce. His girlfriend said that the day before his death, he spoke with her on the phone and expressed his concern that he had not been able to obtain enough sandbags to fortify his post adequately.
Corporal Bruce died a hero’s death in the service of his country. His courage, to stand a watch on the rooftop of that Baghdad police station while knowing that his fortification was inadequate, was extraordinary. It cost him his life.
I must ask, however, why it is still necessary for an American soldier to perform that duty? As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have asked repeatedly, along with my Republican and Democratic colleagues, about the training of Iraqi forces to replace our Armed Forces in securing their own country. We have been told repeatedly about supposed progress and been given numbers of Iraqi forces ostensibly trained and equipped. When I was most recently in Iraq last December, General George W. Casey and Lieutenant General David Patreaus both stated that 40,000 Iraqi police had received some measure of training.
He comments about how sandbags are not high-tech; he comments about how sandbags wouldn’t have saved Corporal Bruce in the first place because of the nature of the attack; he trots out an anonymous Army Major who talks a lot about positions and overhead cover…sandbags, sandbags, sandbags!!!
Presumably, because of his clear stance on the issue, Hindrocket also has a big beef with Corporal Bruce’s father, Kenneth Bruce, a 25-year Army veteran who is upset that his only son was killed standing guard on top of an Iraqi police station. Read on...
Unlike Hindrocket, both Mr. Bruce and Senator Dayton never really said all that much about sandbags. You see, their frustration arises from US Soldiers performing the jobs that Iraqi Police and Security Personnel should be performing….a point apparently lost on both the idiotic Hindrocket and his anonymous Army Major. First, the full text from Dayton’s letter to the President (which is what started all of this):
Dear Mr. President:
Last Monday, I attended the funeral of Corporal Travis Bruce in Rochester, Minnesota. Corporal Bruce was killed by a grenade’s explosion, as he stood watch on the roof of a Baghdad police station.
According to his mother, that watch was a regular assignment for Corporal Bruce. His girlfriend said that the day before his death, he spoke with her on the phone and expressed his concern that he had not been able to obtain enough sandbags to fortify his post adequately.
Corporal Bruce died a hero’s death in the service of his country. His courage, to stand a watch on the rooftop of that Baghdad police station while knowing that his fortification was inadequate, was extraordinary. It cost him his life.
I must ask, however, why it is still necessary for an American soldier to perform that duty? As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have asked repeatedly, along with my Republican and Democratic colleagues, about the training of Iraqi forces to replace our Armed Forces in securing their own country. We have been told repeatedly about supposed progress and been given numbers of Iraqi forces ostensibly trained and equipped. When I was most recently in Iraq last December, General George W. Casey and Lieutenant General David Patreaus both stated that 40,000 Iraqi police had received some measure of training.
If that is so, why do American troops still have to perform such basic duties as standing guard on top of Iraqi police stations? If 40,000 Iraqi police cannot assume such elementary responsibilities, what does that indicate about the efficacy of our training programs and their capabilities?I understand that American forces must continue to secure Iraq, until its own people are able to do so. However, two years after our Armed Forces successfully routed the Iraqi army and toppled Saddam Hussein’s dictatorial rule, the Iraqi forces should be able to assume some of the most basic responsibilities for their our security. When, I ask respectfully, will that begin to occur?
Here is what Mr. Bruce had to say in a recent Strib article:
"Personally, I think it doesn't make sense to have sitting targets -- still targets -- on top of a building, on a known target for the enemy to attack," Bruce said Wednesday. "To me, it's like they're sitting out in the open and they're sitting ducks."
According to Dayton, Travis Bruce had told his girlfriend a day before his death that he had not been able to obtain enough sandbags to fortify his post. Bruce said his son had never mentioned that to him, and he said it was probably a "slip of the tongue" by the girlfriend. She could not be reached for comment.
If that is so, why do American troops still have to perform such basic duties as standing guard on top of Iraqi police stations? If 40,000 Iraqi police cannot assume such elementary responsibilities, what does that indicate about the efficacy of our training programs and their capabilities?
I understand that American forces must continue to secure Iraq, until its own people are able to do so. However, two years after our Armed Forces successfully routed the Iraqi army and toppled Saddam Hussein’s dictatorial rule, the Iraqi forces should be able to assume some of the most basic responsibilities for their our security. When, I ask respectfully, will that begin to occur?
Here is what Mr. Bruce had to say in a recent Strib article:
"Personally, I think it doesn't make sense to have sitting targets -- still targets -- on top of a building, on a known target for the enemy to attack," Bruce said Wednesday. "To me, it's like they're sitting out in the open and they're sitting ducks."
According to Dayton, Travis Bruce had told his girlfriend a day before his death that he had not been able to obtain enough sandbags to fortify his post. Bruce said his son had never mentioned that to him, and he said it was probably a "slip of the tongue" by the girlfriend. She could not be reached for comment."Iraq is full of sand," he said. "... And if they didn't have enough sandbags, they should have had them up there. They were available."
Bruce said he agreed with Dayton's assessment that the U.S. is lagging in its training of the Iraqis, adding that "there aren't enough of them, and we don't have them trained well enough." He said his son, a military police officer, previously was assigned to provide security for dignitaries and to drive armed security vehicles -- jobs that he said were proper for a military police officer.
Let me make a side note myself: it is 100% immoral to let our troops go into battle unprepared. Our troops should have armor, up-to-date weapons systems, proper training, and so on and so forth….now let’s talk about what really contributed to the killing Corporal Bruce: the fact he was doing a job that should have been done by Iraqi policemen.
"Iraq is full of sand," he said. "... And if they didn't have enough sandbags, they should have had them up there. They were available." Bruce said he agreed with Dayton's assessment that the U.S. is lagging in its training of the Iraqis, adding that "there aren't enough of them, and we don't have them trained well enough." He said his son, a military police officer, previously was assigned to provide security for dignitaries and to drive armed security vehicles -- jobs that he said were proper for a military police officer.
Let me make a side note myself: it is 100% immoral to let our troops go into battle unprepared. Our troops should have armor, up-to-date weapons systems, proper training, and so on and so forth….now let’s talk about what really contributed to the killing Corporal Bruce: the fact he was doing a job that should have been done by Iraqi policemen.
