Supporting and Protecting the Troops: Where Did the Money (and the Real Support) Go?

By: KathyinBlacksburg
Published On: 1/22/2007 12:18:52 PM

The Baltimore Sun reports that even now our troops are inadequately protected against IEDs.  Effectively armored vehicles are in short supply.  And the primary mission of our Defense Dept. --to provide for our troops-- goes untended.

Scarce vehicles become scarcer, and Marines have to "swap access to scarce armored vehicles." Indeed in an earlier article the Sun also reported that most newly deployed troops will not have access to adequately armored vehicles.  How can this be? 


In Congressional testimony last week, senior Army and Marine Corps officers admitted that they have their hands full just trying to meet the needs of those already deployed to Iraq. 

While it's true that use and harsh conditions have taken a toll on protective vehicles, it is also true that the Defense Dept. has failed to assure their repair or replacement production and deployment. Accountability?  Anyone? 

Another article this weekend from Reuters reveals the price tag for Iraq has risen to $8.4 billion a month this year, nearly twice what it was in 2003 ($4.4 billion).  Bush is set to request another $100 billion on top of the $70 billion already earmarked for Iraq this year. The Democratic Congress, including US Rep John Murtha's Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, should take a closer look at just where the money has gone and will go.  Murtha and his counterpart in the Senate must demand 1) proper protection of our troops and 2) effective oversight.  Anything less should result in more replacements of another kind -- of those failing at their jobs of protecting the troops, starting with administration officials.

Instead of armored vehicles, the Army is sending 71,000 sets of fire-retardant uniforms to protect our men and women from fires when Humvees are consumed by fire.

Meanwhile, as the administration floods the airwaves with more empty rhetoric about its supporting the troops, this same administration fails utterly at it's most fundamental responsibility to those who serve us.  


Comments



Whistleblowing American tortured in Iraq for 97 days (Andrea Chamblee - 1/22/2007 3:21:27 PM)
Donald Vance was then dumped in the desert to make his way home to Chicago.

http://www.nytimes.c...



Another vile Bush attack (Teddy - 1/22/2007 6:11:15 PM)
on an Ameerican citizen. I am sure that the Bushies' line would be that whistleblower Vance was involved in the selling of weapons to militias himself, and only began working for the FBI to conceal tha fact and get himself special consideration. My son is working as a contractor in Iraq, and this whole story gives me chills