All Dressed Up With No Way to Fight - New York Times

All Dressed Up With No Way to Fight - New York Times:

This is an editorial that I can whole heartedly appreciate and agree with. I have previously (here) commented on the many unknowable pros and cons to an upgrade in armor. As aptly put in this editorial by Andrew Exum, "The problem with this noble sentiment (that our soldiers deserve nothing but the best equipment) is that the American public and its elected representatives don't always understand what military officers and soldiers do: that the safety of individual soldiers must always be balanced against the ability to accomplish the unit mission." Bottomline is that if you can't move or keep up you're a sitting duck regardless of how armored you are.

I appreciate of his defense of Secretary Rumsfeld's response to a soldier that was apparently encouraged by a reporter to ask/complain about having to armor up vehicles with scrap metal found in the field. As many remember he responded with, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have." Perhaps this was not poetically put, but true none the less.

As quoted from the editorial "Elected officials like Senator Clinton, while no doubt genuinely motivated by concern for the welfare of our soldiers, also see political opportunity. And the voices that get overlooked are the most important ones: those of the soldiers themselves."

I agree with the statement up to the point of Senator Clinton's "no doubt" genuine concern. As paranoid as this sounds, I do not and would not trust this individual's motivations for anything as far as I could throw her.

Out here