The Lincoln Plawg - the blog with footnotes

Politics and law from a British perspective (hence Politics LAW BloG): ''People who like this sort of thing...'' as the Great Man said

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Friday, November 21, 2003
 

In the War for Democracy, Blair and Bush neglect protection for their own people!


First we had the Senate Armed Services Committee - hardly known as the haunt of surrender monkeys - grilling Acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee and General Peter Schoomaker, the Army Chief of Staff on the lack of armour for US personnel and vehicles deployed in Iraq.

Asking, for instance,
why all the helicopters in Iraq did not have the latest missile-defense system, which might have prevented some of the recent crashes that have killed 39 soldiers. One of the most costly was the Nov. 2 destruction of a Chinook CH-47 operated by a joint Illinois-Iowa Army National Guard unit. The incident claimed 16 lives.

The Pentagon's reply is on a par with the dog ate my homework!They
attributed the lack of protective equipment in Iraq to overall shortages and said they were pushing hard to supply soldiers with the best gear.

Utterly shameless, they seem to take pride in being able to say
every soldier and Pentagon contractor in Iraq should have the best vest, the Interceptor Body Armor, by the end of the year. But he said it would be 2005 before the Army had enough of the so-called "up-armored Humvees" to replace all the unprotected utility vehicles in Iraq.

They invade the country in March, and they make their men risk their lives with inferior equipment till January! And this, don't forget, is the army from which British squaddies are forced to scrounge vital kit [1].

(Front line troops, it seems, get the proper body armour. But the point is that everyone's on the front line now!)

UPI (November 19) reports that the Army - Brownlee and Shoomaker again - says
a massive rotation of several hundred thousand troops early next year could strain Army medicine and housing beyond capacity.

A repeat of the Fort Stewart farrago (October 29) is therefore on the cards.

And, it seems, staff in the British consulate in Istanbul were placed at unnecessary risk.

The consulate building was, it seems, gutted by fire three years ago. (In what circumstances? I can't find any reports that explain what happened.) And staff were occupying buildings (prefabs?) in the consulate grounds:
...the Consul-General...his personal assistant ..were working in a temporary office near by, because the consulate was being refurbished.

Put the consul close up to the terrorist entry point - seems like a plan...

The clincher would appear to be that
The US consulate had been located near the areas where the bombings took place but was moved to Istanbul's Istinye neighbourhood earlier this year...

Was the reason for the move a question of real estate, or did the US have fears for the security for their staff?

Again, from the so-called grownup media, no explanation that I can find.

Looks like pisspoor preparation all round from the Warriors for Democracy. And, if so, wouldn't that be a surprise!

  1. I can't trace an original reference for this. Urban myth?


|
free website counter Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com