What our Government Knew About IEDs

Honestly when I saw this news report I was stuck between wanting to laugh out loud or be pissed off. Are they serious?

In case you've been living under a rock I'll be brief (initially). The new drum to beat is that the Pentagon and by extension Pres Bush knew about the very real threat of Improvised Explosive Devices and sent the troops into Iraq without the needed bomb-resistant vehicles to protect them.

No shit, REALLY? Oh my goodness, what a shock....

... whatever.

I direct your attention to United States Army Field Manual FM 5-31, here's a link if you want to buy one for $5 ( http://www.usrnsf.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=143 ) . I already have a copy, bought it in 1991 in an Army / Navy surplus store. Published in 1965 this field manual is dedicated to the instruction and recognition of potential boobytraps and good locations to place them and be wary of them. It includes good descriptions on the construction of the devices as well as the equipment and who in the field is responsible for identifying them, constructing them, logging the lcoations they are found or placed and the disposition of them in after-action reports.

Not only did we already know about IED's, we literally wrote our own book about them. We didn't invent the idea of boobytraps obviously. As long as man has been at war with his neighbor we have been getting more and more creative in doing so. We learned from the Europeans, the Europeans learned from the Romans who learned from the Isrealis, Greeks, Cavemen, etc.. The Russians , Chinese, whoever has a military, have their own versions of this publication.

Terrorists aren't necessarily innovative but they at least have a library card.

We have been boobytrapping items and locations (IED is just a catch-all word for a type of boobytrap) forever because it works. It's supposed to create casualties, cause confusion and disarray among enemy populations and also to delay military advancement and incursion into areas that you don't want them. We do it and our enemies do it.

The Germans and the Japanese were geniuses at it in World War 2. You remember WW2, back when the Army used the Willies Jeep as well as the Duece and a Half heavy truck for it's primary transport of troops and materials. Those guys drove around in what could best be described as tin-cans with motors, and driving them through mine-fields and boobytrapped locations. We have been sending lightly armored men and equipment into harms way not only for the expense but also because of what we would loose in the process, speed.

If you put everybody in extremely heavy armor, you protect them in one way and increase their vulnerability in another. I wear body-armor damn near every day. While it's better than not wearing it, I'm painfully aware that it only protects me just enough to delay my critical injury or death giving me a better chance of survival. Nothing wrong with that. Trouble is that it only protects me from small munitions and some light shrapnel. I also have heavy entry armor designed to give more complete coverage and more protection from a wider variety of rounds. The problem is that I can't move nearly as quick and I get fatigued more easily due to lugging the extra weight around (not to mention the added heat). The troops in the field put up with the same thing except they carry 5 to 10 times as much gear as I do and in more extreme conditions.

Designing and issuing lighter and stronger (and by extension, more expensive) armor means you can get less of it. If you mandate that all troops in theater must have it then that means fewer troops. Fewer troops mean fewer eyes watching each others backs. Unless of course you don't mind higher military spending and by extension higher taxes. You see where the problem is?

That also extends to their equipment. You can't put everybody in a tank. The vehicles they are talking about are great, for limited purpose, but you still have to get out of them to get the job done. Once out of the vehicle, where's the benefit? I realize that they need protection while enroute to a mission and I'm all for giving them as much as we can without compromising their effectiveness.

But, come up with a better mouse-trap and eventually you get smarter mice. The enemy will simply switch tactics and either hit them before or after they climb in and out of their great battleship like land-rovers. Probably creating a greater risk to the civilian population. Either that or they would abandon trying to blow up the well-armored troops and just start going after the civilan population exclusively. I'm not just talking about the Iraqi population either. They could easily do this stuff over here, they only haven't because we've given them very convenient martyrdom targets in their back-yards. Take those away and they'll start getting creative again.

Point being. The media knows that they are simply creating a salacious story where one doesn't really exist. Of course the military knew about the risks and sent troops anyway. If you have to send troops, the area is probably a high-risk environment. What were they going to do, delay the mission until everybody was perfectly protected? Can't do it.

Most of the general public won't even put on their damn seatbelts and yet they get pissed over THIS? Fuck em'. They deserve to be taken advantage of by a media who is just getting mileage out of the ignorance of their audience.

Once again, read a fuckin' book or something and stop allowing yourselves to be taken advantage of.

"Come here pretty cow, aren't we nice to you? Taking care of your every need and medical expense so that you grow up big and strong and juicy... BANG!!!......", steak.