Kerry's radio attack on Bush today was sleazy even for him. Hoping to find a fig leaf to cover the naked weakness of his own defense record, Kerry hoped to make an issue of the shortage of body armor in Iraq. Let's grant that he has a point on the body armor, and the new stuff is way more effective than the thin flak jackets they were issuing when I served. That puts flak jackets under the Bush debit column.
Meanwhile, Kerry's column would look like this:
"The Massachusetts senator voted against defense appropriations bills that included money for weapons such as the Patriot missile, the Tomahawk cruise missile and the B-2 stealth bomber — all of which military leaders say have become integral to the U.S. force and were crucial to winning the 1991 Gulf war and last year's war in Iraq.According to voting records, Mr. Kerry also favored cutting or canceling spending on the Apache helicopter, the M-1 Abrams tank and a wide range of fighter jets.
Among the votes the group evaluated were nine Mr. Kerry cast against developing a missile-defense system envisioned to protect the United States from nuclear attack. Also noted are the six times in the past 10 years he voted to freeze or reduce defense spending. Mr. Kerry also cast two votes to loosen trade controls over "dual-use" technology such as U.S.-made high-speed computers that can also be used by enemies to build high-tech weaponry."
If it were me in Baghdad, I'd rather have M-1s, Apaches, fighter jets, the Patriot and the Tomahawk than flak jackets. But John Kerry's the one with all the medals, undoubtedly he knows better than me. I'm sure he has all sorts of moral and strategic high ground from which to lob HEAT rounds at Bush.
Posted by Discoshaman at mars 7, 2004 02:26 AM | TrackBack
OK, I can see the Tomahawk, but I don't really see how the Patriot (whose performance against the Scuds in 1991 was vastly exaggerated) was "crucial" in a war against a country without an air force, or how the B-2's stealth technology was "crucial" in a country whose air-defense systems had already been reduced to rubble. At least as far as the latest war goes.
Anyway, I think you (and other Republicans) are dangerously underestimating the importance of the flak-jacket issue. Nobody gets emotional about B-2s or Tomahawks, even though they obviously save ordinary soldiers' lives. But when parents are sending their kids flak jackets (and in one story I heard second- or third-hand, money to buy new boots), it resonates.
Actually, wait, there's one group of people who do get emotional about B-2s and Tomahawks - shareholders in defense companies. I'm sure you'll agree that that's what the symbolism is about here, right? (Or course I'd argue that it's what the reality is about, too.)
Posted by: The Liberal Media at mars 8, 2004 02:44 PMLib Media-
I'm not saying that the flak jacket issue is irrelevant. I'm pointing out that having John Kerry trying to portray anyone else as unsupportive of the troops and weak on defense is a bit like picking Larry Fynt to be the spokesman for the Traditional Values Coalition. Forgetting the total hacket job he did against his fellow vets during his testimony before Congress, he's been one of the most consistently anti-defense Senators on record.
Further, you're excerpting unfairly. The Patriot is vastly improved from before. And if, as most expected, Saddam HAD had Scuds and bioweapons ready to go, then the Patriot would have been essential. Further, the B-2 was used to good effect during the war. And the various fighters and attack craft that Kerry opposed also were used hundreds upon hundreds of times to demolish Republican Guard units.
I also notice that the Abrams tank and Apache helicopter didn't make the cut. Would you call these crucial to the last war? :)
"But when parents are sending their kids flak jackets (and in one story I heard second- or third-hand, money to buy new boots), it resonates."
I understand. And I agree it's a screw-up. But I think it's more of a political one than a tactical one. The flak jackets we were issued weren't proof against much. Like I said though, maybe they've improved.
Posted by: Discoshaman at mars 8, 2004 05:07 PMOK, I see your Larry Flynt point, and I agree with you that his record makes it preposterous for him to pose as a defender of the troops. But it's not a lot more preposterous than, say...nah, bringing up the aircraft carrier would be just too cheap. Anyway, from the point of view of tactical politics it seems like the normal level of preposterousness, not something that will outweigh the mileage he'll get from flak jackets.
But wait a minute, I'm not the one excerpting unfairly - the article cites the Patriot, the Tomahawk and the B-2. Again, the Patriot was not crucial in either Gulf War; the B-2 wasn't crucial in 2003 and I'm not sure it was even flying in 1991 - in any case, I don't think a lot of B-52 pilots got shot down despite the unstealthiness of their aircraft. The Tomahawk was crucial, no argument there.
As for the Apache and the M-1: this is chopping the logic a little fine, but the story uses the term "cutting or cancelling," so I can't be sure whether the bits he voted to cut or cancel are the ones that made the difference in Iraq. Who knows, maybe they were the ones that would have gotten the Apaches off the ground during the war in Kosovo.
Which brings me to your point about the Patriots - I'm not sure what the evidence for the vast improvement is, but would it perhaps be the same DoD and defense contractors that lied to us about its usefulness in the first place, back in 1991?
My point here is that - for very good reasons - it's difficult for the press to test the military's claims about any weapons systems effectiveness, unless it's a catastrophic failure like the Apaches not getting off the ground at all.
Granted, there are also some not-so-good reasons for that state of affairs, chief among them an old favorite of mine, journalistic laziness. And I'm not saying we should ignore the good reasons of national security and let a bunch of journos look at all the performance documents on all our weapons systems. I'm just saying consider the source.
I also excerpted missile defense, and so far Kerry's right about that...
And yeah, the flak jackets are definitely improved - the WSJ had a big piece about them (and about how parents are buying them for their kids) a couple months ago. The story included testimonials from the troops about how it's changing tactics, and apparently it's showing up - in a particularly gruesome way - in the casualty statistics, in that there's now a much higher proportion of amputations to deaths.
Posted by: The Liberal Media at mars 8, 2004 06:33 PM