Delaware County Daily Times August 12, 2005
Editorial: Equipment leaves U.S. troops vulnerable
It's the kind of news that makes a heart ache. Fourteen U.S. Marines on patrol were killed in the Euphrates Valley of Iraq Wednesday when a bomb destroyed their amphibious assault vehicle. The blast was so huge it flipped the 25-ton troop carrier and it burst into flames. Just two days earlier, six members of a Marine sniper team from the same Ohio-based Reserve unit died in an ambush orchestrated by the Islamic extremist Ansar al-Sunnah army.
The working class Cleveland suburb of Brook Park was stunned by the loss, and even as the American flags, red roses and crosses piled up at the gates of the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, some residents called for an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
"Tell Bush to get our soldiers out of there now before any more of our soldiers die," said 69-year-old Eleanor Matelski. "This is getting to be ridiculous."
Whether the war launched to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein was necessary, or justifiable, will be debated for years. But what seems beyond debate is that U.S. Marines are dying in lightly armored vehicles designed for beach landings.
Indeed, the amphibious assault vehicle -- known as the "tin can" by its riders -- intentionally has lighter armor plates because it floats in the water after being dropped by ships. It then runs on tracks instead of wheels and cruises on land at speeds of 20-30 mph.
John Pike, a defense analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a private think tank, said the vehicles could protect troops from small arms fire -- but not a large explosion.
"It was not designed primarily to drive around in the desert hundreds of miles from the beach," he told the Associated Press. "If they had been riding around in an Abrams (tank) this probably wouldn’t have happened, but there’s not enough Abrams’ to go around."
Even Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, pressed at a Pentagon press conference about the tragedy, admitted the problem. "..Clearly an AAV does not offer the same protection a tank does," he said, using an acronym. "Nonetheless, it is an armored vehicle, and the commanders make an assessment as to what equipment is appropriate for each operation."
That begs the question. Two and a half years after the United States led the charge into Iraq, why are its soldiers still patrolling the country in vehicles that leave them so vulnerable to attack? Why don’t they have the equipment and support that they obviously need?
At the Pentagon and the White House, the only sound was platitudes. "Patriots, they were determined to stop the terrorists from reclaiming Iraq and from launching more attacks on our people," said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."Our nation needed them, called on them in battle, and mourns them now in death."
This was the man who, questioned about the poorly equipped troops last December, responded, "You go to war with the army you have."
And President George W. Bush, who once taunted insurgents with the catch phrase, "Bring ’em on," noted how the people of Brook Park had "suffered mightily over the last couple of days."
"I hope they can take comfort in the fact that millions of their fellow citizens pray for them," he said.
Those prayers may or may not help. But it would have been far better to give the troops the chance to survive the attacks they face with the equipment they need.
Because now, prayers are about the best defense they have.
© Copyright 2005, Delaware County Daily Times
