Military Leaders Knew Of Deadly Roadside Bomb Threat In Iraq But Did Nothing: Report

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Military Leaders Knew Of Deadly Roadside Bomb Threat In Iraq But Did Nothing: Report stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

RICHARD LARDNER | December 8, 2008 09:14 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
In this Friday, Aug. 29, 2008 file photo, a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle is seen beyond a U.S. Army soldier standing guard in Baghdad, Iraq. The Marine Corps left troops in Iraq vulnerable to deadly roadside bombs by failing to answer an urgent request from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, according to an internal Pentagon investigation obtained by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)

WASHINGTON — The Marine Corps left troops in Iraq vulnerable to deadly roadside bombs by failing to answer an urgent request from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, according to an internal Pentagon investigation obtained by The Associated Press. Acquisition officials shelved the February 2005 request for the "MRAPs" (pronounced EM-raps) after Marine leaders decided armored versions of the Humvee were the best answer to the improvised explosive devices that became the signature weapon of the Iraq war. However, the beefier Humvees proved incapable of withstanding the increasingly powerful IEDs.

The AP obtained portions of the investigation by the Pentagon inspector general. It was expected to be released publicly on Tuesday.

The Marine Corps and the other military branches were aware of the threat from mines and roadside bombs and of the commercial availability of MRAPs well before U.S. troops invaded Iraq in 2003, the report said. Yet nothing was done to acquire the vehicles.

"As a result, the department entered into operations in Iraq without having taken available steps to acquire technology to mitigate the known mine and IED risk to soldiers and Marines," the report said.

This is the report's most "damning conclusion," Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., a critic of the military's wartime procurement practices, said Monday. "It appears that some bureaucrats at the Pentagon have much to explain to the families of American troops who were killed or maimed when a lifesaving solution was within reach," Bond said in an e-mail to the AP.

The inspector general's nine-month inquiry was the result of complaints by Franz Gayl, a civilian defense official and whistle-blower who had accused the Marine Corps of "gross mismanagement" that led to a nearly two-year delay in shipping the MRAPs to Iraq.

Had the MRAPs been built and sent after commanders first asked for them in early 2005, hundreds of deaths and injuries could have been prevented, Gayl charged in a study that was first reported in February by The Associated Press.

The Pentagon IG report found no evidence of criminal negligence in the failure to provide the MRAPs when the vehicles were first requested. The portions of the report obtained by the AP do not directly link the lack of MRAPs to deaths of service members.

Story continues below

In a statement, the Marine Corps said it would be inappropriate to comment on the report until it is officially released. However, the Marine Corps noted that it requested the inquiry and worked closely with the investigators. It also said the service has greatly improved its system for responding to requests from troops for badly needed combat gear.

MRAPs weigh as much as 40 tons and have a V-shaped hull that deflects the blast out and away from the crew. More than 11,000 of the vehicles have been sent to Iraq and Afghanistan since May 2007 after Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared MRAPs the Pentagon's No. 1 acquisition priority. The heavy trucks have been very effective at protecting American forces from IEDs.

The February 2005 urgent request for 1,169 MRAPs was signed by then-Brig. Gen. Dennis Hejlik. The Marines could not continue to take "serious and grave casualties" caused by IEDs when a solution was commercially available, wrote Hejlik, who was a commander in western Iraq from June 2004 to February 2005.

Yet despite the stark wording of Hejlik's plea, the request was mishandled and eventually lost in bureaucracy. The inspector general puts most of blame on officials at Marine Corps Command Development Command. Headquartered at Quantico, Va., the command decides what gear to buy.

After receiving Hejlik's request, the command didn't pursue it aggressively. A few months later, then-Marine Corps Commandant Michael Hagee decided the armored Humvee, known as the M1114, was the best and mostly quickly available solution to the IED threat. By August, the Combat Development Command had dropped Hejlik's request altogether even though the armored Humvee "did not adequately protect Marines from under-body IED attacks, which were increasing in Iraq," the inspector general said.

Hagee, however, told investigators that while he wanted the armored Humvees, he didn't intend for that to preclude the purchase of MRAPs or stop the Combat Development Command from responding to Hejlik's request.

The report also challenged Hejlik's later interpretation of what he meant by the urgent request. In July 2007, he said the Marine Corps' decision to buy armored Humvees was the right one. His intent in signing the request was for the Marines to buy the MRAPs within two years to five years, not immediately.

But the inspector general disputed that, saying Hejlik's initial request "clearly indicated that the requirement for MRAP-type vehicles was priority 1 and urgently needed."

Gayl is the science and technology adviser in the Marine Corps' plans, policies and operations department.

When Gayl's study was disclosed in February, the Marine Corps called it a personal opinion at odds with the facts. Public affairs officers stressed his January study had not been reviewed by his immediate supervisor. The work was pre-decisional and did not reflect the views of the Marine Corps, they said.

___

On the Net:

U.S. Marine Corps: http://www.marines.mil/Pages/Default.aspx

WASHINGTON — The Marine Corps left troops in Iraq vulnerable to deadly roadside bombs by failing to answer an urgent request from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, according t...
WASHINGTON — The Marine Corps left troops in Iraq vulnerable to deadly roadside bombs by failing to answer an urgent request from battlefield commanders for blast-resistant vehicles, according t...
Filed by Nick Graham  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
76
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
- Agent420 I'm a Fan of Agent420 50 fans permalink
photo

This has to be one of if not the most stupid wars in history.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:31 PM on 12/09/2008
- Durango I'm a Fan of Durango 148 fans permalink

All wars are ultimately stupid.

But needless wars are even worse.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:45 PM on 12/09/2008

The only winners in war are death and destruction...............

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:26 PM on 12/09/2008
- helonias I'm a Fan of helonias 263 fans permalink
photo

I wonder that it was becasue there was no one from the Bush/Cheney/Romney gene pool driving the Humvees

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:10 PM on 12/09/2008
- lesterbud I'm a Fan of lesterbud 109 fans permalink
photo

It is blatantly false to say military leaders did nothing about this threat.
They stayed out of poorly armored vehicles traveling through unsecured areas of Iraq.
You have not read the names of very many Majors, Colonels and Generals in the NY Times have you?
They new the threat very well.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:25 PM on 12/09/2008

I am tired of these people knowing about something before hand and doing nothing. 911, Katrina, and now Iraq. Thank god in a couple of weeks we will have a competent president.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:06 PM on 12/09/2008
- bronceye I'm a Fan of bronceye 32 fans permalink

Combat deaths are noble.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:10 AM on 12/09/2008

I hope you are being sar.castic, as any d.eaths made possible by the irrespo.nsible behav.ior of mi.litary bureauc.rats are not no.ble. They're just usel.ess.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 AM on 12/09/2008
- MikeDu I'm a Fan of MikeDu 155 fans permalink
photo

This is old news. The Marines had had a large MRAPS acquisition contract then slashed the order in half a couple years ago because the expensive vehicle was judged incompatible with its traditional mission. The Marines instead uparmored their MTVR tactical trucks for troop transport at a fraction of the cost of the expensive MRAPS. The Marines weren't wrong to turn down the MRAPS, George Bush was wrong to put the Marines in the position of unwanted occupiers. You want our soldier's safe? A one way ticket back to the U.S. costs a lot less than an excessively armored truck.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 AM on 12/09/2008
- leeman79 I'm a Fan of leeman79 6 fans permalink

A very courageous young Army specialist addressed this concern to Donald Rumsfeld in an early televised dog and pony show. Rumsfeld's response, "You go to war with what you got."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:35 AM on 12/09/2008
- Rog49Thomas I'm a Fan of Rog49Thomas 192 fans permalink

Part 1

After eight years of the Pan Administration, I would have expected by now that everyone understood what it means to "support our troops".

Apparently not. So here goes.

Supporting our troops means:

(1) Supporting the President's foreign policy no matter how stupid or how dangerous to our real national security interests. However, if the President is a Democrat or "liberal", you may disagree.

(2) Wearing an American flag lapel pin. Extra marks are given if you wear one on your pj's (that means you're a super supporter). Those who sleep "commando" (another sign of support for the troops) may substitute a flag tattoo.

(3) Mouthing all sorts of jingoistic and nationalistic slogans - Bring 'em on. Shock and awe. Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran. You need not (I repeat need not) think of the physical and mental harm done to our troops from being sent into battle. In fact to do so, would not be supporting the troops.

(4) Make sure your corporate buddies get lots of no bid billion dollar contracts associated with the military campaign. You are however relieved of any burden of wondering if our troops are getting clean drinking and bathing water, whether they'll be electrocuted when they take a shower, etc. There has to be a limit somewhere to support.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 AM on 12/09/2008
- lesterbud I'm a Fan of lesterbud 109 fans permalink
photo

That is what this has all been about.
All 4 points - right on!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:27 PM on 12/09/2008
- Rog49Thomas I'm a Fan of Rog49Thomas 192 fans permalink

Part 2

Supporting the troops does NOT have anything to do with:

(1) Only starting a war when absolutely necessary.

(2) Ensuring a proper plan for the campaign including an exit strategy.

(3) Deploying sufficient troops to get the job done.

(4) Providing adequate equipment (including protective gear and vehicles) and supplies

(5) Ensuring returning troops get proper medical care and those with disabilities are granted disability benefits.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 AM on 12/09/2008
- Rog49Thomas I'm a Fan of Rog49Thomas 192 fans permalink

After eight years of the Pan Administration, I would have expected by now that everyone understood what it means to "support our troops".

Apparently not. So here goes.

Supporting our troops means:

(1) Supporting the President's foreign policy no matter how stupid or how dangerous to our real national security interests. However, if the President is a Democrat or "liberal", you may disagree.

(2) Wearing an American flag lapel pin. Extra marks are given if you wear one on your pj's (that means you're a super supporter). Those who sleep "commando" (another sign of support for the troops) may substitute a flag tattoo.

(3) Mouthing all sorts of jingoistic and nationalistic slogans - Bring 'em on. Shock and awe. Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran. You need not (I repeat need not) think of the physical and mental harm done to our troops from being sent into battle. In fact to do so, would not be supporting the troops.

(4) Make sure your corporate buddies get lots of no bid billion dollar contracts associated with the military campaign. You are however relieved of any burden of wondering if our troops are getting clean drinking and bathing water, whether they'll be electrocuted when they take a shower, etc. There has to be a limit somewhere to support.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 AM on 12/09/2008
- Nyland8 I'm a Fan of Nyland8 90 fans permalink
photo

The whole issue is rather amusing in its incongruity. Humvees represent the natural evolution of the Jeep. Remember what a military Jeep looks like? Think M*A*S*H. That's what they were designed to replace. Even though there was an early "up-armored" version, they were only produced in small quantities and were never intended to be armored personnel carriers. In fact, a huge percentage of Humvees were made with no doors and canvass backs - hardly meant for anything but transportation in non-combat arenas.

The simple fact is, we have no business invading and occupying a country that was no threat to the United States. Our Iraq misadventure continues to be a boondoggle of epic proportions - and every day we remain the mistake is compounded. MRAPS are much more expensive than Humvees, and their only purpose is in a theater of operations like Iraq - where we have no business being, and hopefully will never be likewise engaged again.

The "error" is not in having too few MRAPS - the error is having gone there and stayed there in the first place.

8

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:58 AM on 12/09/2008
photo

Bingo!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 AM on 12/09/2008
- Durango I'm a Fan of Durango 148 fans permalink

I agree that the mistake was going in and invading and occupying Iraq. The mistakes were POLITICAL not military.

But after Viet Nam the military vowed never to get into another guerrilla war. See: Powell Doctrine.

HumVees were designed, like you said, as support vehicle. For use behind the front lines. A few armored versions would be used for scouting, but mostly they were for support. Like in the first Gulf War.

But after the occupation of Iraq there were no front lines. no place was secure.

The problem was the military doctrine did not anticipate another Viet Nam style conflict.So they did not plan for it.

The crime is that Bush/Cheney Rumsfeld led the military into a war that should never have happened.

The military knew this. Or at least many did. But what could they do to stand up to the massive propaganda campaign conducted by Bush/Cheney?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:37 AM on 12/09/2008
- Nyland8 I'm a Fan of Nyland8 90 fans permalink
photo

Acknowledged. What we've followed in Iraq was the "Bush Doctrine" - NOT the "Powell Doctrine". And the contrast is striking.

One is a sane approach which naturally follows from learning the lessons of Vietnam. Only in direct defense of this country: Clearly defined mission with achievable, measurable milestones: Overwhelming military force: Not starting until you're totally prepared for every eventuality that can be anticipated: An exit strategy: In short, all the resources, vision and intelligence that we didn't bring to bear in Vietnam. A policy that is, by design, quagmire proof.

The other is ... well, Dubya

We got the dreamy-eyed delusions of ideologues, the punitive actions of war mongers, the perpetual spending abyss of the military industrial complex, the perverse incentives of privatization, equal measures of blind optimism and rampant cronyism ...

Like Vietnam, post war Iraq has become the gift that keeps on giving. A martial plan without a Marshall plan.

We should leave ... ASAP

8

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 PM on 12/09/2008
- Erdgeist I'm a Fan of Erdgeist 83 fans permalink
photo

Going into Iraq in 2003 was a huge mistake. We didn't have the right equipment nor the proper armor for our troops. But more troubling, the Bush Administration didn't care, and did every thing in its power to turn the iraqi people into insurgents instead of the "liberated".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:34 AM on 12/09/2008
- vippy I'm a Fan of vippy 77 fans permalink

and don't forget congress/senate, all of them who enabled the Bush Administration! All of them,
except Wellstone.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 PM on 12/09/2008

And Kucinich did not enable the Bush Administration and continues to fight against them to this day!

teaINharbor

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 PM on 12/09/2008
- StillAmused I'm a Fan of StillAmused 273 fans permalink

All the turgid neocon desk-warriors should've consulted with the Boy Scouts before embarking upon their excellent adventure.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:12 AM on 12/09/2008
photo

This is old news. The Generals didn't want to give up their precious weapons programs to fund these vehicles. They should all be brought up on charges, including Rummy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:21 AM on 12/09/2008
photo

Just one more failure of the running on the Iraq invasion to lay at the feet of Bu$h admin. They were in such a hurry to invade while people were still raw about 911, they did not have the troops or the equipment for sustained insurgency, not enough body armor for troops or vehicles designed to withstand these roadside bombs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:18 AM on 12/09/2008
- Durango I'm a Fan of Durango 148 fans permalink

That is something I have long wondered about.

Why the Hurry?

Remember they undertook the invasion with an (armored?) division still loaded aboard ships in the Mediterranean Sea. They were supposed to be deployed through Turkey but of course the Turks were not about to allow American troops to operate on their territory. (something any fool who knows ANYTHING about Turkey should have known)

But Rumsfeld went ahead.

What was the rush? Were they afraid of the summer heat? Did they need enough time before the next elections (my guess).

All the decision making regarding the timing of the invasion should be investigated. Because I would bet it will disclose criminal malfeasance on the part of Bush/Cheney and Rummy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 AM on 12/09/2008
- Twinkie I'm a Fan of Twinkie 3 fans permalink

If the Pentagon was still obsessed with cold war era weapon systems they would have had plenty of resources to equip all combatants going into Iraq. This article doesn't say why the Marines desk jockeys buried the requests but there must have been a reason. Things like that aren't just forgotten or misfiled.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 AM on 12/09/2008
photo

Kick-Backs from GDI to build more Humvees????????????

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 AM on 12/09/2008
photo

Cushy jobs with GDI and affiliates after they get out of the Military????????????

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:06 AM on 12/09/2008
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect