Sometimes you’ve got to break a few eggs:
The outgoing head of the organization tasked with combating roadside bombs said Monday that it will run out of money by Dec. 1.
The Joint IED Defeat Organization currently has about $413 million, said retired Gen. Montgomery Meigs.
Unless JIEDDO gets more money from Congress, it will not have enough money to fund new initiatives to beat roadside bombs, said Meigs, who leaves Nov. 30.
Congress had allocated about $1.6 billion for JIEDDO but the bill failed to come to a vote in the Senate after the House passed a version that called for a “limited presence” of U.S. troops in Iraq by December 2008.
Meigs said JIEDDO has asked Congress for temporary funding, but he doesn’t know when the group will get the money, or how much it can expect.
Improvised Explosive Devices – IEDs – have been the number one killer of coalition troops in Iraq, and JIEDDO is at the forefront of developing tactics, techniques and procedures to counter them.
Lives may be lost as the politicians posture and pander. I guess that’s just the price you have to pay.
Lex you said..”Lives may be lost as the politicians posture and pander, I guess that’s just the price you have to pay”…a droll understatement indeed… but it has always been so…the same bulls**t rational the painfully yammering political class pulled in 1975 when they shamefully abandoned the RVN ( my little brown brothers) to their ghastly fate. Best
Lives may be lost as the politicians posture and pander.
And plunder. As in earmarks…
I wonder if there’s a couple of seats available on the next humvee headed out of the Green Zone. I know that Pelosi and Reid would are “dyin’ ” to take a short ride.
Bast***s.
Let me begin by saying I don’t favor leaving our troops unable to protect themselves. However, am I the only one who reads our fearless leader’s ruminations who remembers the separation of powers. Congress controls the purse under our Constitution. In controlling what money gets spent, they also get to have a say in how it gets spent. That is simply the nature of the beast. Does the fact that Speaker Pelosi and others in the Congress disagree with the President place them in line for “assassination” [next humvee out of the Green Zone]? Are we back to a time when Civilian Leadership (Ms. Pelosi is 3d in line to the Presidency under the 23 Amendment) is not welcome in or around military bases? A republic, last I checked, is about the give and take of ideas and the debate of policy. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes called it “the marketplace of ideas,” where bad ideas are not bashed, battered or restricted but tested and found unworthy through open and honest discussion. The President cannot appoint advisors without the advice and consent of the Senate. All spending must originate in the House. It is republican (note the intentional small r) government which makes our country great, not demogoguery from either the right or the left. I took the same oath to defend the constitution that every other service member did. Perhaps more of us should read it before we condemn civilians to death for little more than having the interests of our country in mind but a different manner of accomplishing it.
I honestly hope that Reid, Pelosi, and Murtha all choke on it. I feel for the men and women who have to bear the brunt of this stupidity while these nitwits pay lip service about caring for the troops.
If it’s any consolation, a recent poll came out that has congresses favorability rating at 20% (Bush at 32%), with 66% unfavorable. The hatred was pretty consistent across those with D,R, and I.
Basically, everyone knows who is responsible, and the congressional leadership is unaware (or in denial) about it. As Kipling’s old poem concludes, “and Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool, you can bet that Tommy sees.”
Clearly you didn’t think they were serious about that, right OAM? You get the irony bit about Congress leaving the troops in the fight funded but taking a little vacation while the rest of DoD – including the JIEDDO which helps save the lives of deployed troops – winds down behind them?
I’m guessing you did understand that but chose to pretend as though you didn’t in order to fashion the platform from which to craft such a labored, tendentious and tedious fifth grade civics lesson in an attempt to browbeat those who dare to express the heterodox opinion that defunding DoD in wartime is a strange way to support the troops.
If Congress had the courage of their ostensible convictions they’d defund the war directly using the power of the purse. Playing games around the margins to avoid paying the political price of doing so does little to recommend them to me.
Fortunately it’s just the research organization and not the outfits that are actually eliminating the IED’s in the field.
I’m guessing the Democrats don’t care that they are writing off the military vote for the next 20 years.
SGT Jeff,
Well, it’s not like the military vote is as much as 1% of the total in our great land.
blah blah blah A republic, last I checked, is about the give and take of ideas and the debate of policy. blah blah blah
Seems to me that when it stops being about “ideas and debate” and about peoples’ lives, well, a line has been crossed.
Is there a more far-reaching issue? Consider the $413 million with the JIEDD; now think about the cost of making an IED. We obviously need to eliminate IEDs as a threat, but is the disparity in weapon cost for the insurgents versus the overwhelming investment we have to make to counter it a factor in how we conduct war prepare for it?
With regards to OAM, Lex. All that comes to mind is: “Target! Cease fire! Driver back up.” Nice gunnery.
As for those elected officials referenced above, they aren’t worthy to tie the bootlaces of an American rifleman in Bagdad or Al Anbar province, much less fund their efforts and keep them alive- but that is the least they could do for that soldier or marine. That kid is meeting his obligations to the nation. They are not.
OAM,
I was not suggesting that Ms. Pelosi or Mr. Reid were candidates for assasination. It was an attempt at humor and I was suggesting perhaps that, due to lack of funding, their Humvee might not be as safe as they would like. Oh BTW, as a citizen, I or anyone else on this forum, has the right to openly criticize our congressional leaders. Also, lighten up will ya. It’s not the end of the world when criticism is set down range in the direction of Washington.
That would be…sent down range…
The Congresscritters are so bloated from all their pork that there is no excuse for them to be taking a Thanksgiving recess. Similarly, they have loaded up Christmas presents for everyone their power hungry minds can think of (that will help win re-election) in every bill possible. No need for a Christmas break either.
Any Senator or Representative who comes home for the holidays without passing (a) the war funding supplemental and (b) every other appropriations bill now 7 weeks overdue, is a cowardly crapweasel.
DO YOUR DUTY, COWARDS!
Many of these next-gen counter-IED programs are on fast tracks. The development cycle and deployment cycle is as fast as I have ever seen a MIL program move. And it is necessary, because as CPT J mentioned in another string, the enemy continues to adapt and refine their own IED tactics and capabilities.
That means any funding delays create real bottlenecks that cost American lives. Write your representatives!
Consider the $413 million with the JIEDD; now think about the cost of making an IED.
Then think about how many Soldiers, Marines, and others have been saved from those IED’s – priceless.
You’ve also set a false argument of an accumulative cost vs. a single item cost. What would be the cost of all the IED’s used during this war might be a better comparison.
Hell. Those pinheads are even affecting MY pay with their shenanigans…
However, I’ve got 200 hrs of leave to burn but them sumbiches better fund ops accounts soon…
Of course, I have the same opinion of ‘em this dude does (recommend low volume for sensitive ears):
http://www.theguyfromboston.com/playvideo2.asp?video=6BvNv7IkF3I
b2
SGT Jeff,
Say we had 100,000 IEDs in IZ and Afghanistan at $100 a pop. that would be $10 M. Yes I know we have to do everything to protect soldiers. My question was about the broader concept of warfare. If it costs us so far more to win, then at some point is there a diminishing return, not in terms of lives, but in terms of overarching and long-term victory. If we can only buy one F-22 for, say $200M, and the Chinese bought 100 old MiGs for a total of $10M, can one F-22 fight off 10 otherwise obsolescent aircraft. What about ships? If a $1B surface ship can be incapacited by a VBIED, at what point do you re-look at long-term programs and adjusting them?
can one F-22 fight off 10 otherwise obsolescent aircraft.
I’m betting not just yes, but hell yes. And I’m also betting it could do it without ever getting within 10 miles of lethal range of the others.
Further, once out of ammo I’m also betting it could make a very easy getaway without ever having been seen nor detected by the enemy.
Thanks for posting this Lex– the “do-nothing, hide-in-my-office” attitude from DC needs to get publicized more often. It’s not even a partisan thing really, just a ducking of responsibilities by all of them that’d earn a departmental firing in any other career path.
Adeodatus, I’d like to point out that the next gen countermeasure is always more expensive than whatever it’s countering. This goes all the way back to the ancients, using various then-exotic specialized materials for their arms and armor. In the case of the IED, the most effective countermeasure isn’t even a physical piece of hardware it’s the knowledge of who’s up to what, where, and when; and the software used to piece that knowledge into a coherent picture. Information is now our best ammunition. As with all ammo, it’s going to cost proportionally to its value in the field.
Great point, Reg. The outnumbered Romans were after all famous for beating the barbarians with better weapons and tactics for centuries. They most definitely outspent them, and had the resource to do so. On a percentage basis, our spend on defense is modest and lower than it has been for any other war.
Thanks guys. I actually don t disagree. I think we need a far larger navy than we have and increase the % of GDP we spend on defense. I took a contrarian view and threw up a trial balloon to get some perspectives for something I m working on.
Happy Thanksgiving.