All matters MRAP JLTV (merged thread)

[Ken White]

You left out "killing the enemy."

One might just capture them or wound them -- or deny them an objective or goal they aimed toward. In any event tactical dominance implies whatever it takes, kill, maim, pillage, block, divert, whatever...

Eden can answer this...

ADDENDUM: He did and his answer is far better than mine; shorter, too...END

...Until he does, you might consider a point or two:

So then how should we transport soldiers to their AO without them getting blown up on the way there? Blackhawks are great for that...when available.

If one tries to fight in short increments measured in hours or days, that will be a problem -- if one fights as one should, often off base and in the field for weeks at a time, it is far less a problem...

I'm sure its true that some units use them to conduct presence patrols instead of walking, but that falls on unit TTPs and the small unit leaders on the ground.

Not totally on small unit leaders and TTP -- those things are expensive, are provided and the system expects them to be used so they will be. Whether they're used inappropriately or by people that shouldn't have them at all will not be a major issue -- it should be but it will not be.

How are MRAPs representative of our spineless senior leaders? What would you have those senior leaders do instead? Should they not utilize the MRAP technology...

Soldiers are dying from small arms fires, grenades and IEDs because they're in combat. That's a fact of life. In this combat, they are fighting an enemy that does not have Artillery and uses the IEDs as a substitute; if he had Arty, almost certainly a far greater number would be dying from that.

There are ways to negate enemy artillery, there are ways to negate enemy use of IEDs but both require extra effort, some privations, tactical finesse and an appetite for taking risk. Not ever strong points of the US Army in my observation. Do some units do the right things some of the time? Absolutely. Do most units fail to do that most of the time? Regrettably, yes.

They should not use MRAP 'technology' because its a fallacious techno-fix for a training and employment shortfall. It feeds the "I'm safe in here" syndrome and a reluctance to dismount (or to order dismounting, a different but allied problem). It becomes a crutch -- and a reason no risks are taken...

Most units are only marginally trained and they use their MRAPs to achieve a measure of protection while doing dumb things like 'presence patrolling' in a large, unwieldy vehicle with no tactical saving grace aside from its protective ability. That and commuting to work are not beneficial. Combat is not a commuting sort of job, it's an outdoor sport.

The fascinating thing is that MRAPS are a symptom of the risk avoiding culture that has overtaken the Army and that many people who decry that effect support the MRAP, the epitome of risk avoidance.

I can't speak for Eden but IMO the senior leaders were not so much spineless as they were intent on protecting the institution that is the Army. We had not purchased armor protection for GP and utility vehicles because its expensive and because it has limited utility in mid to high intensity combat. As US policy was, before 2001, to avoid nation building, FID and COIN -- with good cause and good sense -- that procurement decision was quite sensible. Still is, IMO.

However, upon entering Iraq, political opponents of the war and the ignorant media -- but I repeat myself -- hopped on the so-called vulnerability of unarmored vehicles and the rest is history, The senior leaders resisted the idea of such vehicles on a number of sensible grounds but the political and media pressure grew so they finally acceded to the purchase as the lesser of two evils. Either purchase an unneeded and poor vehicle or face a lengthened trainup time and concomitant increase in casualties. Given the Congressional pressure to spend money on equipment instead of on training, they had little choice and thus bought vehicles of marginal utility that breed bad habits...

Spineless or pragmatic? Dunno. That's life in a democracy...

...and explain to the American public why soldiers are dying from IEDs?

The bulk of the American public understand the why. The fact that other parts of the public did not or chose not to understand as fanned by the ignorance of the news media is sad but a factor of life today. Why anyone would expect no casualties in a war is mind boggling but some said they did expect just that or close to it...

Senior leaders failure to level with the public -- indeed, with the Army -- on that score is spineless or remaining above the fray, not sure which. Either way it was and is dumb and merely leads to future acquiescence to later ignorant or ill informed demands.