All matters MRAP JLTV (merged thread)

[Ken White]

In order of your list, I'd vote for:

No -- MRAPs are the worst choice. Logistically, tactically and mobility-wise unsound in all aspects
No -- Poor vehicle; tries to be all things to all people and fails. Number of troops issue is secondary but does have the benefit of fewer casualties in event of a catastrophic hit.
Yes -- best choice, multi-task capable and designed as a combat vehicle for ANYTHING less than high intensity armored combat. Pandur or the Patria AMV would be my current choices as both offer many advantages over the Stryker.
No -- MRAP by another name; only saving grace is logistic commonality which the MRAP doesn't have.

And Wilf is right, the old METT-TC factors rule. Ignoring those factors is always perilous and the MRAP problems are that Troops Available will misuse them and the Enemy will find way to negate their already limited value.

As long as I'm here...

M.L.

I don't think that's what he wrote...

There are a couple of assumptions in this argument. The first is that "intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance, proper patrolling techniques, and deployments" and MRAPs are mutually exclusive...While I see your point that MRAPs provide an opportunity for Soldiers to avoid engaging with the local populace, staying on the FOB does the same thing. It is a leadership issue, not a force protection issue...On the other hand, suggesting that no force protection is warranted simply because too much may inhibit mission accomplishment seems wrong...While casualties are a part of war,

the idea that we shouldn't do anything to mitigate risk is nonsense...

I think his point was that balance should be sought between the competing demands of mission and protection and the MRAP stacks the deck toward the latter at possibly excessive cost to the former. He also addressed the fact that we consistently and IMO wrongly downplay the harsh and unforgiving aspects of the job that is soldiering for some unfathomable reason. Among other flaws, that leads (or allows...) politicians to think wars can be successfully waged and concluded on the cheap. They cannot. Such an approach also deludes prospective entrants to the Armed Forces. A better approach is that old Marine recruiting poster below.

Poor leaders will not do what you correctly say is required and the presence of the MRAP provides not only an excuse but an incentive to do wrong. Good leaders won't have the problem but not all leaders are good -- some are atrocious -- and the poor can be encouraged to do better by tactically sound and sensible equipment choices rather than reacting to media hype and political spin. No one has a problem with force protection, the question is how to best balance that with mission parameters. The MRAP was a poor solution, politically forced and does not merit defense -- or retention in the inventory.