"Robatoy" wrote in message
In article
"Swingman" wrote:

Well, read the last paragraph again:

The military commander has to fight with the tools available, and
improvise from there, which is what is being done, and has been done
in
every war.

I read that. I just can't get my head around it.

What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
situation?

Keep firmly in mind that TOE (Table of Organization and Equipment) does NOT
normally contain armored transport resources for those units deployed as
infantry ... they normally WALK.

You improvise and do the best you can ...a time honored solution to the time
honored fact of politicians hamstringing the fighting man.

It ain't like this administration invented, or even had that much to do,
with the situation under discussion.


Having said that, I also don't understand civilians, who have never
spent a day in the service, who know f*uck-all about warfare, giving
orders to the military.

Well, it _is_ a Constitutional safeguard which we damn well better fight to
preserve.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04