Wait a second -- Is the fact that soldiers are complaining that they don't have the armor somehow inadmissable as evidence they don't have the armor? And isn't that a HELL of a lot more important than the issue of Public Perception Of Donald Rumsfeld?

"Beats me"? We're gonna dismiss the pleas and demands of our soldiers so we can worry about Rumsfeld's IMAGE?!? We're gonna divert into liberal-media stuff?

Screw InstaPundit, Ilyka, you're much better than him. I probably don't even have to tell you, Rumsfeld's invulnerable. We libs can beat on him 24/7 and he'll still be there, still himself, still in charge. Long as he wants to. What a jackass InstaPundit is!

Counterpoint to jdc:

Actually, a lot of the discussion I saw from Rumsfeld's critics focused more on Rumsfeld than the armor issue itself. I think it's perfectly fair for Reynolds to address that aspect (although ironically, Drum is miffed because he thinks Reynolds is distracting from the Rumsfeld perception issue by talking about the armor).

Full disclosure #1: I like Reynolds and have suckled at his benevolent traffic teat thrice.

Full disclosure #2: I'm not really a Rumsfeld fan.

P.S. to Ilyka: Rumsfeld probably smells rather like mac-n-cheese, so the two topics aren't really distinguishable.

It isn't that soldiers wanting more armour (coached on the question or no) aren't admissable as to the question as to whether or not they need more armour. It's that "I want" and "I need" aren't automatically equivalent. Maybe the armour isn't always worth any reduced speed and maneuverability that might come with it? Maybe the armour wouldn't help against 99% of the attacks? I don't know, and the reports I've seen in the media don't tell me much.

Really, there are multiple questions:
1) Would more armour really be useful? Specifically, is the difference between armoured and 'unarmoured', for the missions they're being used for, going to save soldiers' lives?

If true, and it quite likely (but not certainly) is, then you get to:
2) If the armour is needed, why isn't there enough of it?

Rumsfeld may be responsible for this. So could whoever bought unarmoured Humvees in the first place, or whichever Congressmen participated in choosing which acquisitions program to fund, or whomever. Placing blame on Rumsfeld before we determine fully the reasons behind the problem is partisan hackery, even if Rumsfeld otherwise entirely deserves being fired (and there are very good arguments that he does).

I think the "Beats me" attitude is a bit dishonest. No, we're not going to Iraq to evaluate the situation, and no, most of us probably didn't serve in the military recently. But nor should we say, "We don't know if the soldiers need this stuff, so the whole question's off the table."

See, instead of reading InstaPundit, any of us could go find blogs or forums featuring sodliers/vets of any recent era, and we could see what they think. No, they're not There In Iraq Right Now, but insofar as anybody's opinion is worthwhile, theirs is. We could even follow an informative debate on whether This Thingy would protect them from That Weapon.

We can do that -- if we care more about the soldiers than political intangibles. We still won't know for absolute certain, but -- let me put it this way: I didn't study geology or physics, but I'm smart enough to follow an evolution/creation debate and tell who's on firmer ground (The evolutionists, natch.)

Also, to Ilyka: I'm fine with a few activist journalists, if they're embedded. And I wouldn't think the soldiers'd ask DISHONEST questions just 'cause Mr. Lee Pitts asked 'em to.

Good corollary, and you're right.... Rumsefeld should be expected to give answers as to why needed gear isn't there. And, since the issue has been developing over time, it's something he should be able to produce ready, documented evidence on sooner, rather than later, as to why the armour either a) isn't needed as badly as was stated; b) wasn't properly forecast as to need; or c) flat out was impossible to produce in time (and if there were cost/benefit decisions made, then who made them, when, and on what information).

Mind you, I'm Canadian, so maybe I'm just so used to hearing stories of soldiers sent to war zones with inadequate equipment that I've come to expect them, and so don't get the same automatic outrage as you guys do, since you have a decently funded military.

Reading Instapundit's post.... he looks into it a bit more than you say (though, oddly, usual suspects Powerline and the Corner aren't linked, and both had some reader e-mails with purported info), but you're right that the emphasis is off.

With him (not with everyone), I'd say that the focus isn't so much pro-Rumsfeld as it is anti-established-media. Instapundit often falls into the "storyline" trap that a lot of bloggers & reporters fall prey to. What I mean is that Instapundit has his storylines that he pushes (biased media being one; how many times did he repeat that 'we'll deliver 15 points to Kerry' quote?), and he tends to overfocus on them to the point of ignoring larger issues or alternative explanations. All that being said, the focus is still not where it should be, which is on the supply issues; I just think in his particular case, the focus is less on protecting Rumsfeld then on getting in another slam on the media.

Just hadda agree with Craig about narrative. As I see it, journalists fall into imitation of each other (imitate whatever gets attention), which is why you get a roaring bias in some corners.

Often, I think complaining of ideological bias is besides the point -- the media has habits of repetition of themes, imitation of success, and emphasis on personality over philosophy/morality. In other words, a stupidity bias.

I say "media", but a blogger can fall into the same trap. Opinion writers and talk-show hosts are the unrepentant junkies, making no effort to contain their habits. Same shit, different day.

Generally it comes down to budget. There is so much money to buy equipment. The equipment is purchased according to the intended purpose of the unit. Armored Humvees cost almost a complete shitload* more than unarmored ones. If there isn't a projected military need for armor then you don't purchase armor.

The equipment that the units have is quite likely to be adequate for what was their expected mission. That expected mission was not to be an occupation force.

Refitting takes time and more money and is especially difficult in a warzone. It also doesn't happen across the entire theater - it is dispensed in triage fashion to where it's needed the most. Strykers and Bradleys get upgrades before Humvees. Units in the Triangle and in Fallujah are going to get it before units running a secure caravan northward.

Read my two paragraph explanation and then reread his comment. They say the same thing only my way probably won't piss quite so many people off. Rummy can be a bit too flippant at times.

* In military parlance a "shitload" is about half a "buttload" and twice as much as a normal "load".

They weren't talking about armored HumVees. They were talking about armoring all the other vehicles that a modern military drives, fuel tankers, semis, and trucks of all shapes and sizes.

Further, this soldier is in Kuwait. He has not yet deployed to the combat zone. His commanding officer has stated that they have all the armor they need. The general in charge of seeing that vehicles are armored has said that before this unit leaves Kuwait, every vehicle with a soldier in it will have armor. Unarmored vehicles will be put on trailers and trucked to the base in Iraq.

Armored HumVees were originally intended for the use of military police in combat. That's why so few were originally made. There were at least two programs in the 1990's to develope an armored vehicle for patrolling and such. They were killed, and the HumVee has, by default, assumed that role. In Bosnia, among the most heavily mined nations in the world, armored HumVees were never deployed. Indeed, never in modern warfare have all non-combat vehciles been required to be armored.

Analysis and briefings