Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Reflection 4

John Crawford’s stories made the recent wars much more real to me. The level of detail and the way he described each situation almost made me feel like I was right next to him. Even with his masterful storytelling something constantly jumped out at me; why was he and his troops not supplied with adequate gear and equipment at all times? The first example arose in the first story when he was in the sandstorm. Intel informed him that there were incoming enemy tanks to their position. Crawford asked around if they had anything to “kill” a tank and everyone came up empty. What struck me was that our troops were basically sitting ducks if there actually was an attack on their base.

The second example occurred in the last story. He first illustrated that his body armor was from the Vietnam era and would hardly protect him from incoming fire. He then went on telling that his hummer had no protection and incoming fire would rip right through the doors. There wasn’t even a back to the hummer and when they stopped abruptly, he actually fell out of the vehicle.

What is most striking to me about all these examples is that it shows our army and soldiers are not sufficiently supplied for modern combat. Are we not supposed to be the best army in the world with the most sophisticated weapons and technologies? What does this say about how much we actually care for our soldiers if we can’t even provide them with body armor? In lecture Hass says that wars are now soldier centered and “support our troops” is a main theme. How can this be true if everything Crawford illustrated is true?

1 comment:

  1. I agree, the level to which we supply our troops relative to our advanced national position and relative amount of resources is horrible. Looking at the vast sums of money this nation spends on other things, it is shocking to think that our soldiers do not even have the necessary armor and supplies to perform their duties adequately and in as safe a manner as possible. We have to think if it was our family member, what cost would be too high even if it only offered a marginal amount of additional protection?

    ReplyDelete