Lieberman uses our taxpayer money for what?

[Don1]

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_2719660

"...'I wanted to see the Stryker vehicle in combat. They are a very impressive vehicle and are giving a lot of protection and speed to our troops,' Lieberman said in an interview Friday.

...Although many soldiers in the field say they like the vehicle, the Army document, titled "Initial Impressions Report — Operations in Mosul, Iraq," makes clear that the vehicle's military performance has fallen short..."

{This part was corporate news spin. Many soldiers also complain about the program. And the performance has definitely fallen short. It is a fact. There were objective criteria set up in the contract with General Dynamics and those criteria have not been met. You can google this for more info. Additionally, now Lieberman in one fell swoop approves of the program.}

"...In Baghdad, they met with acting U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte...Lieberman also met Monday with Brig. Gen. Yossi Kupperwasser and Gen. Meir Dagan of the Mossad..."

[whistle]

1. What's wrong with the Stryker....

...the army failed anticipate fighting conditions they are exposed to in Iraq and retro-fitting the vehicle to make it work in that environment has simply not worked. So they blame the manufacturer.

<snip>
Study Faults Army Vehicle
Use of Transport in Iraq Puts Troops at Risk, Internal Report Says

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 31, 2005; Page A01

The Army has deployed a new troop transport vehicle in Iraq with many defects, putting troops there at unexpected risk from rocket-propelled grenades and raising questions about the vehicle's development and $11 billion cost, according to a detailed critique in a classified Army study obtained by The Washington Post.

The vehicle is known as the Stryker, and 311 of the lightly armored, wheeled vehicles have been ferrying U.S. soldiers around northern Iraq since October 2003. The Army has been ebullient about the vehicle's success there, with Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, telling the House Armed Services Committee last month that "we're absolutely enthusiastic about what the Stryker has done."

But the Army's Dec. 21 report, drawn from confidential interviews with operators of the vehicle in Iraq in the last quarter of 2004, lists a catalogue of complaints about the vehicle, including design flaws, inoperable gear and maintenance problems that are "getting worse not better." Although many soldiers in the field say they like the vehicle, the Army document, titled "Initial Impressions Report -- Operations in Mosul, Iraq," makes clear that the vehicle's military performance has fallen short.
<snip>
The report states, for example, that an armoring shield installed on Stryker vehicles to protect against unanticipated attacks by Iraqi insurgents using low-tech weapons works against half the grenades used to assault it. The shield, installed at a base in Kuwait, is so heavy that tire pressure must be checked three times daily. Nine tires a day are changed after failing, the report says; the Army told The Post the current figure is "11 tire and wheel assemblies daily."

"The additional weight significantly impacts the handling and performance during the rainy season," says the report, which was prepared for the Center for Army Lessons Learned in Fort Leavenworth, Kan. "Mud appeared to cause strain on the engine, the drive shaft and the differentials," none of which was designed to carry the added armor.

Commanders' displays aboard the vehicles are poorly designed and do not work; none of the 100 display units in Iraq are being used because of "design and functionality shortfalls," the report states. The vehicle's computers are too slow and overheat in desert temperatures or freeze up at critical moments, such as "when large units are moving at high speeds simultaneously" and overwhelm its sensors.
<more>
<link> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14284-2005Mar30.html


More on the Stryker from the army's own web-site:

<snip>
STRYKER 8-WHEEL DRIVE ARMOURED COMBAT VEHICLES, USA

Stryker is a family of eight-wheel drive combat vehicles, transportable in a C-130 aircraft, being built for the US Army by General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada (formerly General Motors Defense) and General Dynamics Land Systems Division of USA. Stryker is based on the GDLS Canada LAV III 8x8 light armoured vehicle, in service since early 2001. The LAV III is itself a version of the Piranha III built by Mowag of Switzerland, now part of GDLS - Europe. Fabrication and final assembly of the vehicles is being shared among plants at Anniston, Alabama; Lima, Ohio; and London, Ontario.

The Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) combines the capacity for rapid deployment with survivability and tactical mobility. The Stryker vehicle enables the team to manoeuvre in close and urban terrain, provide protection in open terrain and transport infantry quickly to critical battlefield positions. The eight-wheeled Stryker is the first new military vehicle to enter service into the United States Army since the Abrams tank in the 1980s.

The contract for the US Army's interim armoured vehicle (IAV) was awarded in November 2000. The vehicles are to form the basis of six Brigade Combat Teams by 2008. The contract requirement covers the supply of 2,131 vehicles. Deliveries of Stryker infantry carriers began in April 2002. Over 1,000 vehicles have been delivered.

Initial Operational Test and Evaluation began in May 3003 with the Arrowhead Lightning II exercise. In November 2003, the Stryker entered operational service with the US Army, with the first Stryker SBCT, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, following its deployment to Iraq. The second SBCT, 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division was deployed to Iraq in September 2004. Deliveries for the third are underway. Contracts for 328 vehicles to form the fourth brigade were placed in March / June 2004 for delivery between 2005-06, and for 423 vehicles for the fifth brigade in February 2005 with deliveries in 2006-07.

<more>
<link> http://www.army-technology.com/projects/stryker/

[Don1]

2. On the other hand

Technical experts have been critical of the Stryker program since its inception and furthermore General Dynamics has admitted culpability in this instance...saying it would better the project.

That being said...

Look, man, I'm not there in the s**t as they used to say. So, I cannot really say whether it's the Army who is at fault or General Dynamics who is at fault.

And the point is moot. Whether it's General Dynamics or the Army, the vehicles are still not supporting the troops. The troops are complaining. Lieberman, on the other hand, went there and said nothing was wrong with the program.

He is therefore not representing the interests of the people. Instead, he is protecting his butt by saying nothing is wrong (since he has been one of those in govt in charge of the program), or he is protecting his military cronies, or he is protecting General Dynamics...It's probably something much more complicated and corrupt than we could ever understand, though. The military industrial complex is a very complex institution, no?

[whistle]

3. The military industrial complex is a very complex institution, no?

....The double use of the word complex as a noun and then an adjective clarifies nothing here except perhaps to cloud the understanding. That's why I posted two links, the article that outlined some of the problems with the vehicle and the army's own webpage that discuses the uses and applications of the Stryker vehicle as a high speed troop transporter.

The article appears to outline that the army in an effort to save money or save the Stryker or just sheer ignorance, loaded the vehicle with extra and exssesively heavy armour to withstand enemy attacks it never anticipated and by doing so compromised the integrity of the locomotion components (blowing tires, stressing drive train parts, axials, suspension, transmissions, etc) then blaming the manufacturer for putting out an inferior product. Furthermore, the military made the decision to deploy the vehile before it had thoroughly tested it for the conditions it would be subjected to in Iraq back in March 2003 because the president was in a rush to go to war.

The manufacturer may have improperly designed or delivered an inferior product, I have no way of knowing. However, a lot of very screwy things have happened as a result of the Bush administration's rush to war in Iraq and also as the result of Donald Rumsfeld's leadership as Secretary of Defense. We indeed have a military industrial complex that is in fact largely out of control and as a consequence it has become a corrupt institution which produces the kinds of highly risky and infective situations like the Stryker troop transport vehicle program that cost American tax payers billions of dollars, most of which are wasted because the programs fail to provide what they were intended to provide, reliability, safety, effectiveness, durability, integrity and accountablity.

[Don1]

4. Irrelevant

"The manufacturer may have improperly designed or delivered an inferior product, I have no way of knowing. However, a lot of very screwy things have happened as a result of the Bush administration's rush to war in Iraq and also as the result of Donald Rumsfeld's leadership as Secretary of Defense. We indeed have a military industrial complex that is in fact largely out of control and as a consequence it has become a corrupt institution which produces the kinds of highly risky and infective situations like the Stryker troop transport vehicle program that cost American tax payers billions of dollars, most of which are wasted because the programs fail to provide what they were intended to provide, reliability, safety, effectiveness, durability, integrity and accountablity."

Actually, the complaints against the Stryker program began in the Clinton era and continued on to the Bush regime. Lieberman has been a part of it all along via the Senate Armed Services committee and other congressional functions.

Whether or not the Army is at fault for its misuse (like the articles you are citing) or GD is at fault for the program not meeting specs (like articles I have read) is completely irrelevant.

The whole point of this AGAIN is that Lieberman has been a proponent of the program and currently approves its usage in Iraq after observing how it is being used.

Any failure to acknowledge this fact is an attempt to distract the readers in Connecticut in this forum from Lieberman's culpability.

[whistle]

5. Well, we can differ on our perceptions and if Joe Lieberman

...is the person to blame, then blame away. However, I happen to believe that one has to use the proper tools for the job at hand. In other words, if one want to set screws, don't use a hammer.

I drive an automobile that is 2,200 lbs, just over one ton. If I were to add three tons more of armor plating and bullet-proof glass for protection of the occupants and changed nothing else in the drive train and suspension, I'd have big problems. Now, if Joe Lieberman went over to Iraq and observed what has happened to the Stryker vehicle in it's combat application and is totally ignoring the misuse of it, then he is in fact culpable. If the army has covered that up so that the senator and his staff have been fooled into thinking the Stryker vehicle is doing just fine, then he needs to go back secretly and take another look.

What is available right now in transport vehicles for the U.S. military men and women in harms way in Iraq and Afghanistan, that will do a better job than the Stryker transport vehicle?

Every military industrial complex weapons system has its marketing network. I'm no proponent of any of them, because I am not a proponent of war. However, we have a military, so let's make sure they are accountable for our tax money that congress gives to them. Here is link to one of those marketing pages that came out soon after the Stryker was first deployed in the middle east for our troops:

<snip>
January 11, 2004
Stryker Rundown

Regular readers will know that I'm a bit of a fan when it comes to the new Stryker Brigade, currently deployed in Iraq. I've been following the Strykers for some time, and am very interested to see how they perform in their first mission.

My admiration for the program is nothing close to blind, however, and there are a lot of unanswered questions about the vehicles and the process that resulted in the current plans to field six brigades of them.

<snip>
The biggest questions I have about the program are (in no particular order)

Is the Stryker's really more strategically mobile than other units?
Are wheels really better than tracks for the Stryker's tactical mobility?
Does the Stryker provide enough protection?
What's wrong with the 105mm gun-armed Mobile Gun System variant?
Why weren't competitive head-to-head tests with alternative vehicles held?
Why does so much of the decision-making and procurement process of the Stryker program seem to stink so badly?

<more>
<link> http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/000853.html

[Don1]

6. This thread is about Lieberman

Again, many of these points are irrelevant and I am not going to respond to them.

The relevant part of your last post is here:
"Now, if Joe Lieberman went over to Iraq and observed what has happened to the Stryker vehicle in it's combat application and is totally ignoring the misuse of it, then he is in fact culpable. If the army has covered that up so that the senator and his staff have been fooled into thinking the Stryker vehicle is doing just fine, then he needs to go back secretly and take another look."

Joementum DID go to Iraq and he "observed what has happened to the Stryker vehicle." Again, he HAS been observing the program since its inception, including helping to start the program through his role in the Senate Armed Services Committee. Furthermore, the very nature of the visit is not to do a critical analysis of the program in the first place. A critical analysis could never be accomplished in such short order and from a presentation conducted by service men which you say may be out to fool him and his staff. If after that many years of working directly with the General Dynamics program and supporting it, Lieberman can be completely "fooled," then he is extremely incompetent at his job. This type of argument makes no sense.