Did Armored Vehicle Delay Cost U.S. Lives?

Marines Ask Pentagon To Probe Allegations That Slowness In Getting Vehicles To Iraq Led To Hundreds of Combat Casualties

(AP)  The Marine Corps has asked the Pentagon's inspector general to examine allegations that a nearly two-year delay in the fielding of blast-resistant vehicles led to hundreds of combat casualties in Iraq.

The system for rapidly shipping needed gear to troops on the front lines has been examined by auditors before and continues to improve, Col. David Lapan, a Marine Corps spokesman, said Monday night.

Due to the seriousness of the allegations, however, "the Marine Corps has taken the additional step" of requesting the IG investigation, Lapan said in an e-mailed statement.

In a Jan. 22 internal report, Franz Gayl, a civilian Marine Corps official, accused the service of "gross mismanagement" that delayed deliveries of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks.

Gayl's study, which reflected his own views, said cost was a driving factor in the decision to turn down a February 2005 "urgent" request from battlefield commanders for the so-called MRAPs.

Stateside authorities saw the hulking vehicles, which weigh up to 40 tons and can cost as much as a $1 million each, as a financial threat to programs aimed at developing lighter vehicles that were years from being fielded, charged Gayl, who prepared the study for the Marine Corps' plans, policies and operations department.

Gayl, a retired Marine officer, is the science and technology adviser to Lt. Gen. Richard Natonski, who heads the department.

The Associated Press first reported on Gayl's study Feb. 15. At that time, Gayl's work had not been reviewed by his immediate supervisor, Col. David Wilkinson, Lapan said Monday.

"The paper represents Gayl's personal opinions and is clearly marked as such," Lapan said. "It is both preliminary and pre-decisional, and therefore a mischaracterization to term his work an official study or report."

Gen. Robert Magnus, the Marine Corps' assistant commandant, disputed Gayl's conclusions in a recent interview with Marine Corps Times.

Magnus and other Marine Corps officials have said the defense industry lacked the capacity to build MRAPs in large numbers when the 2005 request was made. The best solution to the deadly roadside bombs planted by insurgents was to add extra layers of steel to the less sturdy Humvee, they said.

"I don't think (the study) stands up to the facts about what we did, about what the industry was capable of doing and why we did what we did," Magnus told the newspaper in an interview. "I just don't think that's accurate."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates declared the MRAP the Pentagon's No. 1 acquisition priority in May 2007. Defense contractors are now producing close to 1,000 vehicles a month.

Gayl has clashed with his superiors in the past and filed for whistle-blower protection last year. In his study, he recommended an inquiry be conducted to determine if any military or government employees are culpable for failing to rush critical gear to the troops.

"If the mass procurement and fielding of MRAPs had begun in 2005 in response to the known and acknowledged threats at that time, as the (Marine Corps) is doing today, hundreds of deaths and injuries could have been prevented," Gayl said. "While the possibility of individual corruption remains undetermined, the existence of corrupted MRAP processes is likely, and worthy of (inspector general) investigation."

Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Kit Bond, R-Mo., called for an investigation after reviewing Gayl's report.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the nation's oldest veterans organization, said if Gayl's allegations are true, charges should be brought against the military and civilian officials who failed to deliver the MRAPs.

If, however, Gayl's findings are incorrect, he should be held accountable for his actions, said VFW National Commander George Lisicki in a Feb. 19 letter to members of Congress.

"There is no doubt MRAPs have saved many lives in horrendous (improvised explosive device) explosions, but to accuse the Marine Corps of knowingly and intentionally jeopardizing the safety of fellow Marines on the battlefield is a very serious charge," Lisicki said.

Olbermann (Countdown) made a cryptic, ominous statement tonight. He said that if you want to make a prediction on which Bush functionaries will spend the longest time in prison, then watch this story....???

Wonder what that was about...

[j-whitman]

Good day folks, time for some news republicans don''t watch.

[j-whitman]

Containment was working --- That was the purpose of the Iraq Liberation Act...... 4,000 American soldiers & over 150,000 civilians would still be alive & the brains of that country wouldn''t have left.

[liberalme]

I have a question, where would we be if Saddam and his sons were still in power?

Don''''t tell me we had them "contained", because my next question would be, "for how much longer would we be doing that?"

Posted by AJMarine1

We would (hopefully)be going after Bin Laden--He wasn''t in Iraq---Sadam had NO weapons of mass destruction, there were no terrorist training camps in Iraq and Sadam had nothing to do with 911.

Knowing this, where Should we have been after 911?
This whole war began after 911.

[poopusbuttus]

poopusbuttus, j-whitman,

This has been fun, didn''''t mean to go off topic and get back to the start of the war, but I have to do some things for awhile.

Talk to you later.......Live Long and Prosper.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by AJMarine1


OK Spock...it''s been real :)

[j-whitman]

AJMarine1,,, Always good talking to you, catch you later.

[j-whitman]

AJMarine1,,, I think I gave you the link to the Rand Corporations studies they normally do for the Pentagon.. Something anyone in the Pentagon should know about. They normally issue classified & unclassified intel reports on war planning.

The Rand Corp. studies were ignored out of politics & fear from Rumsfeld & the White House. ---- That would have made a big difference in the overall success of this war & we woudn''t have had the problems now,, we wouldn''t be building a governemt 5 years later.

[ajmarine1]

poopusbuttus, j-whitman,

This has been fun, didn''t mean to go off topic and get back to the start of the war, but I have to do some things for awhile.

Talk to you later.......Live Long and Prosper.

[j-whitman]

poopusbuttus,,,, As it stands we still don''t have the troops to hold what we take.... We give it all back to the Sunni''s who where the insurgents.

[ajmarine1]

We got rid of Saddam & that was good, but ignoing all pre-invasion & post invasion experts in planning & intellegence was a catastrophe

Posted by j-whitman at 07:39 PM : Feb 26, 2008

This goes back to "You or I can find things to post supporting both sides of the issue;" but I don''t know all that went on or goes on behind closed doors of governments.

Also, all the best made game plans are null and void once the first bullet is fired.

[poopusbuttus]

What it''''s all about to me ?? ---- It''''s about protecting our National Security, correct foreign policies, correct Fair Trade vice trade that sells our country out, a much stronger military & an effective government that can provide for a growing nation with growing domestic & global probelms.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by j-whitman


Protecting our national securty? How? By appeasing the terrorists?

Correcting Foreign Policy? How? By appeasing to the terrorists?

Beefing up our military? Why? So we can sit back and say, "Hey, we are not going to get involved"....

Correcting global and domestic problems? I agree with you on the domestic front, but how are you going to correct the "Global" problems? By appeasing to the terrorists?

See...that''s the difference between you and I JWHIT. In my opinion (even though I consider you a vet with 20 yrs of military experience), you have no concept of what it takes to stabilize (through funding, protecting, and advocating democracy via global connections) our stance in the world.


You think like Ron Paul (Even though I know your motivation is solely because you hate Bush) that if we pull out of everywhere in the world, everything will be ok.

But then again, your post contradicts that scenario.

You''re all over the map dude. You''re like Obama

[j-whitman]

poopusbuttus,,,, I''m certainly glad you aren''t running any war.... You would repeat every strategy of Adolf Hitler,,, How did that turn out ???

[j-whitman]

AJMarine1,,,, Agreed, a bullet in the head would have stopped most of this -
-- But, as in today all the Iraqi police have to do when a crime happens is point a finger towards a crowd & someone will confess out of fear.

We got rid of Saddam & that was good, but ignoing all pre-invasion & post invasion experts in planning & intellegence was a catastrophe

[j-whitman]

poopusbuttus,,, My disgust for Bush runs deep, as it does with most people with resonable minds -- You have less than 36% that still support Bush as always.

What it''s all about to me ?? ---- It''s about protecting our National Security, correct foreign policies, correct Fair Trade vice trade that sells our country out, a much stronger military & an effective government that can provide for a growing nation with growing domestic & global probelms.

[ajmarine1]

AJMarine1,,,, I think everyone in their government & military was waiting for Saddam to leave -- Nobody understood the devistation of his regime as they did.

Posted by j-whitman at 07:28 PM : Feb 26, 2008


I kept waiting for someone to put a bullet in their heads, but no one seemed to be able to do that. It sure would have made things alot easier.

[poopusbuttus]

You are right, war is about killing people and breaking things. You can''''t fight a war and be PC.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by AJMarine1


Exactly. If we had conducted this war (with Iraq), the same way we conducted WWII (given the fact that the times were the same), we would have been over this 3 years ago.

That entails, blacking out the media so the likes of JWHIT and other dummy liberals couldnt sway the populous, and killing everything in our path, setting up a govt, and moving on out the door.

That''s the proper way to conduct a war.

[j-whitman]

AJMarine1,,,, I think everyone in their government & military was waiting for Saddam to leave -- Nobody understood the devistation of his regime as they did.

[poopusbuttus]

poopusbuttus,,,, You have absoultly no idea what our Marine Corps does, that''''s obvious they are far more involved in many efforts, from building communities to restoring the museums.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by j-whitman


JWHIT -- I''m well aware (being prior service just as you were) of what the Marines mission is.

In fact, not only what the Marines mission is, but what the US military mission is.

Dude, you hate BUsh, that''s what it''s all about for you. Nothing more....nothing less.....I think all fair minded people that post on here can see that....

[ajmarine1]

And, as I told JWHIT earlier this afternoon. Marines storm the front, and kill everything they see. That''''s what Marines do. And, they do it well. Better than any other branch of service.

Posted by poopusbuttus at 07:20 PM : Feb 26, 2008

No one wants to fight a war, but someone has to know how.

You are right, war is about killing people and breaking things. You can''t fight a war and be PC.

[j-whitman]

AJMarine1,,,, That''s a good question... A pretty big if though ------ In my opinion his sons would have never got the job,, Everyone in the country knew what they were doing.... Not even their generals would have allowed it.