Protecting Troops from IEDs in Afghanistan Should Be Approached with As Much Political Urgency as the Withdraw from Iraq
ByIn early 2006, Newsweek ran an article revealing to the general public what too many in uniform already knew, improvised explosive devices were killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq at a startling rate. The Department of Defense announced, as it had before, that properly equipping soldiers with armor and retrovitted or upgraded humvees was a priority.
Now, U.S. soldiers in Iraq are pulling-out on a political time-table with many being reassigned to Afghanistan where troops are falling victim to a huge increase in IED attacks. The MRAPs that reportedly served troops decently in Iraq, don’t do the job in Afghanistan’s terrain. The shame behind the story: Soldiers in Afghanistan have been threatened by IEDs for years now and are still not properly equiped with a sufficient number of vehicles suitable to their terrain that can withstand basic IEDs. A defense contractor has promised new vehicles that may withstand basic roadside bombs by October 2010.
Delay beyond October 2010 is unacceptable, the vehicles need to be in transit now. We rarely comment on the wars or foreign policy, but we think that, as commander-in-chief, President Obama should demand that his Secretary of Defense and civilian contractors make properly equiping soldiers so they are as safe as technology and tactics allow a priority. We don’t mean the kind of priorty that gets declared in political speeches, we mean the kind of priority that gets things done. It is sad that political urgency motivates the withdraw from Iraq, but it does not motivate the protection of troops serving in Afghanistan.
