From: "Robert G Lewis" 

Mark the original quote dealt with benefits to those on active duty in
Iraq, Not the armor issue ( which is an issue)

here is the article quoted in the link John provided

http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd?pid=2440

and here is the original transcript

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041208-secdef1761.html

This is one of the items quoted in the TNR article ( although the cut the response)

:  Specialist Skarwin (Sp?) HHD 42nd Engineer Brigade.  Mr. Secretary
[Cheers] my question is with
the current mission of the National Guard and Reserves being the same as
our active duty counterparts, when are more of our benefits going to line
up to the same as theirs, for example, retirement?  [Cheers] [Applause]


SEC. RUMSFELD:  [Laughter] I can’t imagine anyone your age worrying about
retirement.  [Laughter]  Good grief.  It’s the last thing I want to do is
retire.  The pay and benefits for the Guard and the Reserve relative to the
active force have been going up unevenly at a rate faster than the active
force.  If you go back over four years – matter of fact, I just went over
this with the senior person in the department who looks at pay and
benefits. And apparently, what’s happened is that for a variety of reasons,
the incremental changes that are made each year, in terms of pay and
benefits and health care and retirement and what have you, have brought the
Guard and Reserve up at a faster level than the active force.  And what one
has to do in managing the total force and the total force is critically
important.  We need the Guard and Reserve as well as the active force.  And
we have to see that we have the incentives arranged in a way that we can
attract and retain the people that are needed to defend the country.  At
the moment, we are doing well in terms of attracting and retaining the
people we need.  And if anything, I think the data suggests that the Guard
and Reserve forces had been advantaged relatively compared to the active
force over the past four years.  Question.


I would be interested to know what the actual situation is. the perception
is the Guard and Reserves are not as well off as the Regular Active duty
forces.

Bob Lewis

"Mark"  wrote in message
news:41b9e51d{at}w3.nls.net...
> That still makes him 6 points more favored by the troops than the general
> public. That said, I don't see anything wrong with the question being
> asked, it's unfortunate that (apparently anyway) an overzealous small-town
> reporter wanted to make news instead of report on it - but why should he
> be different the rest of them I guess.
>
> From what I've read the lack of armor and various field innovations to
> improve things are commonplace through history. This is true in all areas,
> remember Thurman Munson inventing the little flap that hung down from the
> catcher's mask to protect the Adam's apple?
>
> I've forgotten where I read it now, but mention was made of Knights in
> full armor being invincible unless they fell off their horse, then they
> were entirely immobilized and even would drown if they happened to land in
> a puddle. Another anecdote was about Sherman tanks with sandbags, and even
> logs, piled on for additional protection.
>
> Too, as with everything, there are other potential consequences; what is
> the decreased range on a tank of gas for a heavily armored Humvee compared
> to none or light armor? Would it potentially be more dangerous to run out
> of gas before reaching the destination or a safe harbor? I think I'd still
> come down the side of more armor than less, but it's not entirely simple.
>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5