GovernmentExecutive.com

An independent study released Wednesday urges the Defense Department and Congress to consider the long-term effects of buying thousands of Mine Resistant Ambush-Protected, or MRAP, vehicles now being rushed to Iraq to better protect U.S. troops against roadside bombs.

The military could ultimately buy as many as 25,000 of the vehicles, to the tune of $25 billion -- a large and unexpected bill that many on Capitol Hill and within the military see as a necessary cost of war. The study, conducted by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, acknowledges the pressing need for the combat vehicles, but recommended a rigorous assessment of the costs, operational need and future use of the vehicles.

Dakota Wood, a retired Marine Corps officer and one of the study's authors, stressed that there should not be a "rush to judgment" on buying the vehicles without a more thorough discussion that extends beyond the emotional issue of protecting troops in battle.

Although the study's authors expect the military to use the vehicles for urban conflict well into the future, they warn against buying the MRAPs at the expense of lighter and more agile platforms considered central to the military's future force. The study also raises questions about the logistics requirements for the MRAPs, of which there are several variants requiring an array of spare parts.

In addition, the study notes that the fuel consumption of the MRAPs is significantly more than the up-armored Humvees they are replacing -- requiring larger convoys that often become targets for attack. The study also questions whether the protection offered by the MRAPs will move soldiers to abandon foot patrols essential to collecting intelligence in Iraq.

"MRAPs seem to run counter to U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine, which encourages soldiers and Marines to 'get out and walk' to establish close relationships with the population," the report said. "In short, MRAPs may provide better protection for troops at the expense of accomplishing the mission."

Current and retired military officials today disputed any arguments that the new vehicles will serve as a "cocoon" for U.S. troops.

"I find unpersuasive the argument that MRAP will have some kind of doctrinal impact on the conduct of the war in Iraq," said Robert Killebrew, a retired Army colonel who now consults on defense matters. "That is entirely up to Gen. [David] Petraeus," the top U.S. military official in Iraq, and other military leaders. Marine Corps Col. Lawrence Nicholson, who commanded forces in Iraq, cautioned that commanders on the ground need time to figure out how to use the vehicles in theater and how many they ultimately need.

"There's a lot of teeth sucking and hand wringing about how many and what are we going to do with them later on," Nicholson said. "We don't know exactly how many we need -- nobody does."

COMMENTS

• The report was based on unsupported conclusions: First, that the Army and Marines are embarked on a wholesale replacement of HMMWVs with MRAPs. Secondly, that Soldiers and Marines will cease to patrol on foot. Thirdly, that Soldiers and Marines in MRAPs are more isolated from the indigenous population than troops in the latest generation of up armored M1114s. None of those assumptions have bases in fact. The report failed to identify the greater risk: That the side armor of MRAPs will be inadequate to repel the next generation of Iranian engineered EFPs. In order to be effective against IED placements, MRAPs must be employed with all manner of COIN tactics. Stephen L. Castner Posted October 19, 2007 12:42 AM
• War is an emotional issue---ask the mothers, the fathers, the husbands, the wives, the kids and the friends of those who serve this county. Ask them if they think we should invest in protecting their lives and keeping them safe. These people need to leave the think tank and start thinking about reconnecting with humanity. susan Posted October 18, 2007 6:07 PM
• I do not know exactly how much each of these MRAP vechiles will cost in the end - but we already know that based upon today dollars each son or daughter killed in the war so far has cost significantly: In the loss of my son Sgt Donald J. Hasse kiled when an IED exploded while he was riding atop of the Hummer; And, each mother who losses a son or daughter has a very nice pay check from the government to cuddle up to now instead of the child they brought into the world. I am very proud of my son Donald for his contirbution to the war effort in Iraq. If it going to only cost us $25 billion to build 25,000 MRAP vechiles in dollars and cents that figures to about $1 million a vechile - and I am sure they are reusable even if they sustain some damage - bottom line if we can spend $1 million dollars up front to protect the men and women serving our country - how much of a cost savings over the long run can an MRAP produce carry at least 3 persons? The dollars and cents savings in just SGLI payments could equal as much as $3.2 million. Doesn't it makes more sense to spend $1 million to save $3.2 million? Evan Stubbs Posted October 18, 2007 4:16 PM