Is this how it really is, mostly is in Iraq? We desperately need real information.

The wrench in the works is the terrorists, who are slowing reconstruction, spreading misery among the populace, murdering men, women and children... and killing our fellow Americans.

Bradleys are not tanks, they are fighting vehicles--there's a big difference. The author got it right, but whoever wrote the headline didn't. You should fix the headline.

You can't be friendly with a bradley....but you have to be in a bradley.

The Bradley is made of aluminum and was designed for use against the Soviet Union during the cold war and to replace the Vietnam era M113. Each Bradley costs $3,000,000 and the entire program cost 5 Billion. The Army also now fields the Stryker which costs about $4,000,000 per vehicle. Implementation of the Stryker program is projected to cost at least 9 Billion. All armored fighting vehicles of any kind are potentially death traps if the armor can be penetrated by an explosive device. The cost of explosives that can penetrate the type of armor used in these vehicles is miniscule compared to the cost of the vehicle, but these vehicles provide complete protection against small arms fire and when, as in Iraq, the enemy lacks sophisticated armor piercing weapons, a crudely constructed shaped charge must be located very precisely to penetrate the armor. Because we lack sufficient military personnel and because the DOD is driven by spending which is driven by politics, we are dependent on armored vehicles to project force in places like Iraq. On the other hand, armored fighting vehicles are a terrible way to combat an insurgency. These vehicles are designed for engaging an enemy force of similar sophistication in open battles outside of urban areas. While AFVs enable a relatively safe transport of force to a geographic location, they are terrible for relations with the local population. They are loud, noisy, destructive and isolating. We cannot afford the loss of life that would be necessary to pursue a successful counter-insurgency strategy through foot patrols, but we will never win hearts and minds driving AFVs through neighborhoods to discharge troops at particular locations. These AFVs allow us to keep the cost in US lives relatively low and allow us to continue to project force in Iraq, but they also bind us to a strategy that cannot succeed in the long run. As long as we can afford to pay the dollars necessary to repair and replace the vehicles we can stay without, apparently, an intolerable loss of life, but making any meaningful progress convincing the people of Iraq that we are actually there to help them will be very difficult as long as we roar around their neighborhoods in these things.

and when was it ever considered impregnable? It's a fancy armored personnel carrier.

The Abrams is a tank.

Elephantman: or it's called a civil war. We invaded their country. We had no good reason to do so. So they are fighting back. Using war to justify further war is circular logic.

The vast majority of people in Iraq want us to leave. Our presence there is not helping. There is no "war" to "win" here, since we are simply at war with the civilian population. If you believe in democracy, then when the vast majority of the civilian population wants you to leave, you should simply leave.

Anything short of that is good old-fashioned imperialism.

As others have pointed out, the Bradley is not a tank, and nobody who is not ignorant thought it was impregnable.

It's body is aluminum, it cannot survive the hit of any many tank round.

Please, please change the subject. I've grown weary of Salon appearing ignorant.

I think a lay person seeing a Bradley driving down the street would call it a tank. It is admittedly not a real tank like an M1, but the distinction between a real tank and an armored fighting vehicle/mechanized infantry is something that will be lost on most people.

And saying it is a "personnel carrier" really does not do credit to the vehicle. It makes it sound like a truck or Humvee.

The underlying notion that any weapon, tank, ship, or anything could be impregnable to any possible attack is something I would think no serious military mind would consider. In the real world, there are no irresistable forces, no immovable objects, and no impregnable vehicles.

Bradleys aren't tanks. Tanks are tracked, heavily armored, and their primary purpose is to carry a heavy, direct-fire cannon. Bradleys are Infantry Fighting Vehicles, IFVs. That's a particularly tough form of Armored Personnel Carrier, or APC.

Im a troop in Iraq and the tank v. personnel carrier back and forth is dumb and misses the point of the article. Focus, people! Focus!

Nobody familiar with the Bradley (or any armored vehicle) would consider it impregnable. On the other hand, few people thoroughly understand its vulnerabilities (and most that do are on our side).

The protracted war gives our adversaries in Iraq plenty of practice shooting at Bradleys. This exposes its strengths and weaknesses. Insurgents in Iraq will use this knowledge to conduct more successful attacks. Adversaries uninvolved in the conflict will learn by observing, and be better prepared if they fight U.S. forces in the future.

By remaining engaged in this prolonged war, we are handing all of our adversaries a valuable advantage in military intelligence. This makes the Bradley "less impregnable".

The army continually comes up with awkward monikers and dumb acronyms to distract from what something is: If you have a vehicle with no windows, access through an armored hatch, and caterpillar treads that roll over curbs and chip them, it's a tank. Insisting lay people use military speak makes you sound like a prat, a liar, or both.

Rolling tanks through a city is a clear way to tell people they're occupied by a military power and their country is not their own. And they will rightfully resent it.

We need to get out and let the Iraqis go about the business of cleaning up the horrific damage we've inflicted. Our continued presence is helping nothing except the ego of our delusional President and others like him.