A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the Marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon largely has declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.
For the first time, the study by the military’s medical examiner shows the cost in lost lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops.
Our military suffers from being run by both beancounters and profiteers — at the behest of lobbyists and ideologues. Why expect the safety of our troops to be any sort of priority? That doesn’t get you a director’s seat after you retire.
How do reporters make up these titles? It would seem to me that the *lack* of body armor is what is leaving the soldiers vulnerable.
This issue could be solved by using only combat experienced men in supply situations where possible.
Chris: True, but this was “despite calls from the field for additional protection.” The soldiers and commanders on the ground were asking for it. I’m sure they’re aware of the tradeoffs involved. What we have here is the people with first hand knowledge of the situations they’re facing and who are putting their lives on the line being told no by people in the Pentagon. There’s a reason this was repeated over and over again by the Democrats in the 2004 election. It’s not a cheap, political, Bush-hating tactic, this is a real problem and is a failure by the government to provide for the troops they’re asking to risk their lives.
Rumsfeld got his butt kicked when he was touring there a year or so ago and one troop went off the script to ask him why they had to scavenge in trash fields for spare metal to fit into body armor.
No defending them there. They put enough money into Iraq. Its plenty to have the best for our troops.
>Rumsfeld got his butt kicked when he was touring there a year or so >ago and one troop went off the script to ask him why they had to >scavenge in trash fields for spare metal to fit into body armor.
That is a media myth. Rumsfeld gave a very good answer to that reporter-fed question, and got a standing ovation from the troops.
For anything at all, human or mechanical, armor is a trade-off. The more armor protection, the less mobility, and the less combat effectiveness and safety. Those who advocate more and more body armor have no military knowledge, and are fantasizing.
Simply put, there comes a stage where there is too much armor, and the soldier cannot move quickly, and therefore becomes more likely to be killed. Go to milblogging.com and dig around. You will find many comments by our soldiers wherein they feel they already have TOO MUCH body armor. They cannot move and fight effectively and safely.
This “disgrace” is promulgated by those ignorant of the realities of the battlefield. I suggest a little education would be in order, so that their ignorance be not so apparent.
Kenneth: How arrogant. Have you missed the part about the people IN THE FIELD that are asking for it? Maybe not everyone wants it, but there are plenty of soldiers and commanders in Iraq right now who DO. It’s not just talking heads. Unless you believe nobody in Iraq wants more body armor, which is demonstrably false, your dismissing everyone’s concerns as just people who have no military knowledge shows your own ignorance, not ours.
One of these days — and I’m still trying to avoid the additional responsibilities of a threaded forum — we could have a real knockdown, drag-out session over which service[s] really contribute qualified military leadership.
Which service tends to produce desk jockeys who become lobbyists for hardware hawks? Which service produces top brass whose careers are dedicated to the grunts and their survival? Which services produce the guys who don’t have to double-dip — because they have a cushy job lined up doing testimonials? Which services produce the military strategists and tacticians — that politicians really hate?
There’s a fair piece of history on the record. Not too much of it is covered at military academies; but, students of military history know exactly what I’m talking about.
AB CD,
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The question was asked by a member of the 278 RCT out of Tenn. The guy who asked it was not handed the question, but asked it because a friend of his in another unit told him to have his wife and family chip in to buy and SEND him a proper vest. He put Rummy on the spot in order to get attention on the problem.
The troops did not give him a standing O because a) they were all already standing and b) were ORDERED to clap at the end of the speech by the 278’s CO.
How do I know? I had dinner with this man and his wife two weeks ago to celebrate his return. They live in Chattanooga and are good friends and were good neighbors before I moved to Nashville.
Please don’t lie about stuff you don’t know about, particularly when the facts are so easy to check.
At the same time, National Guard units were being sent into Iraq without any personal body armor. That is where the “buy your own armor” trend started. Very few NG units also had armored Humvees and, as Sounds the Alarm’s friend pointed out, were forced to scavenge to armor their vehicles.
I don’t know about Rumsfeld getting his butt kicked, but he did take a lot of very pointed criticism for his answer but more because it was true. It was only after this that the Pentagon started to armor the NG units.
The most unfortunate thing about this whole tragic affair is that over two thousand Americans had to die for Bush’s personal little space in history. Even worse, most of that space can’t fill what is between his ears.