U.S. soldiers lack best protective gear (Why dont our Soldiers have enough Flak Jackets?)

USA Today ^ | 12/17/03 | Jonathan Turley

[MizzouTigerRepublican]

U.S. soldiers lack best protective gear By Jonathan Turley I recently received a note from one of the few husbands who knows just what his wife wants as a holiday gift. The Army sergeant (who asked to remain anonymous) e-mailed me from Iraq asking my help in finding him a store to buy body armor for his wife. Both the sergeant and his wife are serving in Iraq, and both have seen action. But, like thousands of U.S. soldiers, his wife was not given the vital ceramic plates for her Kevlar Interceptor vest to protect her from bullet wounds. Instead, he said, she had to scavenge to find plates left behind by Iraqi soldiers

[diamondjoe]

"A Pentagon procurement officer then told me Interceptor vests were "non-priority" items, like tents."

Note to Pentagon: Do not move this idiot into any position involving p.r.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Not a big Turley fan, but...

I still cannot figure out, after 12 years of a threat of this type of war, why are soldiers all driving around in unarmored hummers all of this time. Does not make any sense.

[R. Scott]

It should be mandatory for all procurement officers to serve in a combat unit in a combat zone prior to any promotion or career advancing assignment.
I retired in 1986, and the bean counters were making themselves felt then. I’d hate to be in now.

[Admin Moderator]

Please include original titles when posting. Also please include the author and the date of publication. I added these to your post.
Thanks, AM

[MizzouTigerRepublican]

Sorry about that. I just came across the article and thought I would share it with everyone. Thank you for fixing my goof.

[Servant of the 9]

the military had decided to slowly phase out the old flak jackets in a one-for-one exchange program over 10 years. We invaded Iraq in the fifth year.

This is a Clinton Administration Policy.

By 2000, it was way too late to build new plants to speed production of ceramic plates. The Defense Dept. is buying every plate made that meets spec.

The plates that families are buying for their loved ones are either not strong enough or else too heavy by 100% to meet Mil Spec.

Does anyone think it would help for the Dept. Def. to lower the standards for the ceramic plates?

All of this info was in Turley's article back in Sept.
There are two reasons for the new article, Bush Bashing and Plaintiff's Lawyers sucking up to a potential class action suit.

Turley used to be fairly ethical for a liberal. He isn't any more.

So9

[cyncooper]

Turley used to be fairly ethical for a liberal. He isn't any more.

I agree. What has happened to him? See also his recent distortion of what is going on with charges against Green Peace.

It's just a shame that Turley has decided to misrepresent facts.

[300winmag]

Despite requests from a few members of Congress, there appears to be little movement to investigate the shortage of what seems to be a basic protective item for our troops.

There are several reasons why there is this shortage, and none of them make politicians look good. So there won't be much digging, unless they agree in advance to blame it on one single scapegoat.

First, armor isn't sexy, so there is no single congressman to champion the project, and give it a high priority. Second, the procurement plan started in the klinton years. There was the unspoken assumption, still in effect in many areas, that the military would never be deployed again in large-scale combat. It would all be "meals on wheels" missions.

Third, I don't think anybody realized how good this new armor would turn out. So a gradual change from the old flak jacket to the new armor was assumed to be a peacetime process that could be stretched out in constantly decreasing (thanks to the klintons) military budgets. Finally, there are only a few manufacturers of the armor and plates, because production was intended to be low, and it's a real pain in the ass for a small company to do business with the government for the tiny profit margin allowed.

There are plenty of factors invovled, but I rate klinton-era planning for a shrinking military that would not be involved in large-scale combat as the main one.

[PattonReincarnated]

> This is a Clinton Administration Policy

You hit the nail right on the head. The Clinton administration also did not allow the correct weapons into Ethiopia. And you see what we had to do then - run home with our tails between our legs. The same way Clinton would send our soliders on missions unprepared, Clinton allowed the military to lag behind in simple things like flack jackets and vehicles. A real Commander-in-chief would demand, over and over and over again for our military to be prepared and our soldiers to be well protected.

[XHogPilot]

Beware the source and intent of this article. The author jumbles statistics about vests and plates, mixes US and British anecdotes together, and uses as his leading example a US female soldier who was not provide plates. (US women are not allowed into direct combat roles, not to say they may not get shot at)

I've worn these vests during my past tours of combat in the region. The vests are only worn when in threat environments as they restrict movement and are heavy. The chest plates, about the size of a slice of bread add additional weight and inflexability. Chest plates fit into sleeves on the front and back of the chest, and are (excellent) additional defense for the heart area against rifle bullets. Because of the added weight and inflexability we would actually remove those plates when in lesser threat situations, ie little or no chance of engagement by rifle velocity weapons.

My understanding is vests are allotted on a needs basis. Those in direct combat units are given vests with the ceramic chest plates. Those slightly removed from direct combat may not have the chest plates. Those a lowest risk are only given vests without plates on an "as available" basis. Makes sense to me.

[MizzouTigerRepublican]

During the first gulf war we were only given the flak vests when we were out on patrol. The guys who were setup manning the perimeter did not get them. Of course we "procured" a few along the way from some leg units that left them sitting "unattended".

[MizzouTigerRepublican]

The source of the article is a reason for concern. But people on both sides of the aisle can have constructive criticism. If I only listened to people I agreed with all the time I would be pretty bored! I am not defending liberals at all so please don't take it that way and start flaming me.

[XHogPilot]

During the first gulf war we were only given the flak vests when we were out on patrol. The guys who were setup manning the perimeter did not get them.

I pray that the current situation does not reflect this mentality. My tours were all post Gulf-W-1 with the pampered USAF. We sat on the Turkey/Iraq border beside our HH-60 on SAR alert while the fighters trolled Northern Iraq (Operation Northern Watch), all the while a Turk-Kurdish war going on about us. All the different SAR units had the vest, procured from unit funds well in advance of deployment. They vests are a real mo-fo to wear while flying, but certainly help provide the confidence you won't die from a "Golden BB" to the chest.

[Parmy]

Heck! I remember when I first got into 'country' in Vietnam a long time ago, the standing order of the day was to always have a flak jacket on when in the field.

They were in so short supply that the guys in the field cut the outer covering off. Therefore, one wore the outer lining and another wore the stuff that was supposed to stop the bullets. By doing that, they were in compliance witht the standing order.

Go figure!!!!!!!!!!!

[XHogPilot]

If I only listened to people I agreed with all the time I would be pretty bored! I am not defending liberals at all so please don't take it that way and start flaming me

No flame intended, just my cautionary note about the articles author & style, not you. By the way, if I was sent to do some rear echelon crap in Iraq now, I would absolutely want my Interceptor vest with plates.

[Lokibob]

I'm well aware of the flames I'm going to get for this, but:

We are in our 3rd year of the President Bush Administration and it is high time that "This is a Clinton Administration Policy" cop out stop being used.

In the case of these flak jackets, in the year, 2 years, 3 years leading up to today, somebody in the present administration should have looked at this problem and the Hummv bulletproofing problem, and the Bradley problems and taken action.

Sorry, but a commander takes responsibilities for his actions (or inactions), and does not blame others. We have troops in Iraq with real needs, and finger pointing isn't saving lives.

Flame away.

[Reactionary]

Ah, a Hillary talking point masquerading as news.

How odd...

[tbpiper]

My son carries an M249 SAW with 100 rounds in Mosul. Since he doesn't do that naked, he has, along with the BDU's, the 'not exactly featherlite' k-pot, extra M249 barrel, 600 extra rounds, and just for safety's sake, 65 pounds of body armour. With all of that, the only thing that protected him from an Iraqi Land Rover attack was not the body armour but the M249. (the Land Rover and the driver don't work anymore).

[Kewlhand`tek]

whats even funnier is they spent millions on the stryker and it isnt protected against rpgs or rollovers