I neither ask for nor expect perfection. However, armor for vehicles is a no-brainer. No one denies its value - it isn't perfect, but it helps. Nor is it some high-tech wonder that requires years of research on cutting edge technology.
Here's an example. For years, F-111s had a known defect - the 'chute was too small (it had a capsule design) which led to significant back injuries a disproportionate amount of the time. The USAF spent years looking for a way to fix the problem but never found one - so those of us who flew F-111s did so at our own risk. That was OK by me. They tried to find a solution, they couldn't, so we accepted risk.
But this isn't the case here. There is a solution, and it isn't being used. So our troops are at needless risk.
"The question is: Has the definition of "decent" gotten to the point of absurdity?"
I've asked the same question, of this situation and many others. In a sense war has never been more kind or less deadly (overall), and yet such success fails to keep pace with the rise in expectations it generates.
You've hit the nail on the head. Our expectations are way out of proprotion with reality. It seems that people are starting to expect and demand that we fight this war with no American casualties and no civilian casualties and anything short of that is proof that Bush and his administration were not prepared for the war...rushed to war...lost teh peace...etc. etc. etc. It's enough to drive a normal person crazy.
I'm just damned glad that it didn't fall to this generation to fight WW2. We'd have lost that fight in a year. Our troops are good enough but the political and media climate in this country would never allow them to fight as we did in the 40's.