Skip to comments.Sen. Clinton Says Lack of Body Armor is 'Unforgivable' (Barf Alert)
Posted on 01/10/2006 7:30:11 AM PST by Kaslin
She Has Called for an Investigation Into Why Soldiers Are Not Fully Protected
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the Bush administration "incompetent" when it came to protecting the troops in combat and called the lack of adequate body armor for soldiers and Marines "unforgivable."
So far in Iraq, more than 2,100 American troops have been killed. Critics like Clinton, D-N.Y., say that many of these deaths are the result of inadequate body armor. A secret Pentagon study of 93 Marines who were killed in Iraq found that 74 died after they were hit by a bullet or shrapnel in the torso or shoulders areas unprotected by the armor most are issued.
"We perhaps could have avoided so many of these fatalities with the right body armor," said Clinton, who recently wrote letters to Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee; and Francis J. Harvey, secretary of the Army, calling for an investigation into why troops were not being protected.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
I don't trust politicians to design armor for the battlefield any more than I trust them to design medical insurance to fit my needs.
U.S. Soldiers Question Use of More Armor
AP ^ | 1/7/06
Posted on 01/07/2006 6:53:57 PM EST by WillT
U.S. soldiers in the field were not all supportive of a Pentagon study that found improved body armor saves lives, with some troops arguing Saturday that more armor would hinder combat effectiveness.
Hillary doesn't have a heart for our military. She could care less about the # of deaths. This is just another way she can show her contempt and hatred for President Bush.
I'm trying to remember who was President when drastic cuts in the military budget took place. Was it Reagan? No, that's not right. George H.W. Bush? I don't think so. Hmmm--I do not recall.
I love it when people who don't know what the hell they're talking about call other people 'incompetent'.
Body armor is hot and heavy and restricts movement. It also isn't necessarily supposed to be 'bulletproof'. When it works out that way- great, but it is mainly meant to keep grenade and mortar shell fragments out of your body.
I found a video of the stuff they're wearing now in action. It is a bit startling, but has a happy ending. The sniper team got caught.
In case you're wondering- the round used was 7.62x54(r) out of a Dragunov.
I'll bet. Armor would have saved Vince Foster.
This Marine thinks that our BA is restrictive enough as it is. I'm not saying that I would go without it, but I don't think more of it is the answer. People that have never worn it, will never understand how heavy it is, or how miserable it can make life in 130 degree temps.
Was Hillary that concerned about the military when she, as First Lady, was ordering military guards around and using them as personal servants to get her coffee and such?
Even if each soldier had their own M1 tank there would still be casualties.
Why is this self-confessed military loather woried about it? (Yeah, yeah, running for prez of course.)
When will they ever come up with a solution instead of constantly griping?
This morning's show was an ABC "Hillary For President" rant.
And it's misleading, the body armor they are talking about is in addition to the standard issue that covers the unprotected sides and shoulders from enemy fire.
Madame Hamhocks looks like she's wearing it all under her pantsuit.
I've used the full metal jackets for an SKS and AK they will go through an engind block.
Why More Wounded Survive
January 8, 2006: The ratio of dead to wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan is approaching one killed for every ten wounded. This is a dramatic increase from Vietnam, where it was one and five. That was itself an improvement from World War II, where it was one and four, and earlier wars where is was one and three. There was a reason for the higher survival rate in each war. During World War II, the introduction of antibiotics not only greatly reduced the deaths from infections, but allowed surgeons to attempt more daring procedures. The problem with surgery had always been the risk of infection, but antibiotics like penicillin, changed all that.
In Vietnam, the use of helicopters to reduced the time it took to get casualties to an operating room. Better surgical procedures and medicines helped as well. Thats what has played a large part in the much higher survival rate currently. That, and more rapid and effective application of operations research (using stats, math and common sense to solve problems) to identify areas where more improvements can be made. Improvements are implemented rapidly, month by month (and sometimes day by day, since the Internet allows new ideas to get around a lot faster.) It's dozens of small changes that are making the difference now, and that continues.
and another regarding soldiers stripping off armor for increased mobility
Saturday, January 7, 2006
U.S. soldiers question use of more armor
BEIJI, Iraq -- U.S. soldiers in the field were not all supportive of a Pentagon study that found improved body armor saves lives, with some troops arguing Saturday that more armor would hinder combat effectiveness.
The unreleased study examined 93 fatal wounds to Marines from the start of the Iraq war in March 2003 through June 2005. It concluded 74 of them were bullet or shrapnel wounds to shoulders or torso areas unprotected by traditional ceramic armor plating.
Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division's 3rd Brigade "Rakkasans" are required to wear an array of protective clothing they refer to as their "happy gear," ranging from Kevlar drapes over their shoulders and sides, to knee pads and fire-resistant uniforms.
But many soldiers say they feel encumbered by the weight and restricted by fabric that does not move as they do. They frequently joke as they strap on their equipment before a patrol, and express relief when they return and peel it off.
Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Mo., said he already sacrifices enough movement when he wears the equipment. More armor would only increase his chances of getting killed, he said.
"You can slap body armor on all you want, but it's not going to help anything. When it's your time, it's your time," said Suthoff, a platoon leader in the brigade's 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment. "I'd go out with less body armor if I could."
The study and their remarks highlight the difficulty faced by the Army and Marine Corps in providing the best level of body armor protection in a war against an insurgency whose tactics are constantly changing.
Both the Army and the Marines have weighed the expected payoff in additional safety from extra armor against the measurable loss of combat effectiveness from too much armor.
According to a summary of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's study obtained Friday evening by The Associated Press, the 93 Marines who died from a primary lethal injury of the torso were among 401 Marines who died from combat injuries in Iraq between the start of the war and June 2005.
A military advocacy group, Soldiers for Truth, posted an article about the study on its Web site this week. On Friday evening, The New York Times reported in its online edition that the study for the first time shows the cost in lives lost from inadequate armor.
Autopsy reports and photographic records were analyzed to help the military determine possible body armor redesign.
Of 39 fatal torso wounds in which the bullet or shrapnel entered the Marine's body outside of the ceramic armor plate protecting the chest and back, 31 were close to the plate's edge, according to the study, which was conducted last summer.
Some soldiers felt unhappy that ceramic plates to protect their sides and shoulders were available, but not offered, when they deployed for Iraq in September.
"If it's going to protect a soldier or save his life, they definitely should have been afforded the opportunity to wear it," said Staff Sgt. Shaun Benoit, 26, of Conneaut, Ohio. "I want to know where there was a break in communication."
Others questioned the effectiveness of additional body armor.
"It's the Army's responsibility to get soldiers the armor they need. But that doesn't mean those deaths could have been prevented," said Spc. Robert Reid, 21, of Atlanta.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who was in Iraq on Saturday, said military leaders told him that body armor has improved since the initial invasion in 2003 and that the military hoped to gradually transition to the improved armor.
The debate between protection versus mobility has dominated military doctrine since the Middle Ages, when knights wrapped themselves in metal suits for battle, said Capt. Jamey Turner, 35, of Baton Rouge, La., a commander in the 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment.
The issue comes up daily on the battlefield in Iraq, and soldiers need to realize there is no such thing as 100 percent protection, he said.
"You've got to sacrifice some protection for mobility," he added. "If you cover your entire body in ceramic plates, you're just not going to be able to move."
Others in the regiment said the issue of protecting soldiers with more body armor is of greater concern at home than among soldiers in Iraq, who have seen firsthand how life and death hang on a sliver of luck when an improvised explosive device hits a Humvee.
"These guys over here are husbands, sons and daughters. It's understandable people at home would want all the protection in the world for us. But realistically, it just don't work," said Sgt. Paul Hare, 40, of Tucumcari, N.M
Didn't Chelsea tell Pentagon staff that her parents didn't like them and that they also could not wear uniforms in the Clinton White House?
Is she going to donate old crusty?
you mean like this? Think this soldier is going to be able to be effective when it's 100 degrees and she has to run and dodge?
you mean like this? Think this soldier is going to be able to be effective when it's 100 degrees and she has to run and dodge?
It just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to know that Sen. Hildebeaste really, really cares.
I wore one of those vests for a year. There is a tradeoff between protection and mobility. The theory of the armor is to protect your vital organs. Obviously, your face can't be protected without making you an ineffective soldier, and to make a helmet that is bulletproof may not currently be feasible given the weight issues. Absolutely no one ever promised me I couldn't be killed if I was wearing a vest. On the other hand, I know several people who survived uninjured because their armor completely stopped a round or shrapnel. If this armor is so ineffective then why are insurgent snipers making headshots? Clinton, having absolutely no concept of military tactics, is one of those who thinks you can eliminate death in war through technology.
Constitution of The United States, Article I, Section 8:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Chelsea and Hillary referred to the Secret Service as 'trained pigs'. Hillary despised the presence of any military uniform in the White House.
Even as civvies in Iraq, we had to wear armor while on alert (unless inside a hardened building).
It is definitely hot and heavy, esp. with the ceramic plates front and back.
A very bad but memorable week was when the base CO made us wear armor for 7-days nonstop. He apparently was P.O.'d that some soldiers were slacking with their armor, so everyone was barred from the PX, the chow halls, MWR, etc. unless wearing body armor.
I pulled my ceramic plates, but it was still a sweaty slog walking that 1+ mile to the office.
She's doing this for entirely political reasons. She couldn't care less about American troops in the field. This is all political posturing and resume padding.
Who was the Senator that voted for this War but did not vote for the money to FUND the war? "I voted for it before I voted against it."
Hillary's heart is so cold that even on a warm summer day her left nipple could cut glass. This is nothing but politics, pure and simple. Her husband could have had that armor issued long before we went to war also, but it wasn't in the budget then, was it?
So bogus. If we placed them into a tank (Full armor) but they had to pop their heads up to see, the 'secret study' would show that 78 of 93 died from a head wound.
Using today's technology, armor that can protect the entire upper body as they wish to see would have the effect of restricting movement.
Let's suppose a new breakthrough and the head torso and shoulders can now all be protected. It STILL would not cause Hillary (an ilk) from claiming that somebody died from a leg wound that punctured an artery.
Well, yes, because that is all she does. It's all about power.
Gee... 'senator', how about they dress like this:
They aren't wearing the entire body suit in Iraq.
Just the top vest with plates.
They have mostly knee and elbow pads, but it isn't armor.
It wouldn't do anything anyway.....
I know that, but this is what Hillary expects the soldiers should be wearing.
just making sure :)
What 16th century battle was it where France's knights were lured onto a boggy field, their horses couldn't stand and the knights, once unmounted, couldn't move with the weight of their armor and were slaughtered to a man?
That sort of thing is exactly why I saw the Federal Government 'shutdowns' of years past as a good thing and resumption of 'doing the people's business' as a bad one.
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the Bush administration "incompetent" when it came to protecting the troops in combat and called the lack of adequate body armor for soldiers and Marines "unforgivable."
I guess "incompetant" also applies to FDR, Truman and Johnson. Gulf war soldiers have vastly more body armor and armored vehicles now than in past wars.
Senator Clinton, all of a sudden, is an expert on all thing military? Baloney.
Meanwhile, Senator Warner is turning into a real RINO. What's the matter with him?
Journalists just don't understand that soldiers don't look at things the way they do. They certainly don't like to be portrayed as victims, that no amount of protection will ever be enough. To be more effective, a new armor should be lighter. I know that Clinton is only spouting and has given no thought to the matter, but if she had she would have remembered the way that armor was developed in the Middle ages. It finally got so heavy that it limited the flexibility of the knight. He could not, for instance, dismount to fight, and if his mount was felled, he himself could not get up unassisted and was easy prey to a churl with a sharp knife or a club.
I think you are talking about the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.
What is that old adage, "you go to war with the previous Presidents army..."
She should be carefull what she wishes for. The investigation would involve her husband.
They were in power for 8 yesrs. Plenty of time to distribute 'better' body armor.
Yup, and "Old Crusty" still protects Her Heinous..
"74 died after they were hit by a bullet or shrapnel in the torso or shoulders areas unprotected by the armor most are issued. "
Do these people even know what a torso is? Most body armor covers below the neck to below the navel. That's the freakin torso.
Unlike the prior administration's sterling record in protecting troops in combat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.