[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Some of the best gear soldiers and Marines used in Iraq was paid for out of their own pockets."

This is something I had considered recommending prior to Iraqi freedom: part of each soldier's [or marine's] gear should be selected by the soldier, similar to the 'school choice' plan. It's not always because a soldier or marine would make better choices, but it's a matter of involvement. When a soldier can visualise the effectivness of a weapon, how it would be used, etc, then when it's crunch time, the soldier would be much more effective.

I didn't make the recommendation because of the logistical need for ammo and spare parts. But it does appear that the average individual grunt continues to outsmart the brass time-and-again. Certainly, some things can be required. But, there should be room for choice.

One example is the grenade launcher:

"Soldiers thought the M-203 grenade launcher attached to the M-16 was the “weapon of choice for combat.” They praised the 40 mm grenade’s performance, but said it could have been more effective had troops been given more training with it."

Heck. How much brain power does it take to predict that grenade launchers would be a weapon of choice? Your average 12-pack drinking, pot smoking, MTV addict could have predicted that. I guess it was 'too Rambo' for the pentagon to issue one for most of the combat soldiers 20 years ago.

[SLB]

I am NOT endorsing the M4 or M9, but these comments show what history shows. Soldiers have always had some level of dissatisfaction at their individual weapons.

[Travis McGee]

The Russians also wrote after-action reports like this for Grozny Chechnya, and they also concluded the weapon of choice was the launched grenade.

Nothing clears a room like a grenade through the window fired from 200 yards down the street.