Is a soldier's life worth more than $650? (Parents buying body armor for sons in Iraq)

JWR ^ | 10/02/03 | Jonathan Turley

[jsbankston]

It's simple.This decision was one of budgeting during the Clinton Administration. They decide to phase in the purchase over 10 years. They could have done it sooner but their would have been no money for training or updating firepower.This was a rational decision during peace time once they were refused funds by the rats under Clinton.

Clinton may not have done the military any favors but the Republicans have controlled Congress and the purse strings since 1995 and plenty of opportunity to insist on military items such as body armor. But I guess that is what happens when RINO's are running the show in DC.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

We have some real idiots serving in the government. It's time that we give them the same scrutiny that they are demanding of the judges that are being fillibustered now.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Nat'l Enquirer started following some of these obnoxious democrats around?

[pullmyfinger]

Because our military is still working under good President Clinton's mentality. When I was in, during those years, we had to make our training aids our selves because we could not afford to get proper training.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Because our military is still working under good President Clinton's mentality. When I was in, during those years, we had to make our training aids our selves because we could not afford to get proper training.

What kind of training aids?

[jsbankston]

Because our military is still working under good President Clinton's mentality.

Somehow I do not believe that a military with Clinton's mentality could have won victories in Afganistan and Iraq as quickly as they did.

[pullmyfinger]

No offense intended, but I would rather you don't enlist then. Yes it is horrible that they do not have the proper equipment to issue the troops. My engineer battalion was very used to this. "Improvise, Adapt, Overcome." Now it is hard to do the first two about body armor, I agree. But going AWOL is not an acceptable option.

I am all for rotating our Congress over to relieve our troops for their R&R...see how fast the armor gets there then.

[pullmyfinger]

I was a combat engineer. We used explosives, land mines (back when it was legal). We had to make wood block dummies of explosives and mines to practice with because we couldn't get the mine training kits, etc to use.

[Alberta's Child]

No offense intended, but I would rather you don't enlist then.

No offense taken. An ROTC officer at a nearby university made a serious pitch to get me interested in one of the military academies, but I wasn't interested. I simply didn't (and still don't) trust anyone in the U.S. government to do anything right. And this was during the Reagan years, so you can imagine how much more cynical I'd be if they came calling for me today!

I am all for rotating our Congress over to relieve our troops for their R&R...see how fast the armor gets there then.

I agree, but that's a whole different story. If Congress and Bush Administration officials were exposed for ten minutes to the kind of risk those U.S. soldiers face on a daily basis for months at a time, I am quite certain that there would have been no war in Iraq to begin with.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

I am all for rotating our Congress over to relieve our troops for their R&R...see how fast the armor gets there then.

A lot of congressmen haven't even been over there to inspect the situation. The ones that have gone probably wore these vests with the ceramic inserts.

[Centurion2000]

I remember being issued the heavy, old style flak jacket for training and manuvers, and then being told that if this was a real situation they really wouldn't do us any good.

Protection against shrapnel, not bullets.

Artillery is still the biggest killer on the battlefield.

I cannot think of one soft body armor vest that will stop a 308 round. You have to add the plates.

And the soldier of today has money spent on his gear than ever before.

[ASA Vet]

got the local populace even more up in arms agains them.

If the local populace isn't they can't be up in arms.

[nosofar]

Bill and Hitlery, the gift that just keeps on giving.

It's all Clinton's fault...yada, yada, yada. Get over it already. If a mother can buy these flak jackets, the US military and the DOD should be able to. This is pocket change to them.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

If a mother can buy these flak jackets, the US military and the DOD should be able to. This is pocket change to them.

Amen

[Temple Owl]

I think they ought to put "the tough former district attorney of Philadelphia" in an army uniform and send him to fight terrorists. You can bet that Arlen Specter would find some Scottish law to cover his @$$.

[300winmag]

This is pocket change to them.

It should be pocket change, but for a couple of reasons, it's not. First, the military is underfunded by probably $300 billion dollars. Second, every dollar that is spent must come from some account allocated, to the penny, by congress. Even if the Army had an unused $100 million elsewhere, they can't just spend it on body armor. They need permission to transfer funds, or new money allocated.

I don't like seeing it that way, even for "small" items, but that's the way it is.

[El Gato]

The Pentagon now has three companies working overtime to make them, but still only put out about 15,000 a month. So its going to take a little time to completely outfit 150,000 troops.

Which is why it really is yet another downside to the Impeached One's loathing of the military. If you have neither surge capacity in the industry, nor a stockpile, it can take good long time to get stuff made when you needed it yesterday. Still, Rummy is always wanting to cut "Tail", well this is "tail", both a stockpile of stuff you might need, and the surge capacity in industry to make it quickly, both cost money, which apparently politicians would rather spend buying votes, mostly DemonRats, but Republicans have historically wielded the budget ax against DoD (and it's predeccesors) as well. Bush I was beginning the process that The Bent One continued and accellerated, even as we were sending troops to the sandbox for Gulf War I. That included Reserve forces cuts, and procurement cuts as well. If they'd stopped where Bush I and Cheney's plans said they would we wouldn't have been too bad off, but the Military Loathing One accellerated and increased the cuts...well we got where we are today.

[El Gato]

He meant to say the Congress Critters want to ban body armor and vests for CIVILIANS (non Military, non police). Just like they want to ban guns for that same group, you know We The People.

[P.O.E.]

Thanks for the ping.

Anybody taking up collections?

[SoCal Pubbie]

Well, as I see it the tone of this article is to discredit the military, and to make the administration look uncaring by sending young soldiers into harm's way without basic equipment. Of course, as in the era before Pearl Harbor when troops drilled with broomsticks for rifles, it is not inconceivable that for whatever reason there is a shortage of equipment. But as post 13 points out, shrapnel is just as much, or sometimes more so, a killer in battle as bullets, so perhaps at some point the decision was made to go with the older vests. Perhaps the problem is mostly with the reserves and National Guard, who I would assume would tend to have older equipment than regular units. Or, as post 19 points out it may be due to Clinton's cost cutting.

In any event, I don't take this article at face value. Perhaps the pentagon is as screwed but as old Hackworth claims, and Bush as big a doofus as Al Franken claims, and all the money is going to Dick Cheney's buddies so there's nothing left to outfit the troops, but I think there's more to this story than the writer cares to tell us.