"We take operational security very seriously and will not discuss in public sensitive issues that may render any insight to the enemy about our capabilities, fielding plans, or tactics, techniques and procedures."
Another patriotic whistleblower. Time for the President to perform his duties and have these people frog marched into custody. The Dems have declared open season on National Security and the safety of the troops.
Yeah, and obviously, none of these dorks have ever walked around in 120 degree heat wearing 40 pounds of armor - BEFORE you strap on your basic load of ammo, water, etc.
I actually blame the terrorist enemy for the deaths.
MSM: Bash the military, bash Bush, bash the war effort......the beat goes on.
In 1942, our fleet got their clocks cleaned at the Battle of Savo Island by the Japanese. It was then, and remains to this day, one of the biggest military disasters for the USA.
There were so many things that went wrong, so many areas to lay blame (and did have blame assigned in inquests) that it seems not much different than the witchhunts one might see today.
One of the things that came up is how unprepared for war our ships were. We had thick coats of paint all over the inside and outside of ships. There were linoleum floors. Various rooms had overstuffed furniture in them. When the ships caught on fire, all of these things burned ferociously and were responsible for the deaths of many men.
When they tried to put the fires out, the equipment was inadequate for the job. It wasn't designed correctly, and men died.
The point is, these were lessons we learned in the crucible of warfare. There is often no other way to learn these lessons, and the lessons are hard, particularly for the men who die and the families who are left behind. But that is war.
One might argue that we knew how to design body armor before this war. Perhaps that is true, but it might be that we had reached the point of diminishing returns where throwing larger and larger sums of money at a problem produces smaller and smaller returns on the investment, all the low hanging fruit is gone. Sure, we could have had better armor, but at what cost? Would we have replaced all the units that probably were not all that old or used with newer units at twice the cost with 5-8% more protective value? If you are a person with a gun in your hand, the answer is yes.
But the problem with these things is that us civilians, including politicians, see these them one dimensionally. We tend to see them as isolated problems, when in fact, there are many things like this, and none can be fixed for free. We only see the armor or whatever the issue-du-jour is, but there are also (and these are not real, I am just making them up as examples of things that might be):
Defective guidance devices for JDAMS that could cause friendly casualties that must be addressed.
More armor and upgraded humvees.
Hydraulic weaknesses in Apache helicopters that put pilots at risk.
Expensive parts that must be replaced due to high wear and tear in an abrasive environment, where failure could put the users at risk.
And so on.
Now take those, and imagine how many more things there are out there, given how HUGE the military is, that have the capability of causing lost lives if some component is not performing as expected.
As far as I am concerned, this is part of an emotional anti-military anti-administration witch hunt.
Should read: Better body armor would have protected Marines that had wounds that would have been protected by better body armor. What a stupid analysis.
The question should be " Do they have the best body armor now available" I believe they do.
Certainly wearing a helmet driving your car and having NASCAR designed roll bars would stop many auto deaths also.
Fact of the matter is, body armor is just helping you play the odds. It protects what it can, without making you so slow you can't maneuver. We can't turn our troops into knights in full plate mail. It simply slows them down too far, and invites someone to invent a longbow. I appreciate any tools that are developed to help accomplish the mission while minimizing casualties, but reducing casualties to zero is an impossible goal and an unfair standard.