U.S. soldiers take off helmets and armored vests as security in Kosovo improves

Yahoo ^ | Tue Jul 30, 6:50 PM ET | GARENTINA KRAJA

[CENTVRIO EQVITVM]

U.S. soldiers take off helmets and armored vests as security in Kosovo improves

Tue Jul 30, 6:50 PM ET

By GARENTINA KRAJA, Associated Press Writer

VITINA, Yugoslavia - U.S. troops were permitted to patrol the streets of Kosovo without helmets and bulletproof vests for the first time Tuesday — a sign of the improved security climate as the United States prepares to scale back its military presence in the province.
Pvt. Anthony Fugle of Cut Bank, Montana, said leaving behind his flak jacket and helmet felt odd, but he hailed it as a sign of the success of the NATO ( news - web sites)-led peacekeeping mission.

"It actually feels that we are getting our job done down here," said Fugle, who was guarding a Serb church in Vitina, 50 kilometers (30 miles) east of the provincial capital, Pristina. "I think we have managed to get our message across that we are providing a safe and secure environment."

Brig. Gen. Douglas Lute, the commander of U.S. forces in Kosovo, called the new policy "a prudent adjustment."

"There was a time when the Kevlar helmet and armored vest was the appropriate uniform in Kosovo," Lute said in a statement Tuesday. "The situation is now improved ... When conditions change, soldiers adapt."

U.S. peacekeepers last week closed one of 16 outposts in Kosovo and are set to close seven more in coming weeks. The three main U.S. military bases, including Camp Bondsteel, won't be affected by the closures.

"This is all part of this notion of progress," said Maj. Mark Ballesteros, a spokesman for the U.S. troops in Kosovo. "We are moving away from the requirement to have a presence in certain areas. The necessity for these camps has dwindled."

U.S. military officials announced earlier this month that they would cut the U.S. presence by 1,000 soldiers as part of a NATO plan to reduce the size of the multinational peace force by 4,800 troops.

As of now, 5,000 U.S. soldiers are in Kosovo as part of the 38,000-strong NATO-led peacekeeping force here.

The force — which initially included 50,000 soldiers — was deployed to Kosovo in June 1999 as part of a peace agreement that ended a 78-day NATO air war against Yugoslav forces. The alliance's attacks forced an end to Serb troops' crackdown on separatist ethnic Albanians in the province.

The reduction of the U.S. presence will occur in November, during the scheduled rotation of forces.

For now, the troops are enjoying being able to patrol without the heavy protective gear.

"Without the flak jacket I do feel a little naked," said Spc. Drew Littlepage of Scott City, Missouri. "It used to be pretty heavy here, gladly it has died down to the point that we don't have to wear our flak vests."

[CENTVRIO EQVITVM]

A gutsy move.

[joesnuffy]

Dumb move...the shrapnel from homemade booby traps can easily penetrate lungs without body armor..causing sucking chest wounds...collapsed lungs...when I was a medic in Vietnam I lost more guys to this than by any other means...The guys need kevlar vests...to which one can add ceramic plates imo....

[Tamodaleko]

Dumb move!
Read what happened next day: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/725423/posts

[Free the USA]

Index Bump

[CENTVRIO EQVITVM]

You are both correct. The US Commander may well have misjudged the risk level for his troops. In his defense, however, it was a courageous decision that flew in the face of years of risk avoidance that has been widely (and rightly) criticized in this forum. IMHO, and completely aside from the issue of whether our forces should be in Kosovo at all, the value of having patrols sans PASGT helmet and vest is threefold:
1. It puts our soldiers on an equal footing with the soldiers of the other participating nations. Equivalent threats = equivalent accepted risk.
2. It removes possible perceptions from the combatant forces in the Area of Operations that US forces are unwilling and unable to risk casualties, which fosters impressions of cowardice among the prevalent warrior culture, and may actually invite lethal attacks on American soldiers to achieve political results (RE: Somalia).
3. It serves to reduce fatigue in the heat and dust of foot patrolling, and as SLA Marshall demonstrated fatigue = fear, so in addition to making our soldiers movement easier, it asynchronously augments their potential combat effectiveness even though it does reduce protection against fragmentation.

Finally, in the risk aversion climate that lingers from the 90's it was a tremendous act of moral courage on the Commander's part to reduce Force Protection measures in this manner. I hope he does not suffer for it, or it will reinforce commander's reluctance to take risks at all, whether necessary or not.

[branicap]

Centurio,what you don`t see in your eloquent post is the fact that US troops are patroling the region in which almost 99% of Serbs were expeled!No Serbs,no posibility for the troops to interviene!No more bombs,night attacs...Only a few churches and monasteries left...Very safe environment...for the US soldiers!

[Travis McGee]

"REMF Army General in Safe Office Orders Troops to Doff Helmets and Flak Jackets In Political Move."

[Cato]

Foolishness if you ask me.

CATO

[Squantos]

History getting ready to repeat itself .........again sadly.

Stay Safe !

[Southack]

"the value of having patrols sans PASGT helmet and vest is threefold: 1. It puts our soldiers on an equal footing with the soldiers of the other participating nations. Equivalent threats = equivalent accepted risk. 2. It removes possible perceptions from the combatant forces in the Area of Operations that US forces are unwilling and unable to risk casualties, which fosters impressions of cowardice among the prevalent warrior culture"

Nonsense.

Throughout history, discarding one's technological advantages in order to give a "fair fight" has been seen as a sign of weakness.

Consider that a primitive warrior who previously stood no choice in combat, will suddenly sieze the new moment of weakness to attack his foe, willingly, in what is now seen as a "fair fight".

Thus, a formerly "deterred" warrior who knew that he was not the Alpha Warrior, will suddenly leap to attack the formerly superior warrior who just discarded his technology.

The "fair fight" concept is something that is promoted by weaker societies in order to gain an advantage over their technologically superior enemies.

If you want to be weak-minded, then swallow their spiel and give up your technology. If you want to become extinct, then give in to the "machismo" notion that the only manly fight is a fair fight.

So your enemy has no aircraft? Then you had better give up your aircraft in order to make the fight fair and demonstrate that you are willing to take casualties (and other such nonsense).

Phooey. I spit upon such weak-minded ideas.

Destroy your enemies. Out-think your enemies. Out innovate your enemies. Out-build your enemies. Out-manuever your enemies. Out-number your enemies.

Crush them.

Picking a fight with us is a very bad idea. The moment that idea becomes more tolerable is the moment that our enemies will become more emboldened to strike at us.