Jonathan Turley
Fox News - coalition troops get the good stuff while ours get Vietnam era junk
Christian Science Monitor in April - Singing the praises of the new body armor
Defense News - rushing to get the good stuff to the troops
OU Daily - More on the shortage, but the $87 billion is helping to fix the problem
About US Military - getting the gear to our soldiers
Bottom line folks, here is a quote from somebody who knows the details (with a few edits):
This is a case of DoD (specifically the Army) not allocating the proper resources. This advanced body armor has been on the market for years, but the Army had planned to phase it in over a 5-6 yr period, due to the high unit cost (over a 1000 dollars per vest). Light infantry units (82/ 101 AB, 10th Mountain) had first call on the new gear, but mechanized units (3rd / 4th ID, 3CAV, etc) were not designated for an ungrade until the out-years of the replacement cycle. It is sad, but true, that some of our combat deaths could have been prevented if these vests had been made available.
For senior officers to play "dumb" on this issue is unacceptable. They are afraid to tell the public that our troops didn't have the necessary gear because they (the leaders) didn't think that it was a priority. I think this is because the senior leadership did not envision the tactical environment which currently exists in Iraq. They expected that the dismounted infantry and counterinsurgency missions would be conducted exclusively by the elite infantry and special ops units. Given our experience in Afghanistan in late '01, they had over a year to get these vests in the hands of the soldiers, yet they failed to plan and prioritize.
While I question their motivation, the press is right to take our military leadership to task on this issue. Quite frankly, if we do support our troops, the blogosphere should be raising a ruckus and asking why our troops weren't properly equipped. Once again, penny wise and pound foolish.
I'm taking this advice. This is really messed up and soldiers have died because of some major planning screw ups and the ensuing covering of their respective backsides. Look, admit that there was a mess up and fix it (looks like it's being fixed). Nothing is ever 100% correct but to keep delaying because of mistakes, that makes it worse.
Tim,
Not to beat a dead horse on this one, but our manning situation in Iraq is in trouble for reasons similar to the body armor fiasco. Whenever DoD is given a request for upgrade or plus-up (personnel, equipment ,etc) by uniformed leaders, the reflex is to look FIRST at the cost. Things that we should have NOW (i.e, body armor, 2-4 additional Army divisions, etc), have not been bought because of the budget-busting nature of these enhancements.
Even though we have, in effect, entered into a period of low intensity conflict of unknown duration, we are providing the military with peacetime funding. If the Joint Chiefs were to be provided with the things that they honestly need, the annual DoD budget would probably be 100-150 bil higher than the current 425-450 bil.
Posted by: randy bell at December 8, 2003 09:52 AM
