Apparently the big story of this news cycle is going to be about military body armor. The New York Times, Washington Post, and several of the wire services have stories out on the subject today, most of them sparked by some leaked details from an as-yet unreleased Pentagon report.
Put simply, the Pentagon report claims that increased body armor for troops saves lives. The consensus from media outlets covering the story is summed up by this from the New York Times:
A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.
In short, the media wants more armor to keep the troops safe. Sounds reasonable, on the face of it. That the Pentagon is, according to the Times, "declining" to supply it to the troops will undoubtedly be played off as "Bush/Rumsfeld murdering (and/or failing to protect) troops by not giving them adequate armor" by the Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan/Howard Dean crowd.
But I think there's more to this issue than simply "more armor = fewer deaths."
Consider this point, for instance: Measuring armor's effectiveness by lives lost is inadequate. In order for a judgment to be made one way or another we should be told the number of troops who have been shot/hit in the chest but survived because of this armor. As is pointed out at the link above, you cannot measure a safety device's effectiveness by analyzing only those instances where it failed. You must include the instances where it worked as well.
There are other factors to be considered as well, such as the impact armor has on a soldier's ability to move. We could send all of our troops out in suits of armor fashioned from four-inch-thick titanium plating. That would undoubtedly provide more protection for our troops from bullets and shrapnel, but it isn't a viable option. In order to engage and defeat the enemy in urban combat zones our troops have to be allowed a certain amount of agility and flexibility by their equipment. What good would inches of armor be if our troops can do little more than waddle after the enemy? And wouldn't a reduction in mobility and agility make the troops less safe? If they cannot move quickly to avoid enemy fire the probability that they will be killed or injured increases.
Some troops feel that the body armor already being provided by the Pentagon is too cumbersome:
Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Miss., said he already sacrifices enough movement when he wears the equipment. More armor would only increase his chances of getting killed, he said.
"You can slap body armor on all you want, but it's not going to help anything. When it's your time, it's your time," said Suthoff, a platoon leader in the brigade's 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment. "I'd go out with less body armor if I could."
The bottom line is that the body armor issue is a lot more complicated than "we need more armor." That's something to keep in mind as the media and the left tries to spin this story into another indictment of the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq.
You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 30
This is what gets me about you guys. You'll bust your ass to try to find something, anything, that supports your administration. It matters not to you that the argument is as flawed as it is tragic.
If even one soldier is worried about his safety because we haven't provided him/her with the proper protection, that's enough.
Listen, D and D will be there when you get back from Iraq. Enlist. If you find the armor to be adequate, you'll gain a bit of legitemacy from me. Until then, give it a rest.
To accomplish their effect they need us to suspend our beliefs. The first and most obvious consideration that must be floated into the ether is the fact that Bush/Rumsfield/The Pentagon are not painfully politically aware that casualties cost votes and support.
We are somehow suppose to believe that nowhere in the administration is someone suggesting "Hey, let's funnel a couple of $100 million, (chicken feed) away from Nancy Pelosi's empty-suited, no show political hacks and use it to lower the casualty rate so as to mitigate the adverse political effects of our soldiers dying.
Only the readers of the NYT. Post, Globe and the Daily Kos can maintain such a neat self-deception. They maintain it because they have been groomed to suspend critical thinking.
The rest of the nation who are vaguely aware of the mechanics of government or who have served in the Armed Forces are familiar with such forces beyond the control of the administration like the federal procurement process and the Aberdeen Proving Ground.
It completely misrepresents the article that makes it clear hundreds of American lives could have been saved.
Furthermore, Rob Port then cites some kooky blog as evidence. The blog says we should only look at the successes of the armor in stopping casualties. Uh uh. This again is simply ignorance of statistical inference. Essentially, what the Pentagon conducted was a sensitivity analysis; that is, if we increase protective coverage by x--how many more lives are saved? To conduct such an analysis, one has to know the failures.
You are oddly sidestepping the obvious which is that the Administration, Congress and Pentagon are all highly politically motivated to reduce casualties, since casualties undermine the political support for their policies and agenda.
Requirements are derived from the field, Greg. Thus, if deployed troops are saying they're deficient in some regard, it's up to the activities (like Aberdeen) to come up with a fix.
And you're ignoring the fact the Pentagon study shows the fix could have been easily implemented and saved many lives.
As for your claim this administration is interested in preventing casualties--you don't believe that. Do you? After all, this administration chose to go to war by choice and assumed the rosiest possible scenario would greet our invasion.
Great.....perhaps then you can post the process beginning with all the projects steps and statutes that precede "Requirement Definition".
Then perhaps we can all appreciate just how complex and time-consuming it is to mature a great idea in a working prototype....much less prove it, write a specification, go through the bidding process and deploy it to the field.
Quite the contrary, I believe Donald Rumsfield stated "We went to war with the army that we had".
Please explain your theory for the motivation of the Administration for NOT deploying body armour.
Given the standard Progressive mindset, would this not create "profit" for defense contrators?
I am confused, please explain. If Wealthy Republican War Contrators can make more profit by furnishing body armour.....what is the problem?
Let me suggest that anyone who has watched The History Channel for more than a week or two would be more than aware of a long history of military component snafus that seemed like great ideas but never worked in the field, or caused more problems than they solved.
Of course they are aware of the political cost; that is why they are trying to hide the flag draped coffins, that is why the seriously wounded hardly get mentioned.
"After all, this administration chose to go to war by choice and assumed the rosiest possible scenario would greet our invasion.
Quite the contrary, I believe Donald Rumsfield stated "We went to war with the army that we had".'
Remember those rosy predictions? Cheney doubted the war would last six weeks. We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers. Bush thought there wouldn't be any casualties. Iraq would quickly be rebuilt with Iraqi oil money. According to Bremer, no one considered the possibility of an insurgency.
greg - you are full of shit. you and rumsy should both be deported for saying and repeating that treasonous statement.
ian, go ask peter what he thinks about that.
good day, everyone.
Suffice to say, body armor is nothing new. It's been around for quite a while and not just in military applications. Thus, your 'concerns' about 'complexity' and the consumption of time are largely baseless and trivial. As the NY Times article notes the increased protection armor exists and is available.
As to my 'theory' of why this administration didn't field the invreased body armor, it's not a theory. It's fact: incompetence.
rob - great article. very enlightening. knew i could count on you to come through with a solid rah-rah for the home team on this one.
angry, very very angry. no one on the right is willing to take the time to look at the history of these criminals and consider the absolute evil they embody. "the army you have." pitiful. war is a last resort, right? is that where we were in feb/2003?
not by a long shot. body armor has been a controversy for much longer than the two days since this NYT article came out.
I think it is fairly clear that the only two things the current adminstration is trying to save is MONEY because this thing has already gone way beyond their optomistic forecasts and some FACE because they do not want to admit that our troops are not as well supplied as they could or should be.
tell us again, right-wingers and apologists far and wide, because there have been so many reasons in three years that i forget the right one -
why are we in iraq?
what was that thing, again.... oh yeah, 9/11?
whatever happened about that? anything?
I have no idea where you would get the impression that I even came close to suggesting "that body armor is not useful ".
The proving ground is used to test euipment. To prove that it satisfies its requirements and that it does not create new problems. Any modification in any military equipment goes through a process at Aberdeen
My statement was this...."with such forces beyond the control of the administration like the federal procurement process and the Aberdeen Proving Ground."
In other words...no matter how much the administration wants new body armour or the field wants it, they will not get it until it gets through a rigorous testing and procurement process.
The T&E process for already existing system--in this case, body armor--is very short. What's more, this armor has likely been evaluated in non-military applications so there's likely T&E data that already exists; that cuts the military T&E process even further.
You also pretend there's this large procurement hurdle to be overcome. In the military, when there's an issue WRT safety of the troops--procurement time becomes a non-issue.
Gosh Jade you flatter me.
The Marines' flawed body armor
Corps recalls more than 5,000 vests that experts rejected — but some remain in the field
Looks like someone "shortened the T&E process" a tad too much on this one Jade. I hope that you were not involved with this part of the procurement process.
:)
Truck Armor Testing at Aberdeen Saving Soldiers in Combat Zones
Public release date: 6-Dec-2005 Saving soldiers: Better body armor expected from new material formation process
Sadly, no.
Talking about some defective vests and the possibility a new composite is being tested is way off-topic.
Could it be that delays in body armour deployments are caused by something better in the pipeline?
No. Part of acquistion for any system addresses the phase-out of the system being replaced. Especially when it's a safety issue (as body armor clearly is).
Once more, the point you're studiously avoiding is that better body armor exists and is available. It is essentially the same type as currently deployed, so the T&E are minimal to non-existent. The only potential issue I see is HSI-related.
Tuesday October 14, 2003
By Matt Kelley
Associated Press Writer
Nearly one-quarter of the 130,000 U.S. troops in
Iraq still have not been issued a new type of ceramic
body armor strong enough to stop bullets fired from
assault rifles.
Delays in funding, production and shipping mean it
will be December before all troops in Iraq will have
the vests, which were introduced four years ago,
military officials say.
Congress approved $310 million in April to
buy 300,000 more of the bulletproof vests,
with 30,000 destined to complete outfitting
of the troops in Iraq.
Of that money, however, only about $75 million has
reached the Army office responsible for overseeing the vests'
manufacture and distribution, said David Nelson, an official in that office.
Angry members of Congress have denounced the Pentagon. They say up to 44,000 troops lack the best
vests because of the sluggish supply chain, significantly
more than the Pentagon figure.
Relatives of some soldiers have resorted to buying
body armor in the United States and shipping it to
their troops, congressional critics say.
``I got a letter from a young soldier in Baghdad
saying that the men in his group were concerned
that they had cheap armor that was incapable
of stopping bullets.
And they wondered why they could not have the
best protection possible under the circumstances,''
said Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio.
The House version of an $86.7 billion Iraq
spending bill passed last week would include
$251 million for body armor and for clearing
unexploded munitions, although it's unclear if
additional money would speed up the process at
this point. President Bush's original request included
no more money for body armor.
The military's Interceptor vests,
introduced in 1999, include removable ceramic
plates in the front and back that can stop bullets
such as the 7.62mm rounds fired by Kalashnikov
rifles common in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Older-model vests can protect against shrapnel
and other low-speed projectiles but not high-velocity
rifle rounds.
Several soldiers serving in both countries
have credited the Interceptor vests with
saving their lives.
Each vest and its plates weighs more than
16 pounds and cost more than $1,500.
The shortfall in Iraq came because the military's
need for body armor outstripped its ability to
make and deliver the Interceptor plates, said Nelson,
the Army's deputy product manager for outfitting soldiers.
The Army already had boosted production to supply
soldiers fighting in Afghanistan when planning for the
Iraq war began in earnest last year, Nelson said.
Production of the plates surged a year ago from
about 3,000 per month to 6,000 to 10,000 per month,
Nelson said.
Current production is about 25,000 plates per month,
and the Army is working to double that to 50,000 per
month, he said.
``It's not a question of money, it's a question of capacity
to manufacture these devices,'' the Joint Chiefs of Staff
chairman, Gen. Richard Myers, told a Senate committee last month.
``We're making them as quickly as we can.''
Of the American soldiers in Iraq who already
have the body armor, some received it before
arriving in Iraq and others after their deployment.
Nelson said the Army originally hired three
companies to make the plates: Armor Works
LLC of Tempe, Ariz.; Ceradyne Inc.
of Costa Mesa, Calif; and Simula Inc. of Phoenix.
The Army recently added three more
companies to make the inserts, Nelson said:
Point Blank Body Armor Inc.,
a division of DHB Industries, of Carle Place, N.Y.;
ProTech Armored Products, a subsidiary of
Armor Holdings Inc., of Jacksonville, Fla.;
and ForceOne LLC, of Spruce Pine, N.C.
To help meet the demand,
all six companies also are making
heavier versions of the bulletproof plates,
which can be manufactured quicker and
easier, Nelson said.
Army Sgt. Chris Smith, 24,
shot in the chest during an ambush in Iraq
in late August, is among those who has
credited the vest with saving his life.
``His armor blew up with the force ...
shattered like it was supposed to,'' said his mother,
Bev Smith of Bismarck, N.D.
Her son returned fire and killed his
attacker and suffered only a bruised chest,
she told The Bismarck Tribune.
"The chief executive of DHB Industries, parent company of Point Blank Body Armor in Pompano Beach has made millions as one of the nation's premier war profiteers. Point Blank has raked in $700 million, largely from no-bid government contracts, despite sending defective body armor to the troops overseas. According to recent lawsuits, Brooks cashed in about $185 million worth of shares just before news broke that the military would recall thousands of defective vests."
ForceOne LLC, of Spruce Pine, N.C
Jade,
When you go into your Orwellian spin mode, you really need to keep track of where you enter and where you leave...least we all leave chuckling.
You begin by attempting to convince us that the Pentagon is dragging its feet on deploying new (thicker) body armor.
When it is suggested that the change process takes time you insist that it should not citing your personal expertise in the military testing and procurement process.
Next when it is pointed out that Aberdeen will be testing new lightweight materials, in lieu of thicker armor, you begin rambling about "phase-out" of armor that you originally you argued were not "phased-in"
You would somehow have us all believe that the Pentagon should be phasing out the current vests in 05', replacing them with thicker vests, only to replace them with lighter material vests in early 06'
spin, spin, spin.......if it sounds vaguely plausible you spin it. (hilarious)
Frankly my dear....you are a waste of time.
Thanks for the quote Martin.
At 16lbs, I can see why Aberdeen is testing a new design.
The typical load that a soldier carries is 60lbs.....armor being a quarter of that weight........
Yeah, that is a problem. I can see the reluctance to add even more weight.....so what are they suppose to jettison?
Water?
Ammo?
it was a PENTAGON report that said
80% OF MARINES WOULD NOT BE DEAD.
the only one spinning, i'm afraid, is you, greg.
was the report i posted from OCTOBER 2003 not far back enough for you? this is not a new controversy.
here:
~~
"Cheney claimed on March 17, 2004,
yet well into the next year the parents of troops were buying the expensive ceramic plated body armor on the open market. "
~~
that was just after rumsy asked for and received $87 billion. btw, that $87 billion came from our bank accounts, you know. good 'ol american shareholders/taxpayers.
support the troops, dammit.