| CBS News | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| Zogby | North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up |
0 |
| SF Chron | 0 | |
| KDVR | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Big Government- Hot Air
- Michelle Malkin
- Wheeling & dealing: Snowe pow-wows with Obama; Landrieu, Schumer, Daschle behind the scenes
- Saturday in the Senate: Cash for Cloture; Reid gets 60; Update: 8:15pm Eastern cloture vote – 60-39; Voinovich absent; Dems invoke Teddy Kennedy; Reid: “Ted would be happy.”
- Another day, another Berkeley tantrum
- Jake Tapper
- Lynn Sweet
The debate over more body armor
…. takes on a new meaning when you read what some Marines have to say about it:
Extra body armor _ the lack of which caused a political storm in the United States _ has flooded in to Iraq, but many Marines here promptly stuck it in lockers or under bunks. Too heavy and cumbersome, many say.
Marines already carry loads as heavy as 70 pounds when they patrol the dangerous streets in towns and villages in restive Anbar province. The new armor plates, while only about five pounds per set, are not worth carrying for the additional safety they are said to provide, some say.
“We have to climb over walls and go through windows,” said Sgt. Justin Shank of Greencastle, Pa. “I understand the more armor, the safer you are. But it makes you slower. People don’t understand that this is combat and people are going to die.”
Staff Sgt. Thomas Bain of Buffalo, N.Y., shared concerns about the extra pounds.
“Before you know it, they’re going to get us injured because we’re hauling too much weight and don’t have enough mobility to maneuver in a fight from house to house,” said Bain, who is assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment. “I think we’re starting to go overboard on the armor.”
[...]
Some Marines have chosen to wear the plates, particularly those in more vulnerable jobs such as Humvees turret gunners or those who frequently travel on roads plagued by roadside bombs.
But many Marines _ particularly those who conduct foot patrols also carrying weapons, extra ammunition, medical equipment, night vision goggles, food and water _ say the extra armor is not worth it, especially when the weather becomes unbearably hot.
“When you already have 60, 70 pounds on and you add 10 pounds when you go patrolling through the city or chasing after bad guys, that extra 10 pounds is going to make a difference. You’re going to feel it,” said Lance Cpl. David Partridge from Bangor, Maine.
Many Marines, however, believe the politics of the issue eventually will make the plates mandatory.
“The reason they issued (the plates), I think, is to make people back home feel better,” said Lance Cpl. Philip Tootle of Reidsville, Ga. “I’m not wishing they wouldn’t have issued them. I’m just wishing that they wouldn’t make them mandatory.”
Hat tip to Kim Priestap at Wizbang, who posts a flashback to Hillary Clinton’s criticism back in January of the Bush administration on the issue of extra body armor:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the Bush administration “incompetent” when it came to protecting the troops in combat and called the lack of adequate body armor for soldiers and Marines “unforgivable.”
So far in Iraq, more than 2,100 American troops have been killed. Critics like Clinton, D-N.Y., say that many of these deaths are the result of inadequate body armor. A secret Pentagon study of 93 Marines who were killed in Iraq found that 74 died after they were hit by a bullet or shrapnel in the torso or shoulders — areas unprotected by the armor most are issued.
“We perhaps could have avoided so many of these fatalities with the right body armor,” said Clinton, who recently wrote letters to Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee; and Francis J. Harvey, secretary of the Army, calling for an investigation into why troops were not being protected.
Hey she sounded good, anyway, didn’t she?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
30 Responses to “The debate over more body armor”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
After having been in the military this is about right the desk jockeys and Politicians don’t ask the people that are doing the actual job. Once again Hillary puts her two cents in, this woman that has nothing but distain for the military this is just another “Look at me I am concerned about our Troops” Barbra Streisand! This is nothing more than posturing and getting her fat ass air time the Democrats know they had better at least try to show concern for our troops it’s an election year. What poor excuses for human beings to politicize this it is not a political issue it’s a military issue and should be left up to the Pentagon.
Tommy, like when Clinton led a squad of troops over a rise in the White House lawn for a photo op? Or more like when a female Clinton White House aide dressed down a General because the General wore his uniform to the White House to brief the President? Or when Clinton used Marines dressed in their Class A Blue Uniforms as butlers for White House dinners?
Damn you need therapy PCD.
At least he didn’t send them into war-zones under protected with no clear exit stragery. Man I can’t wait to the mid-terms then we’ll see what the people think of the G.O.P. What’s you problem with the Clintons anyhow You tried to make it with Hillary and she shot you down
>At least he didn’t send them into war-
>zones
Yeah, that’s no place for soldiers.
>under protected
You might not have heard some of our troops complaining about the heavy body armor they’re being forced to wear by whiny Liberals pretending to be concerned for their welfare, nor have you heard them complain about how the utra-armored HMMVs are too slow and clunky to maneuver properly in crowdedm narrow streets. How about next time, you Liberals leave it up to the military to figure out how much protection they really need, ‘kay?
>with no clear exit stragery
Exit strategy is clear,and always was. Win the war (done), train the Iraqis (which we’re doing), help them form a government (which we’re also doing) and come home. Fro the first day, most reasonable people figure it would take 5-7 years. Meanwhile, terrorists and Saddam remnants, backed by Syria and Iran, are trying to prevent the formation of the new government. What’s your answer to that — run away? Say, speaking of going home, when is that “one year” deployment in Bosnia going to be over?
Tommy, that is disgusting. Even Bill doesn’t try to make it with Hillary.
Tommy, Here’s where I hand your head to you. Somalia, remember Blackhawk Down? Clinton and his SecDef Les Aspin sent troops in WITHOUT ANY ARMOR. We had to beg India and Pakistan to borrow their armor to rescue our troops.
We aren’t out of Kosovo are we? What was the exit strategy besides leave it for the next President to figure out?
Clinton was a criminal and a bad President. You can’t admit Bush beats Clinton in all ways.
Referring to Hillary’s use of the word “unforgivable”…. What is unforgivable is the way liberals will hurl words around with fury with irresponsibility. That my friends is unforgivable. Apologies accepted here. But apologies aren’t enough. You folks need to be responsible with your words for a long time before I start “forgiving” as Hillary referred to. Your accusations have so soured the political discussion. Your accusations have caused aid and comfort to the enemy. You have treated conservatives as the enemy.
Time and time again liberals can only sound like school children who haven’t grown up. Calling names. Gossiping. Acting like the other kids are bad when all they really want is a good life also.
Communication is key but instead of trying that liberals will accuse first. Now we see a story that makes liberals accusations and talk of “unforgivable” [ala Hillary] ridiculous. The government has a process. The Department of Defense saw a problem [at top levels] and the Congress and President acted and appropriated more money and the supplies were manufactured and delivered. And at the bottom levels the troops don’t want or need the armor in their eyes. Yet liberals will go on with accusations. Another day another set of irresponsible reckless charges/accusations.
Take for example Tommy. He said, “Wow Jim M does anyone in the field think the uniform wearing bureacrats at the Pentagon care about the troops”
I’ve said time and time again that he can’t possibly know what someone else cares about or if someone cares or doesn’t care about the troops. Tommy will irresponsibly talk about people with accusations without showing any REMORSE. Why is that?
Well you gotta just shake your head sometimes. First off it was Bush 41 who initally send troops into Somalia as a lame-duck President. Secondly when we ended the bloodbath in kosovo this nation didn’t lose a single servicemember. I’m fairly sure the troops appreciated that fact. True we are still there but that’s what youse on the right say about Germany and Japan when the Murtha’s,Feingold’s etc,etc say when they ask about Iraq right? Jim M was correct when he stated this a procurement issue. There IS better body armor out there knowing this nation was going to have to deal with Saddam at some point how much effort was put into up-armoring our Hummvees. None. Shoot man Clinton had a lotta flaws but to suggest that he was a criminal is laughable. Also maybe Bill stepped out on Hillary because stopped taking care of his needs. I know lots of other folks who have done the same when they’ve a martial problems. There are called members of the U.S. Congress.
I’ve a very strong feeling that most of the “new, upgraded” Body Armor will reside in lockers. Or be shipped to those soldiers driving and riding in Convoys. Where those wearing it do not have to move around very much.
In Combat, the Equation is always “Weight vs. Mission”. Especially if a piece of Equipment is heavy and cumbersome and precludes swift movement.
The soldier has the choice of carrying a Blivet bag of water, four extra grenades and a dozen magazines for his A-4 for House To House Searches, opposed to the new armor.
My money and gut says that the soldier will opt for the water, grenades and ammo. While the Entry Team (First through the door) and Medics will be tasked to wear the heavier armor.
Jack.
Good break down on the body armor debate is here: Link
By the way here is his background from the above link:
Side note:
Checked out his site, had something that brought me back to my Army days.
Adapt and Overcome – Link
tommy, as usual can’t accept facts. Clinton is a convicted perjurer. That is a criminal, period.
Clinton and Aspen repeatedly denied pleas for armor when CLINTON CHANGED THE MISSION IN SOMALIA! Get used to that fact, tommy. When the Generals in IRAQ and AFGANISTAN ask for equipment, hardware, and troops, they get exactly what they ask for. Too bad you are so partisan blind that you can’t see or admit that true fact.
Liberals are doofuses when it comes to anyting military. Clinton and Carter proved it in spades!
Yes. The mission was changed in Somalia. I’m not sure that’ll matter much to Tommy. It was changed from a saving human lives mission to a meals on wheels mission. Additionally, the legacy media had a drumbeat insisting the President go into Somalia as well as Kosovo. I think the legacy media simply needs to report and let us decide. What they have done in 3 years in Iraq is give aid and comfort to the enemy and make life a lot harder for our troops.
>knowing this nation was going to have to
>deal with Saddam at some point how much
>effort was put into up-armoring our
>Hummvees
The question you’re not asking, perhaps deliberately, is “why didn’t we have enough body armor and armored HMMVs in the first place? Why was our military is such a dismal state?” Would anyone care to hazard a guess? Perhaps it has something to do with cutting military spending, you think?
>Clinton had a lotta flaws but to suggest
>that he was a criminal is laughable.
So lying to a Federal grand jury and witness tampering aren’t criminal acts when Bubba does ‘em?
>Also maybe Bill stepped out on Hillary
>because stopped taking care of his needs.
Oh, well, that makes adultery A-OK, then!
You do have to admit that the lack of armor was pretty evident during Somolia. It really should of been addressed soon after that, but BJ didn’t. I think it is tragic at how weak our military looked after Somalia, which we now know only encouraged our enemies. I wonder if we would be dealing with so many terrorists today if BJ had stayed the course and provided what the military needed in Somalia. Alot of this can be layed at the doorstep of the Clinton legacy. He was a tramp for a President, and is a convicted felon. Just like so many presidents in the past. If there are skeletons in the closet, they will be known by everyone eventually. I have no doubt that BJ has alot more skeletons than most. – Lorica
Besides cutting the military spending I want to know what crystal ball the liberals wanted the Bush administration and the Pentagon to look in to see exactly what the enemy was going to do. If we could do that we could have counter measures in place before the enemy reacts. For one thing the HMMV’s were not meant or built to have armor they are not armored personal carriers.
Jim,
The Hummer Armor is what happens when uninformed Libs and equally uninformed Media get together with a bloody shirt to mung up an issue. Libs demonstrate a limited capacity to understand warfare.
Look at that Kathy that posted on another thread whining about Iraqi civilian casualties. There are always civilian casualties in war. The thing that the Kathy’s do not accept is that the US is about the only country that doesn’t target civilian populations. We target the military and their installations. Also, Saddam loved to hide his military in civilian neighborhoods turning his own citizens into human shields.
Most of the armor debate is coming from know nothings who think war is some sort of push button video game. They want it clean and antiseptic. These are the same fools who are trying to forget the 3,000 innocent souls who died on 9/11.
http://edeldoug.blogs.com/thoughts_rants_raves_and_/2006/01/uparmoring_deba.html
Up-Armoring Debate Renewed!
Remember the big deal that the dems were making about Up-Armoring our HumVees a while back? The Libs wanted them Up-Armored overnight, while not giving any consideration to the facts. I wrote an article in December of 2004 making the following points in that debate:
1) Humvees were never intended to be armored personnel carriers (we HAVE APCs for that!). They are simple motorized transportation, that not long ago would have been relegated to a jeep – which rarely had even a canvas door on it!
2) Outfitting an “Up-Armored HumVee is not a simple matter of slapping on a couple of sheets of steel plating. The armor kit weighs upward of a couple of TONS. Installing it then requires modivications of the suspension to carry that extra weight, of the braking system (to keep the vehicle from slamming into the one in front of it due to the additional inertia of all that weight in motion), and even of the engine and transmission to enable the newly heavyweight machine to perform in uneven terrain. All this takes time and money.
3) The Administration has moved men and material as quickly as possible to accomplish the up armoring process… but it must be borne in mind that no amount of modification will make our troops and equipment invulnerable. Roadside bombs can and do take out vehicles heavier and better armored than an up-armored HumVee.
Well, forgive the metaphor, but the Up-Armor debate has gotten a retread! And even “under the radar on Iraq” Hillary has mustered up the gumption to take a position on it!
A group called Soldiers for the Truth leaked an unpublished Pentagon study that found that a significant number of Marines killed in Iraq from upper body wounds might have survived with extra body armor, as these wounds struck gaps in armor on the sides under the arms. (Well, CLUE!! And more still would have survived if they were covered head to toe in a foot of concrete!)
Of course the New York Times latched onto the story, and it has spread like wildfire from there. Next thing you know, Hillary is on “Good Morning America” blasting the “incompetent” Bush Administration for it’s “unforgivable” failure to provide more armor. But of course, the facts are not given much consideration.
1) Many lives have been saved by the armor that is in place. Our troops extol the virtues of the EXISTING body armor.
2) There is no shortage of current technology body armor. While it is true that the initial supply at the beginning of Iraqi operations was slow in coming – there is currently such a surplus that excess body armor is being used for training in the states.
3) Troops currently patrol with between 70 and 100 lbs of armor and equipment in desert heat. Many say they would risk patroling WITHOUT the existing armor if they were permitted to.
4) Body Armor which is all-enclosing is not even developed, let alone currently deployable. Factors which must be accounted for in its development include accounting for venting perspiration and heat to prevent heatstroke and dehydration; flexibility, weight, comfort and mobility to allow the wearer to actually function and perform their mission while so outfitted; and costs.
5) As with HumVees, the concept of invulnerability in war is a fairy tale. There WILL be casualties regardless of any protective precautions taken. The benefits of such armor must be weighed against the costs and risks of increased weight, decreased mobility etc. Protection must be balanced against the ability to perform the mission. One cannot wage a war without the risk of casualties.
It would be nice if those who purport to speak for the troops, express concern for the troops, and crusade for the safety of the troops would ever actually speak to the troops and LISTEN to the troops!
That’s because most of the libs went to Canada… Oh I forgot Carter pardoned the yellow draft dodging run away from a fight liberal traitors and speaking of that wasn’t the 42nd occupier of the Whitehouse a sleaze bag draft dodger? Could that be the reason our military was in such shambles for the Bush administration? As I have said before History shows that liberals have been wrong about every war we have had since the and even before Our War for Independence. In stead of ‘Don’t tread on me” it’s “Make me a door mat” peace at any cost.
Support the troops, bring them home now. Peace
Hey Steve(FN) Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah please find a new line OH I forgot that would take some thought on your part.
steve(FN) wishes to disgrace the sacrifices of the fallen by bringing home the troops before the job is finished. But that is the MO of liberals, to try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I support the troops. I want the job done so that when the troops come home it is not to defend the homefront from enemies they could have killed overseas.
>Support the troops, bring them home now.
When you make two opposing statements as if they were one and the same, it creates something of an oxymoron. That is, the statement itself is an oxymoron, while you, sir, are an ox and a moron. Ordering the troops to run away from a fight with thugs and murderers only shows support for the thugs and murderers you deem too powerful for the United States military.
“Thugs and murderers”, your talking downtown LA or NYC? What you have in Iraq are Arabs who don’t want the United States in their country. Can’t blame them, if the shoe was on the other foot, we’d all feel the same way. Is sacraficing another 2400, a viable option? Peace
Wrong steve.
Thier elected Government wants us to help them then leave, not cut and run.
The murderers are the terrorists coming from Syria and Iran across the borders trying to disrupt the Iraqi newly formed government and terrorize thier citizens.
That may sound good when you say it fast sanity, but it’s just nonsense. We can’t even secure our own borders. Get real and get out of Iraq. Peace
No Steve(FN) you are nothing but nonsense because Sanity has facts to back up what he says and you have nothing but the way you feel and feelings can not compare with facts and logical thought. It doesn’t matter if it is said fast or not, talking about fast it only took you 9 hours and 42 minutes to have an unintelligent comment.
steve where in my statement did I say anything about protecting thier borders (something which as a leftist, your side is EXTREMELY weak on in the US)?
Iraq is too big to put the type of man power to do complete border security and the US knows that, that is why the plan has always been to train the Iraqi Army and Police to handle things for themselves, unfortunately for most of the idiot generation out there of everything must be done NOW, NOW, NOW, fail to realize that this training is not something that is done overnight and the amount of Iraqis they are training are staggering.
Iraqis, more and more, are stepping up, seeing that they need to protect thier homeland. It is not Iraqi terrorists blowing up police stations full of Iraqis, or murdering Iraqi women and children. Can you really be that dense to think that?
There is already proof that Iran and Syria have a hand in what is going on in Iraq, that is one reason why their is going to be talks held with Iran specifically on that subject.
Again steve, thier elected government ASKED us to stay after they were elected by thier own Iraqi citizens. They wish us to stay till they are stabilized and thier army and police are trained, in which time our troops can begin to fall back and come home as more and more of the Iraqis take over. This has been the plan all along.
The only nonsense we see seem to come from you and you off-base, most times off-topic, one-liners meant to try and inflame comments and not any real debate.