Bush to Troops: We can't protect you and we won't let you protect yourselves

posted by The Vidiot @ 3:25 PM Permalink

Update: "When I want news, I turn to CNN...and they...turn...to Skippy...the Bush Kangaroo." And today, skippy turned to us! Welcome fellow denizens of blogtopia! (y!wksctp!)

Army Bans Use of Privately Bought Armor

Soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor other than the protective gear issued by the military, Army officials said Thursday, the latest twist in a running battle over the equipment the Pentagon gives its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[...]
Murray Neal, chief executive officer of Pinnacle, said he hadn't seen the directive and wants to review it.

"We know of no reason the Army may have to justify this action," Neal said. "On the surface this looks to be another of many attempts by the Army to cover up the billions of dollars spent on ineffective body armor systems which they continue to try quick fixes on to no avail."

I'm just guessing that Pinnacle wasn't the recipient of a 'no-bid' contract.

And even when the troops get the 'approved' armor, they aren't safe. Remember this from January?

According to the New York Times, the study found as many as 80 percent of those Marines could have survived if they had had extra body armor. For example, the study said as many as 42 percent of the Marine casualties who died from isolated torso injuries could have been prevented with improved protection in the areas surrounding the plated areas of the vest.

And one might ask, what is the difference between Pentagon issue and Pinnacle armor? First a description of the Army gear:

LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS (Ret.): The interceptor body armor but it's the vest.

And then you have inside both the front and the back 11-pound ballistic ceramic, you know, protector -- small arms protection inserts.

Now we have a deltoid shoulder protector here. They weigh about five pounds. Now the Army soon will come out with side panels that weigh about three-and-a-half pounds that are ballistic plates just like the front. And then of course you have things on the neck and in the groin.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Col. Charles, so what is wrong with this? What did the study show? Where were the vulnerabilities in this vest according to this study?

LT. COL. ROGER CHARLES (Ret.): Well, the major vulnerabilities were in this area here. And I'd like to point out this is not a ballistic defense piece of gear. This is protection against shrapnel but it's not the same as this hard plate that's in the front and the rear.

So there is no ballistic plate protection here, so this is an area of concern -- this whole area here and then around the throat and neck.

And the Pinnacle gear?

MARGARET WARNER: Col. Charles, you're wearing one more expensive alternative advocated by some. What is it and why is it better? It actually looks skimpier, if I may use that word, than what Col. Maginnis is wearing.

LT. COL. ROGER CHARLES (Ret.): Well, first of all, we did not bring the shoulder attachments which are available.

But this is an outfit called Pinnacle Armor, produces -- the trade name is Dragon Skin. And these are small titanium ceramic plates that are positioned in kind of a fish scale approach.

And it gives you protection from there to here, and then from the rear there back. There's about an inch-and-a-half on each side where there is no protection as compared to, you know, about a foot on the side on here.

There also obviously is vulnerability here and around the throat and so on. But, overall it's about 140 percent more area of protection with this system than the (Army's) Interceptor.

Now inquiring minds want to know if there are any other differences? Yep:

LT. COL. ROGER CHARLES (Ret.): (Dragon Skin) will not only will take that hit but will take multiple hits and the ceramic plate used in interceptor, one of the complaints from the troops in the field was that too often after one round impact, then you had a bunch of gravel basically inside the pouch.

So why would the Army insist it's troops use inferior armor?

LT. COL. ROGER CHARLES (Ret.): The basic reason, as hard as this may be for your audience to understand, is not invented here: Bureaucratic turf protection because the Army people that were charged with providing this ten, fifteen years ago had a program -- it produced something beginning in 1998 I believe, 1999. But it wasn't this - and they didn't want to use this because they did not claim invention of it.

There you have it. The problems we are having in Iraq have more to do with turf wars than ground wars.