Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Pentagon Weasels on Armor Payback

Everyone in uniform knows that life ain't fair -- that, sooner or later, the government they're trying to defend is going to mess with them, somehow. Set up roadblocks. Make their mission harder. Treat them less than fairly. It'd be crazy to expect anything less from a bureaucracy as giant and disjointed as the Defense Department. So putting up with B.S. just another part of handling the job.

soldier-Back.JPGBut this -- this is too much:

Soldiers and their parents are still spending hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for armor they say the military won’t provide. One U.S. senator said Wednesday he will try again to force the Pentagon to obey the reimbursement law it opposed from the outset and has so far not implemented...

“Your expectation is that when you are sent to war, that our government does everything they can do to protect the lives of our people, and anything less than that is not good enough,” said a former Marine who spent nearly $1,000 two weeks ago to buy lower-body armor for his son, a Marine serving in Fallujah.

The father asked that he be identified only by his first name — Gordon — because he is afraid of retribution against his son.

“I wouldn’t have cared if it cost us $10,000 to protect our son, I would do it,” said Gordon. “But I think the U.S. has an obligation to make sure they have this equipment and to reimburse for it. I just don’t support Donald Rumsfeld’s idea of going to war with what you have, not what you want. You go to war prepared, and you don’t go to war until you are prepared.”

Under the law passed by Congress last October, the Defense Department had until Feb. 25 to develop regulations for the reimbursement, which is limited to $1,100 per item. Pentagon officials opposed the reimbursement idea, calling it “an unmanageable precedent that will saddle the DOD with an open-ended financial burden.”

So wait, let me get this straight: reimbursing 11 Bravos for their body armor is somehow "unmanageable." But sinking hundreds of billions into a flailing, bloated modernization project that changes requirements and deadlines every couple of months, that's perfectly OK? No, wrong. Helping soldiers and marines fight today's war isn't a "burden." It should be a priority. The priority.

(Photo: Johan Spanner)

Latest Comments

Is any of this suprising after almost a decade of Bill Clinton? I'm not trying to excuse the ineptness and stupidity of the jerks in power now, but I'll bet that eight years of the Slick Willy White House is partially to blame for several of the military's current problems.

Posted by: Kalafan at October 5, 2005 5:19 PM


I'm reading this article again, who is using the lower body armor?

If you know someone-let's here from you. When I saw that article all I could think was-"No gunner is ever going to survive a rollover with that thing on."

At the time I presumes it was the armor I saw in Stars & Stripes and it certainly seemed to slow someone's ability to move.

I'm not saying that people haven't been screwed by the Army-but I'm betting that most guys who are getting the lower part really are not using it much. I wouldn't have-but that's not saying there is no role for it.

Posted by: maxf at October 3, 2005 12:54 PM


"You go to war prepared, and you don’t go to war until you are prepared."

Yes, I'm sure generals like McClellan and Montgomery would agree, but everyone else has learned the truth: time spent in preparation favors both sides. You go to war not when you *want* to, but when you *have* to.

But this bungling around with the funds is just stupid. The need was obvioius two years ago, and the problem still isn't fixed!

Posted by: TrustButVerify at October 3, 2005 10:59 AM


But the first line in italics states that soldiers and parents are still spending to supplement the military purchases or armor.

That's the big question-is this like the NY Times article a few months back stating that we weren't getting the proper armor still-because an armor devised to combat a threat noone has yet used against the US military hasn't been widely fielded.

There it was a case or lazy or politically aimed "journalism". Here maybe it's lazy. I know that I rolled into Iraq in a hillbilly armored 5 ton. But everyone....EVERYONE.... had IBA. Or something better. That was a year ago.

Posted by: max at October 3, 2005 9:59 AM


While many/most of the troops now in the field have the IBA fielded, during most of OIF 1 that was not the case. Many of us purchased commercially-available body armor, as the flak vests still being issued were not believed to be adequate protection. This is what we'd like to be re-imbursed for.

Posted by: consul-at-arms at October 3, 2005 8:47 AM


» View All 14 Comments

» Post a Comment