Protecting (?) the troops
Hilary Clinton has called for an investigation into why American troops are still being placed in harm's way without adequate body armor - which, by the way, has been readily available for years at the minimal cost of $260 per soldier.
As I noted a few days ago (thanks again to The Enigmatic Paradox), this situation is simply inexcusable. Reacting to a secret Pentagon study which showed that as many as 80% of all fatalities caused by upper body wounds could have been prevented with proper armor, Senator Clinton said,
As I noted a few days ago (thanks again to The Enigmatic Paradox), this situation is simply inexcusable. Reacting to a secret Pentagon study which showed that as many as 80% of all fatalities caused by upper body wounds could have been prevented with proper armor, Senator Clinton said,
It's our duty to protect our men and women in uniform. They are protecting us, our interest. They have been sent there by our president. The very least we can do is give them the very best body armor and armored vehicles.Hear, hear, Senator. When every American in Iraq could be provided with this vital protection for a total of approximately $50 million, there is no acceptable excuse for not having done so already. Mr. Bush is quite adept at paying lip service to the idea of "supporting the troops". The reality of his commitment, however, would appear to be another thing entirely.
The president speaks out strongly and even harshly from time to time about issues he thinks are important. Let's hear him speak about men and women who wear the uniform of our country.
posted by Bob P @ 6:30 PM
1 Comments:
Well yes... and no.
Unfortunately, body armor comes at a cost - and I don't mean financial. The cost is weight and mobility. Many GIs have this same discussed armor available to them and make a concious decision NOT to wear it. Why? Because the body armor they already wear weighs 30 pounds.
In the words of one interviewed Marine "If I wore the under arm and shoulder armor I wouldn't be able to raise my arms over my head, or climb a 6-foot fence. And in this heat too..."
Unfortunately, this issue is a bit of a red herring. Yes, the report shows that "if the areas affected were covered with armor" then the fatalities most likely would not have occurred, but you could just as easily say if the troops weren't there then the fatalities wouldn't have occurred.
Which by the way should still be the real point.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home