[2dogs]

Let's see- there's this story, the news last night that soldiers returning home from Iraq for visits have to pay their own travel costs (if they are going anywhere other than D.C.), and prior stories about inadequate weaponry. I'm beginning to think if we can't support 'em we ought to bring them home.

But we can afford to pay millions of $$$ for illegals, and idiotic court decisions that undermine the very thing these guys are fighting for. :confused:



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3526531&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

Families chip in for flak jackets

02.10.2003
By ANDREW GUMBEL in Los Angeles
United States soldiers in Iraq are so short of up-to-date flak jackets - often the difference between survivable injury and death in combat - that their families back home have begun buying them out of their own pocket.

Campaigners for military families opposed to the continuing occupation angrily denounced the lack of adequate protection yesterday, calling it "outrageous" and part of a pattern of general failure to provide adequate supplies to the troops almost five months after the formal end of the war in Iraq.

Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has acknowledged the shortage of up-to-date Kevlar jackets but said he could not promise to have them universally available until December.

Many - perhaps most - soldiers are wearing Vietnam-era flak jackets, which are heavier and unable to withstand rounds from AK-47 automatic rifles, the most common ammunition in Iraq.

"The word cannon fodder keeps coming to mind," said Charlie Richardson, co-founder of the group Military Families Speak Out.

"This shows a fundamental lack of respect for the military. If you don't take care of your troops in these basic ways, you're really saying they're throwaway."

Richardson's group has received numerous stories of mothers spending hundreds of dollars on either jackets or individual protective plates for their sons in Iraq.

One sergeant with the 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, Zachariah Byrd, recently survived being shot four times by an AK-47, thanks to a kind fellow soldier who lent him his Kevlar Interceptor jacket. The jacket he had been issued probably would not have saved his life.

"For many GIs, Iraq appears to be a strictly BYOB war - Bring Your Own Bulletproofs," Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington Law School, wrote this week.

He estimated the cost of updating the flak jackets at less than US$100 million.

[agricola]

all,

Many - perhaps most - soldiers are wearing Vietnam-era flak jackets, which are heavier and unable to withstand rounds from AK-47 automatic rifles, the most common ammunition in Iraq.

is there a jacket that would protect against such a round?

[cameroneod]

Level IV with the thick plates. My unit just got them.

[goalie]

Flack jackets stop flack. Bullet-proof vests stop bullets. They are not the same thing.

[FRIZ]

The Los Angeles Times
September 29, 2003

Full Metal Jacket
By Jonathan Turley

Why must Americans in Iraq face death because of outmoded body armor?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley29sep29,1,6150427.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Suzanne Werfelman is a mother and a teacher who has been shopping for individual body armor. This is not in response to threats from her elementary-class students in Sciota, Pa.; it's a desperate attempt to protect her son in Iraq.

Like many other U.S. service members in Iraq, her son was given a Vietnam-era flak jacket that cannot stop the type of weapons used today. It appears that parents across the country are now purchasers of body armor because of the failure of the military to supply soldiers with modern vests.

Werfelman's son, Army Spc. Richard Murphy, is a military policeman in Iraq. He was also one of my law students last year before being sent off for a 20-month stint. Upon their arrival, members of Murphy's unit were shocked to learn that they would be given the old Vietnam-era vests rather than the modern Interceptor vest. (They were also given unarmored Humvees, which are vulnerable to even small-arms fire.) Military officials admit that the standard flak jacket could not reliably stop a bullet, including AK-47 ammunition, used in Iraq and the most common ammunition in the world.

Developed in the late 1990s, the Interceptor vest is made of layered sheets of Kevlar with pockets in front and back for ceramic plates to protect vital organs. These vests — one-third lighter than the old ones — have stopped machine-gun bullets, shrapnel and other ordnance.

They can mean the difference between living and dying, which was made all too clear to Sgt. Zachariah Byrd, a soldier with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, who was shot four times with AK-47 bullets (twice in the chest and twice in his arms) when his unit was ambushed. The vest protected his chest and he survived. Byrd had been issued a standard flak jacket and, if he had been wearing it during the attack, he'd probably be dead. However, at the beginning of the patrol, his buddy who was driving that night gave his Interceptor vest to Byrd — a passing kindness that saved Byrd's life.

Others don't have the Interceptor option — including some of the soldiers in Murphy's unit who are still wearing flak jackets. Congress has received reports of soldiers killed while wearing the old flak jackets. One from a mother related how three soldiers in her son's unit were killed while wearing the outmoded vests. The unit reportedly had only 30 modern vests for 120 men. Army Staff Sgt. Dave Harris wrote a letter to Stars and Stripes that related how his friend, Mike Quinn, was killed in Fallouja. Quinn's unit didn't have enough vests, so he gave his to a young soldier. The decision saved the young soldier's life, but resulted in Quinn's death when he was shot.

The greatest shortfall in vests and plates appear to be National Guard and reserve units, though full-time soldiers like Byrd also have reported shortages. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed last week that it would not be until December before there were enough plates for all of our people in Iraq.

Murphy's reserve unit, which initially had no modern jackets, was eventually given some Interceptor vests weeks after they arrived in Iraq, but even then the new vests were missing the essential ceramic plates. That is when Werfelman went out and bought some plates for $650 — more than her weekly salary — and sent them to her son so he'd have basic protection. Workers at one armor company she called said that they had been deluged with calls from parents trying to buy vests and plates for their sons and daughters overseas.

Of course, many soldiers do not have even empty Interceptors. When they have received plates from home, they have reportedly used duct tape to attach them to the backs of their flak jackets.

This is a dangerous practice, according to William "Butch" Hancock, who recently retired from the Army after 30 years and currently consults for Point Blank, a body armor manufacturer. He says that some of these plates are designed for front pockets and will not work in such circumstances.

In speeches, President Bush has attributed the record federal budget deficit, in part, to his insistence that U.S. soldiers have the resources they need: "My attitude is, any time we put one of our soldiers in harm's way, we're going to spend whatever is necessary to make sure they have the best training, the best support and the best possible equipment." When Bush later taunted gunmen in Iraq to "bring it on," many GIs must have nervously tugged at their obsolete flak jackets.

For many GIs, Iraq appears to be a strictly BYOB war — Bring Your Own Bulletproofs.

The shortages come down to money and priorities. In 1998, Interceptors were available and issued to armies around the world. However, the U.S. military treats the replacement of body armor as any other "general-issue item." Thus, five years ago the military brass decided to implement a one-for-one exchange of new-for-old vests over a 10-year period. The military recently moved to increase production. The belated priority given to replacing the vests is particularly shocking considering their performance in Afghanistan, where they are credited with saving the lives of 29 soldiers. This is why American mothers are mailing armored plates rather than the traditional baked goods.

It is unclear how we got into this predicament, but it is worthy of a congressional investigation — particularly when it comes to the failure to equip all military units with the modern vests before the Iraq war. After all, the military brass appears to be spending in other areas.

For example, the Air Force announced that it had cut a deal with Boeing to lease airplane tankers for billions more than it would cost to buy them outright. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Air Force will waste almost $6 billion by leasing the planes rather than buying them. Congress is looking into the deal. By comparison, outfitting all of the 150,000 soldiers in Iraq with Interceptor vest plates would cost less than $97 million at retail prices. Because many have already been outfitted, the actual cost would be a small fraction of this amount. Congress should insist that body armor be designated a "sensitive item" and that every soldier be given an Interceptor with plates without delay.

One approach might guarantee results. Any member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who does not secure such vests for his service should be required to sit at an outdoor cafe in Tikrit and drink a cup of tea while wearing an old flak jacket. That might focus the general staff on the problem more concretely.

Once the government makes sure all our soldiers receive vests, only one thing would remain: Someone should send Suzanne Werfelman $650 and an apology.

[Leatherneck]

her son was given a Vietnam-era flak jacket that cannot stop the type of weapons used today...

the standard flak jacket could not reliably stop a bullet, including AK-47 ammunition
Sure glad we didn't have those nasty AK-47s in Vietnam, yessirreee...

Wait. HuH?:rolleyes:

TC
TFL Survivor

[cameroneod]

You are correct. The term is one that the public likes to use incorrectly. Much the same as "bullets."

[Hkmp5sd]

You dress people up in armor from head to toe, like the two idiots involved in the LA shootout, and someone would still complain.

[chaim]

Sure glad we didn't have those nasty AK-47s in Vietnam, yessirreee...

Wait. HuH? Um, I'm sure you know that technology changes. Our guys over there deserve the best we can give them, especially an item that is technically stocked and that is regular issue by many of the world's other militaries. Just because you didn't have it 30 years ago doesn't mean they shouldn't have it today and I don't see how you can fault a soldier who wants what he should be issued or parents who want to insure the best chance that their children come home. Maybe we should still have our guys use M1903A1s and M1 Carbines instead of M16s, steel pots instead of Kevlars, and B17s and Mustangs instead of F16s and B52s, after all they were good enough for our fathers and grandfathers.:rolleyes:

[El Tejon]

chaim, I think Leather was mocking the stupidity of the reporter.:confused:

[Quartus]

A flak jacket is just that - a FLAK jacket. It's not intended to stop small arms fire.


And if these folks don't like the gear that our boys are issued, they need to stop voting for people who think tax dollars are better spent on pork and assorted illegal social programs.

[chaim]

chaim, I think Leather was mocking the stupidity of the reporter True, and on further reflection I should apologize if I came across as a little to, um, excited. Not angry but I did get too sarcastic and might have come across as hostile (I'm not). With a screen name like "Leatherneck" and the service history he has I doubt if he could accurately be described as someone who doesn't support our troops.:)

[RKCheung]

These are the plates in question:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=519732

[RKCheung]

Back side:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=519737

[sabre452]

I personally think that the Iraqi council and civilians should not see $.01 of the $87,000,000,000.00 that congress is being asked to appropriate until our units have enough vests for their soldiers.

[LawDog]

Multiple threads merged.

LawDog

[shooten]

Well, if they do replace them just think about all of the surpluss we'll see on Cheaper than Dirt. Seriously though, I hope our troops get what they need. We're supposed to be the best, not equiping our troops is a poor reflection.

Scott

[Futo Inu]

We can't even keep our boys in flak jackets, but we can spend billions in the war on some drugs. Ludicrous. Bring them home now. It's not worth all the deaths over there. If we just up and left, the UN would step in and help with the gov't setup - Europe just wants us to pick up the tab in lives and money, but they have a much stronger interest in fixing Iraq, so they would do something if we called their bluff and left.

[telomerase]

You guys are a bunch of anti-American, unpatriotic, whining liberals. It's obviously not cost-effective to buy level IV jackets for mere grunts, for several reasons:

If they're wearing jackets with trauma plates when an RPG or mortar round explodes nearby, they'll become expensive amputees instead of cheap corpses. We already have over 1500 of these moochers hanging around the VA hospitals just from this puny war (that's not counting Afghanistan casualties, and of course we don't count those poodlehearted British types either); how many do you think there will be when we start the Iranian campaign? And how many of them will turn into bitter, disgruntled McVeigh types who will turn on our civilians? Think of the children!

If we wanted to keep Americans from dying, we could just quit aiding dictators around the world. But who would get contracts from that? There's no glory in minding your own business.

Do you wimps want to end up like the SWISS, with no enemies at all? You all make me sick.

[JimP]

Telemorase, you may have been willing to wait until Saddam became an imminent threat just like North Korea but thank god the leadership of this country wasn't. And...YES, I am over here doing something about it. Sitting in Iraq as I type this. Do you complain about us not doing anything about North Korea like the rest of the "lets cut and run" crowd?? (btw, I spent all of last year there thanks to the likes of you folks who refuse to deal with threats when we CAN).

BTW - I didn't say Jack about WMD simply due to the fact that I don't believe he had any. Program?...Yes. Weapons??....No.

Pause to think what a Capitalist country will do amongst Saudi Arabia; Syria; Iran; etc.

Also - I'd rather fight them in this s#$thole than in the streets of New England.

Not trying to stifle your creative thought, just trying to further the dialogue. :)

[telomerase]

>Pause to think what a Capitalist country will do amongst Saudi Arabia; Syria; Iran; etc.

I have paused to think about the effects of US foreign aid, and if it creats a capitalist country out of Iraq... well then I'll move there, because it will be better than the US. US foreign aid was not a good influence on the Warsaw Pact, China, Uganda, Taliban, etc.

>Also - I'd rather fight them in this s#$thole than in the streets of New England.

If you weren't there they wouldn't be fighting Americans, and we wouldn't have killed thousands of civilians whose relatives will hate us for centuries.

>Not trying to stifle your creative thought, just trying to further the dialogue.

I appreciate your thoughts. When you are older it is doubtful that you will believe that the risk of your valuable life in this enterprise was worthwhile (except to Halliburton).

And for all the gods' sakes, wear a Level IV vest!
:D :D

[Mark Tyson]

We can't cut and run now. We turned Iraq into a battlefield and it's our responsibility to police up the mess. Look what happened when we abandoned the Afghans. We helped turn that country into a battlefield too in the 1980's, then we just up and left. Tossed them a few million in foreign aid and left them to their own devices. That horrible mistake has cost us thousands of lives. If we leave Iraq before the job is done we are telling the world that when the going gets tough, the U.S. runs away. Iraq will decend into complete chaos. We will be reinforcing the view of UBL(assuming he's not buried at the bottom of a cave somewhere) that the U.S. is a paper tiger that can be defeated, all you have to do is spill a little of their blood. Nobody will side with us in future conflicts.

Where will the next Northern Alliance or Peshmerga allies come from if everyone believes we're so gutless that we turn tail so quickly? Pakistan could fall, pro-U.s. elements in a hundred countries will be undermined. U.S. credibility will be demolished for the next half century. If we flinch, we tell the enemy that they are winning, and we encourage more attacks.

I wasn't crazy about this war, but now we're in it for the long haul. It's do or die. "Nothing is so fragile as a reputation for strength that is not deserved," said Machiavelli. There's only weak or strong in this world. We'd damn well better be strong.

[telomerase]

I wasn't crazy about this war, but now we're in it for the long haul. It's do or die.

It would be polite to give General Rommel credit for the quote.

Seriously, if all Americans thought that way you'd be lying in a rice paddy somewhere with a pungi stake in your leg. It's bad enough to let Presidents launch undeclared wars, but having a policy of never admitting a mistake is certain death.

[Mark Tyson]

Admitting it was a mistake is fine. Supporting the Afghan Muj was a BIG mistake. Supporting murderous dictators just because they made anti-communist noises was a BIG mistake. The Iraq war ... looks pretty bad, doesn't it? But running away is not the answer, not now. There's too much invested in this fight.

[JimP]

Tel, chances are - I'm older than you are. I've been doing this for nigh on 24 years. Gotta disagree with you on the countries you mentioned. We didn't start the war - in case you were sleeping, they actually (no kidding) really did fly planes into the Trade towers. I know the New York Times refuses to admit it but 3000 innocent lives were lost (no kidding). Did saddamn have anything to do with it?? Looking more and more like he was tied into the terror connection despite the vociferous denials by the NYT.

Where do you get your lib stats of us killing thousands of innocent Iraqui's?? Please back that up. Outright lie and falshood perpetuated by you folks. Again, I invite you over here. Talk to the shopkeepers, the peasants, the people that Uday used to toss into his Tiger pen for fun; the stewardesses whom he forced into brothels when the airlines were shut down; relatives of the hundreds of thousands Saddam tossed into mass graves.

Doubt I'll see you over here. Half-caf, decaf latte's with soy mocha whip are still hard to come by and the gravel is hell on Birkenstocks. We'll make it safe for you and you can continue to conjure up America as the big bad monster and harken back to the "peaceful years" when a decent terrorist could bomb and kill us with impunity and without fear of retaliation from our liberal leaders. :barf:

[telomerase]

Where do you get your lib stats of us killing thousands of innocent Iraqui's??

----------------------------------------------------------
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - At least 3,240 civilians died across Iraq during a month of war, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a five-week Associated Press investigation.

The count is still fragmentary, and the complete toll - if it is ever tallied - is sure to be significantly higher.

Several surveys have looked at civilian casualties within Baghdad, but the AP tally is the first attempt to gauge the scale of such deaths from one end of the country to the other, from Mosul in the north to Basra in the south.

-----------------------------------


I'll be the first to say that poverty from Saddam's half-assed socialism and later from the US blockade killed a lot more people. But if you think that bombs don't kill civilians, you aren't really a soldier. And if you think that the US is going to bring free-market democracy to Iraq, then you are a "liberal", in the FDR-supporter sense of the word.

As far as US interference in the Middle East keeping me safe... I don't think so. If we weren't there, those people would be fighting each other, not us (as Yahveh and Allah intended).

Keep your head down, anyway.

[JimP]

'preciate the safety comment.

We didn't kill thousands; that's an out and out lie. Did we kill some?? Of course - but we do not TARGET civilians. To deliberately target civilians is a war crime. Give us soldiers more credit than that. When you look at the results of the precision strikes as you drive around this place - its amazing!! We were able to shut down the gubmint and remove Saddam's communication structure without significant collateral damage. they are having a hard time documenting "hundreds" of killed, let alone thousands. When all is said and done, we'll see that the actual numers are very low. Again, I'm not relying on the press, I'm relying on my own two eyes.

We can differ on where to fight them. A democratic iraq (if attainable) will keep them fighting amongst themselves and not focused on us for a long time. They hate what we have, not necessarily who we are. I say we fight 'em here and not in our own country. you may differ.

[Quartus]

Thanks for being there, Jim. Tell the guys there are plenty of us here who appreciate you folks. http://www.thehighroad.org/images/icons/icon14.gif http://www.thehighroad.org/images/icons/icon14.gif


And thanks for the battlefield intel.