Toying With Troops

UPDATE: Hillary's busted below

Progressives are national security hypocrites. Pacifists at heart, they favor the mythical "soft" power which, here on Earth, is scarcer than unicorns. That goes double for the projection of American force abroad which, to lefties, is synonymous with war crimes.

But in debate, Dems flip-flop on a dime, arguing the Administration is insufficiently martial. When China downed a US spy plane, Bush was weak except when he was too tough. Toppling Saddam was wrong because we should have flooded East Asia with 100k troops seeking to bag Osama. Try defending democratizing Iraq; they claim Bush erred by not first targeting the greater threats posed by North Korea or Saudi Arabia. The GWOT is wrong, they say, because Bush deployed too few troops.

Of course, it's all opportunistic nonsense, easily revealed by mere agreement. "Ok," I say, "let's bomb North Korea. Iran too. Next, redeploy from Germany and South Korea to Pakistan and Afghanistan, leaving no rubble unturned to find Osama's grave. And, for the long term, let's beef up the defense budget and revert to the old 'two war' strategy." That's usually enough to empty the liberal quiver of puppets and protests, singing and stripping -- weapons rarely sufficient to set free the slaves or eradicate evil. Fortunately, post-modern deconstructivism blurs the boundary between right and wrong, between hypothesis and tested reasoning, leaving the liberal patient with an overdose of fatalism sufficient to absolve responsibility. In short, unconscious.

This week, the coma-baby left awoke long enough to bray about body armor. Mainly a rehash of last years' tempest in a tea-pot, the storm broke when the anti-war special interest group "Soldiers for Truth" leaked an unpublished Marine Corps study to the NY Times blaming Bush because, allegedly:

[A]t least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.

The MSM shifted into scandal mode, simply and starkly stated by, for example, the Washington Post: "'Either a larger plate or superior protection around the plate would have had the potential to alter the final outcome,' the report concluded." Liberal pols -- especially Democrats dreaming of the White House -- and lefty bloggers opened an orgy of finger pointing.

Sorry, it ain't that simple. Reality is closer to the quip about aircraft "black boxes"--if they're so indestructible, why can't they make the whole airplane out of the same material? The always-reliable Cecil's answer:

because the interstates aren't wide enough. [The] point, in case you're new to sarcasm, [is] that a plane built to black box standards would be so heavy you'd have to drive it rather than fly.

Body and vehicle armor requires similar trade-offs, as Jeff Taylor explained last year in Reason:

[M]ore armor is not a magical solution, never has been. It is represents a trade-off between protection and mobility, just as in the age of knights when if the peasants managed to violently unhorse an up-armored foe, they could go off and have lunch and leave the knight flailing face down in the mud. If he didn't drown, you could always stab him in the eye-slits later.

The preference for less armor can be seen today with at least some Marines in Fallujah. They point out that up-armoring their Humvees reduces the ability to see threats coming.

Indeed, augmenting Humvee armor did not cut casualties.

The latest generation of body armor arrived less than a year ago, and so isn't universally used. Even were it -- and as with Humvees -- larger and thicker body armor isn't always the answer, says Faces from the Front after experimenting:

You could drape Marines in kevlar blankets, but all you would have a is a slow moving, bullet-proof target who would never die for his country, but also, would never make the other S.O.B. die his. And the firefight would never be won.

I wore a vest similar to those worn by regular street cops. I had the same helmet the Marines wore, but occasionally would go without it.

I put on the armor worn by the Marines to try it out. The vest, with the ceramic ballistic plates weighed 30 pounds. When you added in ammo, radios, grenades, a camel back, helmet and other gear, the load quickly got up 70 or 80 pounds.

My experience is that the Marines would gladly take their armor off anytime it was permitted, and, if offered the choice, would probably go without armor except in situations like raiding a target house.

Experts -- troops in Iraq -- concur:

U.S. soldiers in the field were not all supportive of a Pentagon study that found improved body armor saves lives, with some troops arguing Saturday that more armor would hinder combat effectiveness. . .

Second Lt. Josh Suthoff, 23, of Jefferson City, Mo., said he already sacrifices enough movement when he wears the equipment. More armor would only increase his chances of getting killed, he said.

"You can slap body armor on all you want, but it's not going to help anything. When it's your time, it's your time," said Suthoff, a platoon leader in the brigade's 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment. "I'd go out with less body armor if I could."

Baghdad Guy, in Iraq as part of the "Band of Brothers" (Easy Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division), scorns the MSM's chicken-little coverage:

To start off with, no, our body armor is not perfect. It has its vulnerabilities which I won't get into for obvious reasons, but overall it does a remarkable job of protecting soldiers, marines, airmen and everyone else who wears it. Body Armor has saved numerous lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will continue to do so, especially as it is modified to better meet the threat we face. However, there are limitations as to how much armor you can add onto an individual and maintain his effectiveness as a soldier: when I step out the gate I am wearing on my person body armor, a kevlar helmet, my M4 rifle with a few hundred rounds of ammunition, my M9 sidearm with another hundred rounds of ammunition, 2-3 quarts of water, a portable radio, night vision equipment, and numerous other odds and ends. Butt naked to full combat load probably adds about 40+ pounds to my frame, give or take a grenade.

The end state is that you can only add so much weight to a soldier's basic load before that effectiveness starts to degrade. This article here does a good job examining this side of the issue from a soldier's perspective. Too much weight means a soldier moves slower, tires more easily, manuevers less stealthily and spends more time feeling sorry for himself instead of focusing on the mission. And then there's the bulkiness that becomes an issue as you move through tight space and wedge into the seats of military vehicles that were not designed with comfort and/or legroom in mind. All these tradeoffs must be addressed before you make the decision to add armor, it must be determined that the armor will be effective, and then it must be designed in a way that minimizes impact on our ability to do our job.

Unfamiliar with all things military, the NY Times slants strategic selections unfavorably to Bush and treats tactical choices as out-of-the-blue outrages of an uncaring Pentagon. Our troops aren't fooled:

The debate between protection versus mobility has dominated military doctrine since the Middle Ages, when knights wrapped themselves in metal suits for battle, said Capt. Jamey Turner, 35, of Baton Rouge, La., a commander in the 1st Squadron, 33rd Cavalry Regiment.

The issue comes up daily on the battlefield in Iraq, and soldiers need to realize there is no such thing as 100 percent protection, he said.

For the most part, the troops get it--it's the surrender-first faction who don't:

"These guys over here are husbands, sons and daughters. It's understandable people at home would want all the protection in the world for us. But realistically, it just don't work," said Sgt. Paul Hare, 40, of Tucumcari, N.M.

Conclusion: There's no a priori proper level of armor. It's a complex calculation, best made by those in the field--and utterly beyond the ken of Blue-State "chair-borne warriors." Were Hillary or "blame Bush" bloggers Commander in Chief, America's military might morph into the Michelin man, predicts Faces from the Front:

You could cover the Marines from head to toe in Kevlar and ceramic, but all you would have is a bullet proof target incapable of offensive action. And Marines are all about offensive action.

Could that explain the sudden interest in armor? Perhaps the Times is promoting a post-modern progressive army--pacifist and pointless.

Nah--too clever by half. The lefties who support our enemy and seek our soldiers' death bash Bush hoping to reduce military effectiveness. Other than rhetorically, most lefties don't support the troops. Just ask 'um to fund the newest armor -- and replacements when version 3.0 arrives next year. Or propose augmenting troop strength in Iraq. Most will balk, actually opposing a stronger, or more aggressive, national defense. They're only pro-military if it's anti-Bush. As Glenn Reynolds said last year:

Should we have more armor? Beats me. Are people who are using this issue as a way of unfairly portraying Rumsfeld as a heartless murderer of American troops way off-base? Yes. Absolutely.

Agreed.

More:

Blackfive asks What did Senator Clinton know and when did she know it?

Not that I would ever want to debate body armor issues with Senator Clinton, but isn't she on the Armed Services Committee? I think she's been fully aware of the body armor situation. I find it difficult to believe that her outrage is genuine. Or did she not get the memo? . . .

Keep improving the body armor. That is, in fact, what we are doing. But, it needs to be stronger and lighter - much lighter. And it can't be done fast enough...unless more research dollars were spent on it. I wonder who studies and recommends those kind of things?

Anyone?

The Armed Services Committee which is made up of both Democrats and Republicans.

Suggestion for Senator Clinton--read more home- (well, adopted-) state newspapers like Thursday's Long Island Newsday:

[Army Maj. Gen. Jeffrey] Sorenson said the Army has already modified its Interceptor vest seven times since the 1990s.

The Marines, who commissioned the medical examiner's study in December 2004, have shipped 9,235 side-plate inserts to Iraq since November; about 19,000 more will be given to troops by April, according to Maj. Gen. William Catto of the Marines' procurement arm.

The delay in the Army program, Pentagon officials say, resulted from shortages of some materials needed to produce the ceramic armor plating and the lack of a single large contractor who can produce mass orders. The Pentagon has also been sensitive to concerns that soldiers, already burdened by 75 pounds of battle gear in a desert war, would refuse to don additional armor.

Larger plating could "reduce the mobility of the individual to the point where he or she can't protect themselves in trying to dodge a certain situation in combat," Warner said.

Catto said that extra shoulder protection is available to any Marine, but many trade additional safety for mobility.

Michelle Malkin reprints an email from Iraq war veteran Joshua Todd:

President-elect, er, Senator Hillary Clinton criticized President Bush for failing to protect our troops with adequate body armor, calling him “incompetent.” Her gripe was based on a “secret” Pentagon study of 74 Marines who were killed by bullets or shrapnel wounds to areas of their bodies that were unprotected, mainly the torso and shoulders.

Of course, to state the patently obvious, Ms. Clinton’s comments are political in nature. . . Not that anyone needed to actually say that Ms. Clinton’s comments are political and based on misrepresentations, but we often state the obvious. Perhaps the senator’s griping will bring about further equipment improvements for our men and women in Iraq, but there is no reason her criticism should go unanswered as truth. The Administration has improved all types of armor for our troops in Iraq, and they will continue to do so.

(via Instapundit, Michelle Malkin, twice, Confederate Yankee, MaxedOutMama)