Skip to main content

View Diary: Pentagon forbids troops to buy better body armor (259 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It just doesn't make any sense. (none)
    Is this incompetence at its most glaring, or is there some kind institutional failure? I just don't get.

    As far as gov't issue body armor, the military can get body armor from anywhere they want. The cost of outfitting troops in the best body armor is a fraction, a finger-full of sand compared to the beach that has been tossed into the bonfire of the fiscal morality taking place in Iraq.

    I'm not saying this isn't true... I'm just saying this doesn't make any sense. I don't get it. I'd love to here the reason for this.

    ... we now know a lot of things, most of which, we already knew... (-dash888)

    by Tirge Caps on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:05:40 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Lovely prose (2.50)
      Dragon Skin is probably tardy in their payments to the RNC.

      <div style="display:inline;color:#CCC">The dark at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming age.</div>

      by peeder on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 02:12:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  only makes sense (none)
      if they are either incompetent or think their friends' (or political contributors') profits are more important than the lives of the young men and woment they've sent over there.

      This is an argument for penalizing companies for profiteering from this or any other war.

      John Locke: "All just power is derived from the consent of the governed."

      by billlaurelMD on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 08:45:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I read on Defense Review (3.25)
      that another reason for not buying the better armor is because "it wasn't invented here."

      It's Lt. Col. Charles' (Ret.) opinion that the reason the U.S. Army has chosen to outfit U.S. troops with Interceptor body armor over Pinnacle Armor SOV flexible body armor/Dragon Skin is that the U.S. Army suffers from "not invented here" syndrome. "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." Lt. Col. Charles (Ret.) continues, "We were told by several independent consultants who work for the Pentagon that cannot be named because of fear of losing their jobs that this was probably the best available body armor. It's what they would take to Baghdad. They do not have any financial ties with Pinnacle Armor. We're not saying it's the best. We're saying it ought to get a fair test


      We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

      by Mary Julia on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 10:10:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Baloney! (1.33)
        Take it from someone who knows a thing or two - FIRSTHAND - about weapons in the U.S. arsenal: You are talking out of your backside on this one!

        The M9 pistol, M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, M240 series machine gun, M136 (AT-4) rocket launcher  MK153 MOD 0 (SMAW) "Bunker Buster", are not solely American designed or solely American manufactured weapons, but they have been proven in service to be effective weapons on the battlefield for the U.S. Armed Forces for decades.

        The USMC AV-8B Harrier evolved from earlier AV-8 models that originated from a British design, the Hawker P.1127.

        The M256 120mm Main Gun of the M1A1/A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank developed by Rheinmetall GmbH of Germany.

        We gain much valuable information from the Israelis in regards to our equipment and new TTPs as to how to more effectively use them. Soon we will gain from the Israelis technology that will provide us true SAM to SRBM intercept capability, as derived from the Arrow, as well as technology that will allow our future tanks to automatically detect and fire a round which will destroy incoming ATGMs.

        We currently are gaining valuable information and experimenting with equipment developed in South Africa, in order to field better armored vehicles that are more survivable against mines and EIDs than are those vehicles in our current inventory.

        Most of the electronics used in the U.S. inventory are made in Asian countries.

        Some of you act like we have never fielded a weapon or piece of equipment designed, developed, or manufactured outside of the U.S.

        And overall I'd like to say this: I have been reading all that comments on this issue, and I am sorely disappointed. You say you "support the troops", but it seems to me all you want to do is engage in partisan politics and bash Republicans or President Bush. I can tell you from my vast experience that this has nothing to do with any political party and it matters not who is the President. Hell, it doesn't even matter who the Secretary of Defense on this one - this is about government bureaucracy and what happens when you have a procurement system that has to go through an outrageous bidding process that ensure that not only is the lowest bid the best bid, but that every woman owned and minority own business in the industry get a "fair crack" at the contract (meaning that they will be guaranteed "X" numbers of contracts regardless of their ability to fill orders with quality equipment, and no company or corporation will be awarded any contacts unless they are "diverse" enough and enthusiastically have affirmative action programs. You see, the courts and the politicians have found a way to change military procurement into a means to affect social change within this nation. Hey, that's all fine and dandy, but when the troops can't get what they want, as fast as they need, remember it is people like all of you, with Liberal tendencies, who have thrown so many obstacles in the way that the troops are no longer the focus - social change through the redistribution of wealth in the form of tax dollars spent on government contracts is now the focus.

        If you want to see the real problem, look at the way business has been done for years in Washington D.C. - not at the current Administration or the cooked up scandal de jur.


        "Clockwise" served as a Non-Commissioned Officer in Operation Iraqi Freedom III, performing the duties of Infantry, Military Police, and Scout, serving as Crewman, Gunner, and Vehicle Commander on several combat missions, and was awarded the Combat Action Badge and the Army Commendation Medal for his service. He is also a prior service Marine who served for ten years during the Cold War, and returned to military service after "9-11" and has over twelve years of active duty military experience.

        •  Left this out of your bio (none)
          "Freeper pussy who joins Daily Kos to exclusively troll rate productive commentary."

          Gee, Clockwise, why are you so bitterly hostile?  And why do you have so many hidden comments attached to your perfect record of giving out only "1" ratings?

          User ID in the high 70K range.  

          You can consider it payback, but I'm troll-rating you for these comments:

          " If you want to see the real problem, look at the way business has been done for years in Washington D.C. - not at the current Administration or the cooked up scandal de jur(sic)."

          "...people like all of you, with Liberal tendencies..."

          "You say you "support the troops", but it seems to me all you want to do is engage in partisan politics and bash Republicans or President Bush."

          Is this attitude why we're having trouble winning hearts and minds in the Muslim world?

          •  Benefit of doubt. (none)
            I think that clockwise is here to disagree and offer perspective, but just hasn't yet caught on to local norms of rating, etc.  Definitely a conservative and undoubtably a Republican, but I'm happy having such on hand for honest debate.  The key is: Is this person trying to disrupt, or engage?

            There actually is a serious policy issue raised in this post: Are procurement rules set up in a way that inhibits innovation and rapid response to need?  Is this partly a response to worthy goals such as helping minorities?  I doubt it, based on everything I've been hearing lately, but I hadn't thought of it and I'd be happy to hear a well-source, coherent argument on that.

            I'm suggesting the benefit of a doubt.  I believe strongly in the potential for dialogue.

            The Republican party: An alliance of madness and greed.

            by jem6x on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:38:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Go to his profile page (none)
              and look at how many ones he doled out.  Nothing but, and around 30 in one diary.  Look at the specific comments he deemed worthy of a 1.  He's troll-rating for troll rating's sake.

              He troll rated my helpful suggestion that a Kossack commenting to this diary had misspelled a couple of words.

              •  That was a bit surreal -- yeah. (none)
                I got a smile out of your spelling-police comment, and then it got zinged!

                I know you're ticked off, but I actually think he may just have read 'unproductive' too literally.  (Okay, the spelling thing probably is 'unproductive,' as in not adding new information on the armor question, but that's obviously not what the '1' is for.  90% of any discussion is 'unproductive,' when you get down to it, but it shouldn't be troll-rated.)

                I dunno -- have a look at my little exchange with clockwise downthread.  I came away with the belief that it was an honest misunderstanding of how our ratings are supposed to be used.

                The Republican party: An alliance of madness and greed.

                by jem6x on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 11:41:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Geez-O-Pete! (none)
                  With so many issues revolving around life and death these days, I didn't think a rating on an internet message board would be so stinking important; I meant to harm. Tell me how to fix the ratings I gave and I will.

                  I will be more than happy to change the ratings and blow hearts and kitty farts in your general direction!

                  (Now, once you are done busting a blood vessel, go back and read this again, and as you do so, imagine me laughing my ass off as you do!)

                  Republicans know how to laugh too! ;)

                  •  I know.... (none)
                    it's amazing how big a deal those little 1's and 4's seem after you've been clicking on them for a while... can't explain it,  but it's true.

                    (Anyone can go back to a comment and change the number he or she gave it, btw.)

                    The Republican party: An alliance of madness and greed.

                    by jem6x on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 12:45:41 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  You raise good points but (none)
          I wonder if "liberal" and "conservative" have anything to do with it, either. Perhaps it's because I'm a libertarian or because my time in the Navy was spent under both conservative and liberal presidents, but I often have trouble distinguishing between "liberal" corruption and "conservative" corruption--they generally look a lot alike. They're all taking advantage of a system that is designed to do one thing efficiently (allow politicians to pass out taxpayer money to their friends) and as you point out, one thing that in reality can't be done (change society to "make better humans").

          If you believe this is purely a liberal evil, then I have to ask: since the conservatives are in charge now, what are they doing to fix this? Because they appear more bent on profiting from it than fixing it.

          If I worry about the future, will the future change?--Quai Chang Caine

          by Enjoy Every Sandwich on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:07:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh... (none)
            I will grant you that it is not a problem that only the Liberals own. Of course Conservatives are guilty as well. One wants to funnel money to "big business" because they are capitalists at heart, the other wants to funnel it "to the people" because they are socialists at heart. I just happen to subscribe more to the conservative/capitalist point of view, so I don't view it as harshly. At least I can be honest about it, and not try to pretend to be so altruistic and spend all my time shedding crocodile tears like so many who subscribe to the Liberal philosophy.

            Believe it or not, I like to take a little from the Conservative, Liberal, and Libertarian ideals - but I tend to favor the Conservative point of view slightly more than the others; that's all.

            •  Wha ... ? (none)
              One wants to funnel money to "big business" because they are capitalists at heart ...

              What the hell was that?  "Capitalists"?  Uh, no.  That would not be what "capitalist" means, any more than spending taxpayer dollars on the taxpayer is "socialism."  

              They're throwing taxpayer money at their sugar daddies because their sugar daddies made their careers possible.  

              All caught up, now?  Nothing but whores for a class of pampered parasites.  

              This is why up-armoring is being done by a company with no mass-production experience, why pilot training programs are broken up between so many states the USAF just shuttles the pilots to other programs, etc.  Some whore got paid off.  

              It's called "corruption."  If that's your "capitalism," you can keep it.  Personally, I think war profiteers should be taken out and shot.  

              As for conservatism, there are no conservatives any more.  All the conservative principles of smaller, cheaper, limited government and a conservative foriegn policy have been systematically ignored by the last five GOP presidents and the last ten years of a GOP controlled Congress.  

              People dumb enough to think this is "conservatism" are just being exploited by smarter people, and quite frankly, we're sick of you letting us down.  

              •  I know the definitions (none)
                I am just telling it like it is.

                I am not here to try to be Poli-Sci Major - I am a soldier and a warrior who also happens to like politics and loves his country.

                •  Sure you do! You were just 'testing me,' right? (none)
                  Cut the crap. You don't know what capitalism is, you don't know what socialism is, you don't know what conservatism is, and you couldn't define liberal if your life depended on it.  

                  That's what makes you useful to the people who're just using your dumb ass.  

                  This isn't a matter of being a 'poli sci major,' it's called 'not being an idiot.'  Being a 'soldier and a warrior who also happens to like politics and loves his country' doesn't grant you mystical knowledge or a privileged position in arguments you can't handle.  

                  That takes work.  You didn't do it, so you don't have it.  You are weak.  

                  Therefore, all you can do is recite political rhetoric you don't understand.  I pity you.  You're a slave.  

            •  To me, corruption is corruption (none)
              I'm not inclined to cut a corrupt official any slack just because he pretends to have principles similar to mine. If anything, I hold people in my own "tribe" to a higher standard.

              For some odd reason conservatives don't do that; it's kinda funny given that they are supposedly all about "moral values".

              The GOP is in power now, because they wanted to be. Like my old Chief used to say to me, "Quitcher bitchin'...ya volunteered." So, what are they doing to solve this particular problem? Right, they're pretending it doesn't exist. Very impressive.

              If I worry about the future, will the future change?--Quai Chang Caine

              by Enjoy Every Sandwich on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:03:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Never claimed to be a Conservative (none)
                So please don't try to pigeon-hole me and then look down your nose at me while you make fun of my "morality".

                I just said that I tend to agree more with Conservatives, but I take some from all.

                Want to call me a political whore?

                Okay, but at least I am real - I don't try to take every single news item and blame it on Democrats (even though I think they are to blame for many things). Maybe some "on our side" would chill out if every time the wind blew it was not a steady case of "Bush Knew!", "Impeach the Shrub!", Bush - pResident of the United States!", "The Boy Blunder!". Look, I had NO love for Clinton, but for the most part I left him alone.

                Perhaps not you personally, but people who think like you have a "hate Bush" fixation that (a) makes them blind to anything but their hate, and (b) makes the rest of the country not want to have to deal with them, because they are seen as lunatics and argumentative whack-jobs. I am not saying you are - I have hung around enough (mostly over the internet) to know that you usually have decent motives and you mean well, we just don't and probably never will understand one another on some subjects. However, other than that, we are the same - we like the same food, the same music, we love, we hurt, we bleed, and we die - all the same.

                How "New Age" of me, eh? ;)

                •  Never called you a conservative (none)
                  But I stand by my critique of conservative "values".

                  I agree that many of Bush's liberal critics are only against him because he is in the wrong tribe. Their silence during Clinton's unconstitutional war was quite deafening. But regardless of their motives, I often find myself in agreement with their criticisms of Bush.

                  Why? Simple. He's in charge. That means he's responsible. And not because anybody forced it on him; he volunteered for it, nay, begged for it. So it's his. That means I'm not interested in any of his damn excuses or his proxies yammering that "Clinton did it too!" Yeah, Clinton probably did do it too, but Bush is president now.

                  For me, many of today's debates are simply echoes of debates that raged in the '90s. The "major" parties have simply switched arguments. I do not find either party to be particularly interested in principles.

                  If I worry about the future, will the future change?--Quai Chang Caine

                  by Enjoy Every Sandwich on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 01:44:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site