[From the diaries - BarbinMD]
THIS IS AN ACTION DIARY.
Action Item 1. Please watch this video:
The body armor you have just seen stop 40 rounds of 7.62-mm AK-47 ammo from 20 feet, and 150 rounds of 9-mm Uzi ammo from 10 feet, has been forbidden to our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is, however, worn by President Bush's Secret Service bodyguards.
THIS IS AN ACTION DIARY.
Action Item 2. Please read this diary.
Kossacks, I need your help. It's a matter of life and death.
I've diaried on this four times before now, and evidently nothing's been done about it yet. So I think we need a really big push.
Given that our troops are still being sent into harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be criminal if they were being denied the best equipment available to keep them safe.
Well, they are being denied it. I think.
For nearly six years, Pinnacle Armor has been trying to convince the Pentagon that Pinnacle's Dragon Skin is a superior product to the Interceptor Body Armor that has been in use since the early 1990s. The Pentagon has been very reluctant to give Dragon Skin a fair shake, and only after much wheedling, cajoling and some negative press did the Army finally consent to new tests of Dragon Skin. Those tests were commenced in May of last year, but were never completed. The person conducting the tests for the Army stopped the tests about 30% of the way through; the tests have never been resumed.
In the meantime, soldiers are dying in the field.
There is much anecdotal evidence to support the contention that Dragon Skin is a much superior system to the Interceptor system that is currently being issued to our troops (but not, I guess, to George Bush's Secret Service bodyguard detail, since they use Dragon Skin). Pentagon officials, however, refuse to admit this. And you know what? Dragon Skin just might not be a better system; no one knows for sure.
But there's a ridiculously easy way to find out. So what I am proposing is this: a simple, quick, inexpensive, elegant, indisputable, transparent way to settle the question -
Conduct an open, fair, side-by-side test, in front of Congressional investigators and representatives of the news media, of both Dragon Skin and Interceptor.
If Dragon Skin fares better, it should be put into use immediately by our armed forces. If Interceptor prevails, the debate will be silenced.
This is a very simple proposal. No one who truly has the welfare of our troops at heart can possibly object to such a test. If nothing else, it would remove the cloud of doubt that has been hanging over the Army's testing procedures of the Dragon Skin system.
It'll take, what, three hours of testing to settle the issue. And you know what? I'd be willing to bet Pinnacle Armor would be happy to absorb 100% of the costs of the testing if their armor is not demonstrated to be superior to Interceptor.
Allow me to outline the history of this situation since last January (when I first learned of it) in very simple political terms:
- A year ago, in January 2006, the Pentagon, through its various field commanders, spread the word that our troops were not to wear any body armor other than that supplied to them by the military, in spite of the fact that another body armor type might be much more effective at stopping multiple rounds from penetrating the armor. The government-issue armor is supplied to the military by a couple of companies that are big Republican campaign contributors.
- In spite of a large outcry about the unofficial banning, the Pentagon came out with a Safety of Use Message (SOUM) in late March 2006, expressly requiring the use only of the standard-issue armor made by a big Republican donor, and expressly prohibiting the use of Dragon Skin.
- After much cajoling, the Army agreed to retest Dragon Skin (it had maintained that Dragon Skin had failed earlier testing). The testing was conducted on May 19 at a private testing facility. The tests were conducted by the individual who is the lead engineer on the Interceptor program for the Army. The tests were stopped about a third of the way through with no explanation. They have never been completed, and the Army has never offered an explanation.
- In the meantime, the companies that supply body armor for the military have continued to receive contracts running in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
- Since the testing was halted on May 19 of last year - well, here I'll quote (and update) from my December diary:
Since the Army’s test of Dragon Skin body armor was abruptly halted without explanation on May 19, 2006, 505 651 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq (as of this writing). Since March 17, 2006, when the Pentagon issued its Safety of Use Message (SOUM) specifically forbidding the use of Dragon Skin, 639 785 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Since January 15, 2006, when word first got out about the military's order not to wear non-regulation body armor, 739 885 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Would better body armor have saved any of them? I don't know - but I do know that the fact that the question can even be reasonably asked is unconscionable.
Oh – and once those open, side-by-side tests are completed, and if Dragon Skin should be proven superior to Interceptor? Well, then,
If it turns out that the earlier testing of Dragon Skin was conducted in a dishonest manner, those responsible for such dishonesty must be held to account.
Following the money is never a bad idea when it comes to politics or military procurement; when the two intersect, it is imperative. If you look at what happened to the disposition of Armor Holdings' stock after the aborted Dragon Skin testing in May (i.e., its major shareholders sold off all of their Armor Holdings stock after the tests; see December's diary), and you realize how much money Armor Holdings has been giving almost exclusively to Republicans for the past several years - the notable Democratic exceptions being Hillary Clinton, Marty Meehan and Bill Nelson - it wouldn't be too great a stretch to imagine that perhaps AH, having seen the handwriting on the wall on November 7, has been suddenly showing more love to the Democrats - but that reporting is not yet in for the 2008 election cycle. In any event, I would hope that any such contributions would not deter any Democrats from doing the right thing, and pushing for fair, open, public testing of the two types of body armor.
I'm not going to rehash all of the background as to why the Army has refused to properly test Dragon Skin - I covered those pretty thoroughly in my December and July diaries (I'd strongly urge you to read those if you haven't). Suffice to say that some of the biggest financial backers behind the current Interceptor body armor are big-time Republican campaign donors. Also note that the person charged by the Army with running the tests on Dragon Skin was the lead engineer for the Interceptor program.
Yeah, I know - it stinks to me, too.
With the recent airing of an episode of "Future Weapons" featuring Dragon Skin, buzz has increased about the armor. Pinnacle, whose body armor was awarded Level III certification by the National Institutes of Justice in September, is working to create a Level IV standard for flexible body armor, and should have it tested within a few months.
As for Armor Holdings? Well, because of its purchase of a Texas-based armored-vehicle company during the year, Armor Holdings' profits for 2006 were flat. But not to worry. BushCheneyMcCain's war policy is great for Republican cronies’ bottom lines:
Stephen Hoedt, an analyst with National City Private Client Group in Cleveland, is bullish on Armor [Holdings] because of increased government spending.
"The outlook looks very bright for companies that have exposure to the U.S. Army, in particular," he said.
Gee, now, there’s a noble cause worth dying for in Iraq.
It’s been long enough. Our soldiers deserve better.
[Action information below the fold]
THIS IS AN ACTION DIARY.
I need your help in contacting congressmen and news media about this issue. We must bring to bear so much pressure that Congress has no other choice but to conduct these tests. So -
Action Item 3. Please fax - FAX - your congresspeople (i.e., your two senators and your representative) a note along the lines of the one just below about this issue. You can find their contact information here and here.
Here's what your note might look like:
Dear Senator/Representative _____________________:
It has come to my attention that our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are being denied the best available body armor because the Pentagon refuses to test it.
As long as our troops are being sent into harm's way overseas, and are facing extremely dangerous situations while there, it is our duty to provide them with the best possible equipment, especially equipment as vitally important as body armor.
Dragon Skin body armor has been demonstrated to be superior in many respects to the Interceptor armor currently issued to our soldiers. Yet the Pentagon halted testing on Dragon Skin last May and has refused to resume it, or to answer questions about why it was halted. In the meantime, our soldiers are dying.
I urge you to push for open, fair, unbiased testing of both body armor systems side-by-side: Dragon Skin and Interceptor. The testing should be conducted in front of congressional investigators and the news media, so that there will be no question about which is the superior system, and which should be protecting our soldiers.
This is a life-and-death matter for our fighting men and women in uniform. Your attention to it will be appreciated not only by them, but by every citizen of this country.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
(your name)
(your address)
Action Item 3.a. If you’re really ambitious, you can print out the Permalink version of the December diary and include that with your fax.
THIS IS AN ACTION DIARY.
Action Item 4. Please fax the same note to some or all of the committee members listed below.
Action Item 5. After you've sent a fax or five, please e-mail as many congresspeople as you can. (E-mail addresses are provided below each congressperson's name at the bottom of this diary.)
Here's what your e-mail might look like:
Hon. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Senator/Representative Xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
It has come to my attention that our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are being denied the best available body armor because the Pentagon refuses to test it.
As long as our troops are being sent into harm's way overseas, and are facing extremely dangerous situations while there, it is our duty to provide them with the best possible equipment, especially equipment as vitally important as body armor.
As detailed in this article that appeared online in December (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/21/183232/14) Dragon Skin body armor has been demonstrated to be superior in many respects to the Interceptor armor currently issued to our soldiers. Yet the Pentagon halted testing on Dragon Skin last May and has refused to resume it, or to answer questions about why it was halted. In the meantime, our soldiers are dying.
The remarkable performance of Dragon Skin can be seen in this online video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQPGDFdkDlw), as well as this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuMHhw_w1qs).
I urge you to push for open, fair, unbiased testing of both body armor systems side-by-side: Dragon Skin and Interceptor. The testing should be conducted in front of congressional investigators and the news media, so that there will be no question about which is the superior system, and which should be protecting our soldiers.
This is a life-and-death matter for our fighting men and women in uniform. Your attention to it will be appreciated not only by them, but by every citizen of this country.
Sincerely,
(your name)
(your address)
(I have only included contact information for Democratic congresspersons.)
Action Item 6. We need to get the major media on this. Anyone have good contact info for this? If so, please let me know in the comments and I'll update the diary to include it - then we can inundate those media outlets with the story.
Action Item 7. I have never before done this for one of my own diaries, but - please, please recommend this diary. We need for as many people to see it for as long as possible, in order to achieve maximum effect.
Thanks so much for your support in this. Your efforts will be very much appreciated.
Peace
Here are the Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee:
Chairman:
Ike Skelton (MO-04)
E-mail
John Spratt (SC-05)
E-mail
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
E-mail
Gene Taylor (MS-04)
E-mail
Neil Abercrombie(HI-01)
E-mail
Marty Meehan (MA-05)
E-mail
Silvestre Reyes (TX-16)
E-mail
Vic Snyder (AR-02)
E-mail
Adam Smith (WA-09)
E-mail
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
E-mail
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
E-mail
Ellen Tauscher (CA-10)
E-mail
Robert Brady (PA-01)
E-mail
Robert Andrews (NJ-01)
E-mail
Susan Davis (CA-53)
E-mail
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
E-mail
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
E-mail
Jim Marshall (GA-03)
E-mail
Madeleine Bordallo (GU-01)
E-mail
Mark Udall (CO-02)
E-mail
Dan Boren (OK-02)
E-mail
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
E-mail
Nancy Boyda (KS-02)
E-mail
Patrick Murphy (PA-08)
E-mail
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
E-mail
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
E-mail
Joe Courtney (CT-02)
E-mail
David Loebsack (IA-02)
E-mail
Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20)
E-mail
Here are the Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee:
Chairman:
Carl Levin (MI)
E-mail
Edward Kennedy (MA)
E-mail
Robert Byrd(WV)
E-mail
Jack Reed (RI)
E-mail
Daniel Akaka (HI)
E-mail
Bill Nelson (FL)
E-mail
Ben Nelson (NE)
E-mail
Evan Bayh (IN)
E-mail
Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY)
E-mail
Mark Pryor (AR)
E-mail
Claire McCaskill (MO)
E-mail
Jim Webb (VA)
E-mail