They'll want to bury this story under cries of treason. The NYT is at it again:
A secret Pentagon study has found that at 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.
Those numbers translate into "300 or more" lives that could have been saved. The article goes into sad detail about what a trainwreck the procurement of body armor has been and reminds us of the other snafus, like the too-lightly armored Humvee. There's also a vague reference to "years of cost-cutting that left some armoring firms on the brink of collapse as they waited for new orders." How many years? What cuts? And finally this interesting bit of procedural business:
The Times obtained the 3-page Pentagon report after a military advocacy group, Soldiers for the Truth, learned of its existence. The group posted an article about the report on its website earlier this week. The Times delayed publication of this article for more than a week until the Pentagon confirmed the veracity of its report. Pentagon officials declined to discuss details of the wound data, saying it would aid the enemy.
I'd like to believe that they've learned something but somehow I just can't bring myself to trust again. Still, it's not a bad effort.
UPDATE: RawStory links to this AP article, which goes a little bit deeper into the point, made in the NYT story, that some soldiers don't want to wear more armor since it restricts their movements. Staff Sgt. Shaun Benoit, quoted in the AP item, makes the winning argument:Some soldiers felt unhappy that ceramic plates to protect their sides and shoulders were available, but not offered, when they deployed for Iraq in September. "If it's going to protect a soldier or save his life, they definitely should have been afforded the opportunity to wear it," said Staff Sgt. Shaun Benoit, 26, of Conneaut, Ohio. "I want to know where there was a break in communication."Barack Obama, keeps alive his dreams of being tapped by the DLC to run for higher office:
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who was in Iraq on Saturday, said military leaders told him that body armor has improved since the initial invasion in 2003 and that the military hoped to gradually transition to the improved armor.I'd rather vote for Sgt. Benoit.






Those 300 lives roughly equate to 10% of the number of Allied forces martyred in Iraq, or roughly the same percentage of homosexuals in the population.
Thus, it stands to reason that only gay Marines are killed by inferior rejectionist bullets.
You can't argue with facts, people.
Heterosexually Yours,
Rex
Posted by: Rex Kramer, Danger Seeker | January 06, 2006 at 11:11 PM
Presumably 300 soldiers' lives are not worth the cost of issuing the armor.
Btw, I've seen reports of 2%, 1% sometimes 3-5% as much as 5-6% maybe, but 10% ?
Posted by: DavidByron | January 06, 2006 at 11:50 PM
I wonder how many lives would have been saved if the Iraqis had been able to wear armor.
Posted by: DavidByron | January 07, 2006 at 10:38 AM
Rex: Your ideas intrique me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
This is one of those stories that requires a series. Someone has to find out what the Pentagon knew and when they knew it. It would shine some light on Ol" Man Rummy's "You go to war with the army you have" dodge. Everyone knows now that there was no reason to rush into this war beyond the midterms. Now we have a Pentagon report that lays out some of what that rush to war has cost our military. We need someone to connect the dots. And, of course, there's the question of why the GOP hates our soldiers to consider.
Posted by: eRobin | January 07, 2006 at 11:32 AM
But ol' 'Dubya' there doesn't need body armor to deal with his 'wounds'. I mean - if he can tough it through a confrontation with a cedar tree, well then out troops can suck it up and die on the battlefield, right? The bastard - he could have paid for the body armor out of his own pocket and it wouldn't have even made a dent in his bank account. What a waste!
Posted by: The Fat Lady Sings | January 08, 2006 at 12:44 AM