Update

I happen to know a blogger who is in the military, and I asked her what she thought about this.  She replied in my comments as well as in her own blog.

Her comments were right to the point and worthy of repeating:

Unfortunately, this is nothing new in the military (or many other government jobs) with the politicians claiming to know what’s BEST for the military while the military is claiming it is absolutely NOT what’s best.

What the hell do politicians know about combat and armor and the physical tedium and danger it puts these guys in? Why would they even want to create mandatory armor if these guys have told them time and time again that it would not help them and might even kill them?

Because, the politicians are doing what they do - sticking their nose where they don’t belong and yelling out rules and orders, regardless of what’s best for anyone.

I was in Search & Rescue and had to wear body armor every time we went out on patrol - under my life vest - in 102 humid (as hell) weather and that’s not counting the 15 pound gun belt we had to carry. It’s just common sense - but, then again - we are talking about politicians.

I also urge everyone to pop over to her blog and say hi, and thank her for her service.

http://militarygrrrl.blogspot.com

I got this from Sister Toldjah this morning.

We all remember Hillary Clinton castigating the administration about this:

 Jan. 10, 2006 — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the Bush administration "incompetent" when it came to protecting the troops in combat and called the lack of adequate body armor for soldiers and Marines "unforgivable."

So far in Iraq, more than 2,100 American troops have been killed. Critics like Clinton, D-N.Y., say that many of these deaths are the result of inadequate body armor. A secret Pentagon study of 93 Marines who were killed in Iraq found that 74 died after they were hit by a bullet or shrapnel in the torso or shoulders — areas unprotected by the armor most are issued.

"We perhaps could have avoided so many of these fatalities with the right body armor," said Clinton, who recently wrote letters to Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee; and Francis J. Harvey, secretary of the Army, calling for an investigation into why troops were not being protected.

It raised a lot of concerns to people of all political stripes that we would put our soldiers in harsm way without adequate armor.

But the troops have a slightly different view:

Some Marines Declining Extra Body Armor

Extra body armor _ the lack of which caused a political storm in the United States _ has flooded in to Iraq, but many Marines here promptly stuck it in lockers or under bunks. Too heavy and cumbersome, many say.

Marines already carry loads as heavy as 70 pounds when they patrol the dangerous streets in towns and villages in restive Anbar province. The new armor plates, while only about five pounds per set, are not worth carrying for the additional safety they are said to provide, some say.

"We have to climb over walls and go through windows," said Sgt. Justin Shank of Greencastle, Pa. "I understand the more armor, the safer you are. But it makes you slower. People don’t understand that this is combat and people are going to die."

Staff Sgt. Thomas Bain of Buffalo, N.Y., shared concerns about the extra pounds.

"Before you know it, they’re going to get us injured because we’re hauling too much weight and don’t have enough mobility to maneuver in a fight from house to house," said Bain, who is assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment. "I think we’re starting to go overboard on the armor."

Since the insurgency erupted in Iraq, the Pentagon has been criticized for supplying insufficient armor for Humvees and too few bulletproof vests. In one remarkable incident, soldiers publicly confronted Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld about the problem on live television.

Hometown groups across the United States have since raised money to send extra armor to troops, and the Pentagon, under congressional pressure, launched a program last October to reimburse troops who had purchased armor with their own money.

Soldiers and their parents spent hundreds, sometimes thousand of dollars, on armor until the Pentagon began issuing the new protective gear.

In Bain’s platoon of about 35 men, Marines said only three or four wore the plates after commanders distributed them last month and told them that use was optional.

I wont post the rest, but it appears there is a disconnect between the soldiers and their needs and the politicians and their analysis of their needs.  That political element has been noted too:

"When you already have 60, 70 pounds on and you add 10 pounds when you go patrolling through the city or chasing after bad guys, that extra 10 pounds is going to make a difference. You’re going to feel it," said Lance Cpl. David Partridge from Bangor, Maine.

Many Marines, however, believe the politics of the issue eventually will make the plates mandatory.

"The reason they issued (the plates), I think, is to make people back home feel better," said Lance Cpl. Philip Tootle of Reidsville, Ga. "I’m not wishing they wouldn’t have issued them. I’m just wishing that they wouldn’t make them mandatory."

Many Marines, however, believe the politics of the issue eventually will make the plates mandatory.

"The reason they issued (the plates), I think, is to make people back home feel better," said Lance Cpl. Philip Tootle of Reidsville, Ga. "I’m not wishing they wouldn’t have issued them. I’m just wishing that they wouldn’t make them mandatory."

It would be a terrible irony if they make the troops less safe and cause deaths by making armor mandatory despite the troops stating their realistic needs.

This issue is not over by any means. The politicians and the military commanders had better start talking about the real needs of the troops.