RSS
Using PayPal
Body Armor Costs for Soldiers: Why Won't the White House and Pentagon Stand by Deployed Soldiers?
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Thursday, Sep 29 2005, 11:11AM
What do Bush and Rumsfeld think they are doing in failing to reimburse deployed military service men and women for body armor they bought to protect themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Do they think that this is like public school in which teachers are (wrongly) expected to cover a lot of their own classroom expenses?
According to a leading Democratic Senator, "Secretary Rumsfeld and the Department of Defense have repeatedly failed to comply with Section 351 of Public Law 108-375, which requires the implementation of a reimbursement program for members of the United States Armed Forces who have been forced to purchase their own body armor or other protective, safety or health equipment for use in Iraq or Afghanistan."
Senator Chris Dodd is trying to do the right thing by these soldiers. The best thing would be to get them out of Iraq, but these soldiers are there on Bush's, Cheney's and Rumsfeld's call -- and they were sent without adequate defenses.
Dodd is looking for stories from soldiers who purchased their own armor in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Associated Press has found some angry soldiers who resent buying their own body armor:
"Your expectation is that when you are sent to war, that our government does everything they can do to protect the lives of our people, and anything less than that is not good enough," said a former Marine who spent nearly $1,000 two weeks ago to buy lower-body armor for his son, a Marine serving in Fallujah.The father asked that he be identified only by his first name -- Gordon -- because he is afraid of retribution against his son.
"I wouldn't have cared if it cost us $10,000 to protect our son, I would do it," said Gordon. "But I think the U.S. has an obligation to make sure they have this equipment and to reimburse for it. I just don't support Donald Rumsfeld's idea of going to war with what you have, not what you want. You go to war prepared, and you don't go to war until you are prepared."
Under the law passed by Congress last October, the Defense Department had until Feb. 25 to develop regulations for the reimbursement, which is limited to $1,100 per item. Pentagon officials opposed the reimbursement idea, calling it "an unmanageable precedent that will saddle the DOD with an open-ended financial burden."
In a letter to Dodd in late April, David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel, said his office was developing regulations to implement the reimbursement, and would be done in about 60 days.
I think that there are many Republicans and Democrats who are outraged by the poor treatment of soldiers during Rumsfeld's tenure. I can't imagine that John McCain or Chuck Hagel aren't as angry as Chris Dodd.
Why -- after Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the bad calls on the Iraq invasion, and now this ongoing body armor fiasco -- does Donald Rumsfeld still have his job?
-- Steve Clemons
« Previous Article - Karen Hughes Trip: Smashing Success» Next Article - The Cost of Dreier Not Taking the Helm: Jim Pinkerton's Two Cents
The new Repulican motto: "If the first idea that comes into our heads about how to do something has a flaw, we don't have to do that thing, even though it is a basic function of government, and we are running the government."
As a confirmed pacifist, I was against this war of choice to begin with, however, if we are going to send our kids into battle, it is criminal neglect not to send them in fully prepared. The Constitution provides for a prepared military at all times - in Amendment 2. Republicans seriously dropped the ball when they sent in our troops undermanned and poorly prepared.
Shorter version of above:
The fact that you do not know how to do the task assigned does not negate the fact that the task must be done, correctly.
Give me a break. What is open-ended?
Buy all the armor yourselves DOD. Since you control the number of soldiers going to Iraq you have total control of cost.
If you DOD don't buy the armor for some (God knows why) then budget $1100 for each of the armorless. Once again with control of both the number of soldiers going and and the number without DOD-provided armor the budget number is pretty simple multiplication.
If armor costs too much drop the number of personnel in Iraq or decree there will be no more violence so no armor required.
Speaking of open-ended financial burden, how do you think Americans feel about the open-ended cost of the Iraqi war?
"Why -- after Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the bad calls on the Iraq invasion, and now this ongoing body armor fiasco -- does Donald Rumsfeld still have his job?"
you know the answer to that question, steve... he has it because his job rating in bushworld issn't based on what you or i would call either effective or rational... rather, it's based on how well rummy contributes to the massive power consolidation that bushco has had as its top priority since the stolen election/coup d'etat of 2000... now, with domestic militarization and the modification or outright abrogation of the posse comitatus act staring us in the face, don't you think rummy's the right man for the job...?
http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/2005/09/more-groundwork-for-martial-law-and.html
THIS IS A CHICKEN-HAWK PROBLEM
Nobody who has seen combat would ever sanction the idea of saving money by not buying the current military standard in personal protection for our soldiers.
When a President and Vice President who shirked the call to serve in Vietnam set the leadership tone in the conduct of war, this is what happens.
As someone who fought in the Indochina war and whose daughter fought in Iraq, my heart aches for soldiers who face hostile fire without the standard body armor we have nominally adopted for our forces.
Ditto for troops in unarmored Humvees (or even the shabbily armored Humvees that the luckier ones get).
Donald Rumsfeld insists on travelling in Iraq in a $275,000 heavily armored vehicle (A Rhino Runner) build by Labock Industries in Texas.
RR's are virtually immune to IEDs and fully immune to RPG rounds.
As long as the Chicken Hawks set the policies, it is unlikely that US troops will have adequate body armor and squad level communication devices, and sufficient GPS devices.
What a sorry state of affairs!
John Stuart
"Why -- after Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the bad calls on the Iraq invasion, and now this ongoing body armor fiasco -- does Donald Rumsfeld still have his job?"
because President of Vice Cheney and (v.p.) Rumsfeld don't give a fucking shit, and Resident Bush doesn't have clue #1
Reader Comments (7) - post a comment