"Preventable"

Given how sensitive this issue is, I think the wording in this Post article is not nearly precise enough. You have be very, very careful when you say that deaths, particularly the deaths of American troops, "could have been prevented." That phrasing gives the impression that someone somewhere did something -- or failed to so something -- that if done differently would mean that that troop would be alive today. But if you read the article very carefully, I don't think that's what this study is saying, at least about a large number of these deaths. I think this study is saying that if, for example, there were such a thing as body armor that covered the neck -- something which does not currently exist -- then these troops would have survived.

It's the equivalent of reading a study of car crashes several years ago that said that if there were a technology that stopped a passengers' forward movement in a crash then lives could be saved, i.e. deaths prevented. Telling someone after a crash that their loved one's life could have been saved if only such a technology existed is very different from telling them their loved one's life could have been saved if a particular driver had stayed off the road after that third drink, or if only the mechanic had fixed the brakes properly.

There's no indication in the article that the necessary advances in body armor currently exist, are in production, could be in production, are being intentionally withheld from the troops. Maybe I'm misreading this, but I think the use of that phrase is very incendiary in this context.

By the way, I suspect I'm either right about this or I'm not, and some of you would know better than I would: if I'm wrong I hope you'll pipe up in the comments and let me know what's what.

Update: Okay, okay, I got it: compare what the Post has to the Times' article. Actually, there is no comparison, since the Post piece is an incomprehensible hash, and the Times' article is clear as a bell. (Where was the Post editor on this one?) So, yes, preventable does indeed mean preventable, and the claim is that there is armor, or at least armor extentions, available but not being provided yet.

Here, I think, is what the Times is not taking into account: where the military can be faulted is in not putting more urgency into these studies. Not providing adequate funding into research into how your troops are being killed in combat so that decisions are being based on hard data? That one is going to be pretty damn hard to justify.

But although their decisions on timing seem to be difficult to justify, what it is that they were balancing does not. In other words they delayed for far too long making sure they were basing their decisions on hard data, but the idea that you need to weigh the additional protection you get with more armor versus the extra weight and constriction you ask troops to carry with that armor does not strike me as incorrect. At some point you will simply reach a point of diminishing returns where you slap so much ceramic on them that I don't care how fit and strong they are they simply won't be able to move quickly enough to do what they need to do to fight back -- another critical aspect of making sure troops are able to defense themselves. Admittedly I'm not that young, I'm not that fit, and I'm pretty little, but when I tried on the standard Army vest with the plates in I could barely sustain forward motion, and that was without any gear.

One other point: with all the hullabaloo over the NSA story, this story, detailing how troops wearing body armor can still be killed, is at least as dangerous, no? The reporters couldn't have been just a little more vague?

Comments

[Charlie (Colorado)]

By the way, I suspect I'm either right about this or I'm not....

Uh, Cori, I'm pretty sure you're either right or you're not. But I think your point about weight is important: going back to the Romans at least, infantry grunts will discard a lot of "essential" stuff rather than carry it, including armor pieces.

[Bob]

Reminds me of the (perhaps apocryphal) story of the US Army Air Corps trying to improve the survival rate of B-17 bombers, too many of which were lost on bombing raids over Germany. Someone proposed adding armor to the most vulnerable places (since weight considerations prohibited adding armor all over the plane). To decide where to add the armor, one propsed that a study be conducted of where each bullet hole was in the planes that returned. Whereupon another analysist pointed out that this study only covered the planes that returned.

[Christopher Whitaker]

Body armor is a wonderful thing, but there's a problem: it's heavy, bulky and cannot possibly cover everywhere. Add to that the fact that it is hot as hell to wear and you can understand why, even if it was available, soldiers probably wouldn't wear it. Sure, it would be wonderful to be armored like an M-1 tank, but what's the point if you can't move? Every item you add to a grunt's equipment list means either the more he has to carry or, more likely, he's going to have to leave out something to compensate. Naturally, though, the MSM doesn't bother to consider the fact that an infantryman's standard load already weighs mroe than 100lbs. Let's slap 100lbs of gear on some of these moron reporters and see how much armor they will want to wear!

[Christopher Whitaker]

It continues to amaze me how ignorant the MSM is about military issues. There was a report some time ago (apologies, I don't have a link to it) about armored vehicles and up-armored humvees. The gist of it was that an armored personnel carrier (M-113 or M-2/3...I can't remember which) was severely damaged by an IED and several of its crewmen were killed or maimed. The bubblehead anchor asked the reporter (I think it was a TV report) if there would have been any difference if the vehicle had been an up-armored humvee. Now, just think about this: would a 2 1/2-ton vehicle have any chance at all where a 20-ton APC was shattered? I mean, how ignorant and uninformed do you have to be? Why can't these idiots spend a little time researching what the hell they are talking about before running their moronic mouths?