Armored troops? We can't have that...

Part of this story is a few weeks old, but it deserves mention.

You will recall I've mentioned before that the troops (the ones we who complain about the Iraq war are accused of not supporting) have not received adequate armor for their tasks at hand.

According to this piece in the New York Times recently, a Pentagon study found that 80% of marines killed from wounds to their upper bodies would have been saved, had they been wearing body armor. For reference, the study looked at 93 deaths and determined that 74 of them would have lived with the extra body armor that had been denied to most of the troops. Granted, that's only about 4% of the total number of troop deaths, but still... a needless death is a needless death.

According to this story in the Army Times, much of the armor that HAS been provided has had to be recalled after failing ballistics tests, meaning that it wasn't providing the protection necessary.

There have been a number of stories over the last year or so of families buying supplies and armor for their kin deployed in Iraq. Many of these purchased “Dragon Skin”, widely regarded as the top of the line, best of the best.

By the way, according to this Reuter's article, 50,000 soldiers have been prevented from leaving the armed forces when their contractually obligated time was up by the “stop loss” program. You think morale is low because of people here at home who don't support the war? If morale is low, it's because many of the troops have been turned into indentured servants, forced to continue to risk their lives long after they've served their fair time.

So, along comes this article from a group called “Soldiers for Truth”. According to several soldiers who purchased (or had purchased for them by family members) Pinnacle's Dragon Skin body armor, the policy now is that personal armor may not be used. That's right, the Army is telling soldiers that if they're killed in action while wearing their personal body armor, their beneficiaries won't be eligible for the $400,000 death benefit.

So in essence, this means that somewhere out there we have soldiers who are in Iraq because they've been prevented from leaving the armed forces after the time they volunteered for was up, who are not being provided with sufficient armor (armor which a Pentagon report indicates would have saved some of their fallen comrades) who now have to choose between risking an unnecessary death and risking leaving their loved ones with nothing at all, should they be killed in spite of their armor.

Now, several sources have come out to say that this is illegal and that soldiers are eligible for their death benefit no matter what they may be wearing at the time of death, but still, it infuriates me that our men and women in uniform, who already have a lot on their minds, are even being put in the position of having to wonder.

But, of course, it's we who question the legitimacy of this war who aren't supporting our troops.

Liam.