Our Armor or No Armor

In the latest twist of the Iraq saga, Army officials have apparently banned the use of any armor other than that issued by the military. That’s just stupid.

I appreciate that you don’t want someone to feel that they are safe when they are not. I appreciate that something defective may cause some sort of harm. But when you can’t provide the armor, you can’t tell them that they’ll just have to do without.

7 Replies to “Our Armor or No Armor”

  1. Definitely an interesting take, and as I said (twice :), inferior protection and the like, I can understand. But if they cannot provide protection at all, to say that the troops can’t provide their own? That’s wrong.

  2. Agreed, I don’t think it should be an overt thing at all. But I also don’t think that it should be anyone’s business if they can’t provide you the armor that you go out and get your own.

  3. Ever been in the military Chad?

    Me neither actually, but i get the sense that you dont go around saying things like “when you can’t provide the armor, you can’t tell me that I’ll just have to do without” to your superior officers.

    It just doesn’t work that way. Nor should it.

  4. As I mentioned, you don’t want someone to feel safe when they are not. You don’t want something defective to cause them harm.

    But at the same time, if they don’t have armor provided, you’re going to tell them they can’t get their own?

  5. I agree with Ted, I think the restriction does make sense. What if the third-party body armor comes from an unreliable source, is poorly designed, and is totally ineffective? Then you’re worse off, because you have this false sense of security that you’re going to be protected, and perhaps get yourself into a risky situation that you might not have otherwise. At least if you have *no* body armor, you’re going to take the appropriate precautions, knowing that you don’t have it there to protect you.

  6. I could see where this might make some sense. If a soldier were wounded wearing non-authorized armour there could be liability problems. Also, the army may want to make sure that all armour being worn has been tested properly.

    I notice this is the Amry and not they Marines. I think the body armour issue has gotten out of hand in the media. Many troops going into battle abandon some of their body armour as it slows them down too much. The feel they are safer with less armour but better mobility.

Comments are closed.