Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits

January 17, 2006 11:10 AM

Army Orders Soldiers to Shed Dragon Skin or Lose SGLI Death Benefits Two deploying soldiers and a concerned mother reported Friday afternoon that the U.S. Army appears to be singling out soldiers who have purchased Pinnacle's Dragon Skin Body Armor for special treatment.
posted by Postroad (104 comments total)

This is how our soldiers are treated?

What.

The.

Fuck.

Rumsfeld?
posted by bshort at 11:17 AM on January 17, 2006

The mother of the soldier, who hails from the Providence, Rhode Island area, said she helped pay for the Dragon Skin as a Christmas present because her son told her it was "so much better" than the Interceptor OTV they expected to be issued when arriving in country for a combat tour.

"He didn't want to use that other stuff," she said. "He told me that if anything happened to him I am supposed to raise hell."

poor woman. she'll soon be called an "opportunistic bitch" by the Keyboard Kommandos.
posted by matteo at 11:18 AM on January 17, 2006

It makes sense; wouldn't you want your disposable shooting dudes to be able to run as fast as possible, unladen by special armor?
posted by rxrfrx at 11:18 AM on January 17, 2006

Unfortunately, it's tough to judge this since it's unsourced borderline-hearsay on some blog.
posted by mathowie at 11:18 AM on January 17, 2006

Why would soldiers even need body armor when they've got the protective support of millions upon millions of magnetic yellow ribbons?

Ingrates.
posted by you just lost the game at 11:19 AM on January 17, 2006

Why would soldiers even need body armor when they've got the protective support of millions upon millions of magnetic yellow ribbons?

Yeah, seriously. All the money from those ribbons = a lot of body armor..
posted by MJ6 at 11:23 AM on January 17, 2006

How we gonna pay death benefits if you're not dead, soldier?
posted by telstar at 11:24 AM on January 17, 2006

A good start in debunking or supporting this story would be to find out under what circumstances the armed forces could deny a death benefit. Any military folks with this knowledge want to step up?
posted by 2sheets at 11:25 AM on January 17, 2006

this will only lead to other soldiers to purchase their own equipment, therefore bypassing those made with government contracts...

and if you let the soldiers dress themselves, then they may start thinking for themselves and Rummy can't have that..
posted by WhipSmart at 11:25 AM on January 17, 2006

In related news -- Soldiers may be reimbursed for protective gear.
posted by ericb at 11:25 AM on January 17, 2006

Is this a case of one hand not knowing that the other hand is already beating the crap out of the soldiers with sub-standard equipment so the first hand comes in and smacks them around for a little bit too?

I'd think Rummy would be overjoyed that soldiers are providing their own gear, that's alot cheaper and means more money for our Halliburton Overlords.
posted by fenriq at 11:26 AM on January 17, 2006

We support our martrys troops!
posted by orthogonality at 11:26 AM on January 17, 2006

The article notes that the Army is saying a soldier "could" lose the benefit, not that they will absolutely positively NOT pay the benefit:

The soldier reiterated Friday's reports that any soldier who refused to comply with the order and was subsequently killed in action "could" be denied the $400,000 death benefi
posted by spicynuts at 11:27 AM on January 17, 2006

Just give the Dragon Skin contract to Halliburton, then it will be alright
posted by cedar key at 11:27 AM on January 17, 2006

However -- note that reimbursment is only for "protective equipment privately purchased between Sept. 11, 2001, and July 31, 2004."

"There is no need anymore for Soldiers to purchase protective equipment on their own, said Col. Thomas W. Spoehr, director of Materiel for the Army’s G8.

'There are no shortages; in fact there is excess in the theater to accommodate lost, damaged or otherwise missing body armor,” Spoehr said. “All who need the armor have it, and secondly, Army body armor is the best military body armor in the world. Anything you could procure commercially would not be as capable.'"

Possibly a gesture to head off the recent brouhaha about shortages in body armor for soldiers in Iraq?
posted by ericb at 11:28 AM on January 17, 2006

Pentagon bungles body armor purchases.
posted by ericb at 11:30 AM on January 17, 2006

I like cedar_key's argument.
posted by Rothko at 11:31 AM on January 17, 2006

If the Dragon Skin armor is good, they shouldn't deny the benefit, but here's a sketch of why they might sometimes want to deny the benefit to soldiers who choose their own body armor: the death benefit amounts to a guarantee of the quality of the army (among other things), and the military shouldn't guarantee the quality of things merely because they're chosen by soldiers (soldiers might accidentally choose really ineffective armor and it would be silly for the army to insure that against failure at the same rate as good armor).

Of course, all of this seems really silly in the face of the Pentagon's scandalously ineffective armor.
posted by grobstein at 11:31 AM on January 17, 2006

poor woman. she'll soon be called an "opportunistic bitch" by the Keyboard Kommandos.

No doubt.
posted by Rothko at 11:31 AM on January 17, 2006

They should probably start making vests out of tightly woven hundred dollar bills.
posted by fenriq at 11:31 AM on January 17, 2006

Haha, Freudian slip: "army" in my post should be "armor"
posted by grobstein at 11:31 AM on January 17, 2006

What a buncha whiners. Where's their sense of humour?
posted by 327.ca at 11:33 AM on January 17, 2006

It reminds me of World War I generals discussing if the presence of a parachute in a plane would affect the pilots' efficiency, since they could jump out at the first sign of trouble.

On the other hand, there is at least one point not yet considered by the previous comments: any land Army, specially infantry, tries to be a classless group based upon obedience to superiors and promotion by merit. That is, all soldiers are treated the same. Allowing soldiers to bring their own equipment breaks this and introduces a social class issue (richer soldiers will have the best equipment) leading to inevitable frictions in the ranks.
posted by nkyad at 11:38 AM on January 17, 2006

That's a good point nkyad.
posted by delmoi at 11:42 AM on January 17, 2006

Well, this sort of thing is nothing new. Got nothing to do with what administration is in power. This is just how the military is. (I live less than five miles from Bragg. Born and raised here.)
posted by konolia at 11:44 AM on January 17, 2006

By upgrading their armor themselves, they void their warranty.
posted by Tenuki at 11:47 AM on January 17, 2006

The soldier reiterated Friday's reports that any soldier who refused to comply with the order and was subsequently killed in action "could" be denied the $400,000 death benefit provided by their SGLI life insurance policy as well as face disciplinary action.

that'll be one messy courts martial.
posted by quonsar at 11:47 AM on January 17, 2006

This is kind of silly. Is it a surprise that people in the military can't just wear whatever they want? Even if it might keep them alive?

The Army, like any other giant bureaucracy, has lots of rules. It isn't very flexible when it comes to the application of these rules. Despite how the rules may play out in specific circumstances, they're often quite justifiable in the large.

Presumably, this product hasn't been formally evaluated. It may not meet the appropriate military specification. The issued vests, on the other hand, have been formally evaluated and have met the specification. Now, this doesn't mean that the approved product is better, it just means that it's approved. There are plenty of rifles that are arguably better than the M-16, but it wouldn't make sense for soldiers to just use whatever they preferred.

Also, imagine that they were allowed to wear these vests, and someone gets killed wearing the vest. Since it's not approved, one could argue that their superiors were negligent for allowing them to wear the unapproved vest! The death benefits come from an insurance company - SGLI. Like any insurance company, they'd prefer to avoid paying people when they can avoid it.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:49 AM on January 17, 2006

As a former section leader I've had this problem before, and what it boils down to is that you use what you're authorized to use. The all weather boots you purchased at MEQ or the body armour that happens to be used by the most elite counter-terrorist force in the world might perform better in some circumstances, but not necessarily all. The equipment selection process in the military is long and complicated, but also very thorough. The body armour you purchased might be better at stopping a bullet, but maybe not at stopping multiple hits, or it might not fit in a tank turret, or cause problems with your webbing or load bearing vest, or it might not have the anchor points necessary so that we can drag your limp body to safety after you get shot.

There is also the logistical question of how do we repair or replace something that isn't supported in the field? Are you gonna lug your original armour with you? Finally it also boils down to the "if you're gonna chew gum in class you best bring enough for the whole class" argument. Unit cohesion doesn't allow for people to have flashier equipment and leave others wanting. There should have been a standing order at the company level that only authorised kit was allowed, then it never would have been an issue. If they were authorized to use that kit, then had they been injured/killed, they should have been fully compensated and standing orders changed afterwards.
posted by furtive at 11:49 AM on January 17, 2006

Well, this sort of thing is nothing new. Got nothing to do with what administration is in power. This is just how the military is. (I live less than five miles from Bragg. Born and raised here.)

Well, sure, Konolia, but this is the administration who promised the military that "help is on the way." Remember, after all the mismanagement and misuse of the military under The Clenis, Bush and Cheney portrayed themselves as the soldiers' friends.

Bastards.
posted by John of Michigan at 11:49 AM on January 17, 2006

furtive, what if its a question of not having a vest or having one that your parents bought for you (which is a pretty ridiculous thing for the world's richest nation to have to do for its troops)?
posted by fenriq at 11:51 AM on January 17, 2006

what if its a question of not having a vest or having one that your parents bought for you (which is a pretty ridiculous thing for the world's richest nation to have to do for its troops)?

That might be a little different, but that doesn't seem to be the case according to the article.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:57 AM on January 17, 2006

If they didn't want be disposable cogs in a killing machine, they probably shouldn't have signed up to be cogs in a killing machine. I hope the armor somehow ends up in the hands of innocent Iraqis that both need and deserve it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:02 PM on January 17, 2006

Yeah, it seems like the guy is complaning that he can't wear the dragon skin instaid of the other stuff.
posted by delmoi at 12:02 PM on January 17, 2006

furtive, what if its a question of not having a vest or having one that your parents bought for you (which is a pretty ridiculous thing for the world's richest nation to have to do for its troops)?

In that case fenriq then the military shouldn't be sending them out there. Plain and simple.
posted by furtive at 12:08 PM on January 17, 2006

A review of the Dragon Skin armor suggests it is quite high-tech.

Probably the Army is trying to avoid this situation: a soldier takes a bullet in front of a camera, stands up, and says, "Wow, if I hadn't been wearing my Dragon Skin armor, I'd be dead now. Hi Mom!" There are real cost considerations involved in outfitting an army. It is not reasonable to say that each and every soldier automatically deserves 'the best' of anything, regardless of price. (Should civil servants get gold-plated staplers? They're 'the best'!) If Body Armor Z costs $100,000,000 per outfit and protects twice as good as the competitor, which costs $500 per outfit, it's simply not reasonable to insist that everyone should be outfitted with Body Armor Z. There's a cost-benefit calculation to do, and since it's your money - if you're an American taxpayer - you're interested in your government spending your money efficiently.

You can have your own opinions about where on the spectrum of that cost-benefit calculation the line should be drawn, but you can't fail to acknowledge the existence of the calculation. There are real monetary limits. Most people would say that if it cost the GNP of the U.S. for the next fifty years to save one soldier's life, that's too much. Most people would say that if it cost one cent to save one soldier's life, that's an expense that should be paid. But somewhere on that spectrum is a place where you personally decide that it's not worth it to save one life.

The Pentagon is looking at these $6,000 outfits compared to their current state-of-the-art (which are only months old) and apparently deciding that the state-of-the-art is pretty good, and the extra expense of replacing them - again - with the newest stuff is not an expense they want. There's a whole procurement process, tests, yadda-yadda. They don't want to be forced by popular press reports into buying up the entire production of this small manufacturer (which leads to another cycle of press reports about how not all soldiers have the 'new' armor, etc.).

It's very likely that any advances in armor technology made by these Dragon Skin guys will go into the next generation of official U.S. body armor. What you're talking about now is whether it is worth the expense to try to rush this stuff into production NOW. What happens if in three months, when the production line for Dragon Skin has just been ramped up at hideous expense, a new manufacturer shows up with Tyrannosaurus Skin armor? It only costs 10 times as much as Dragon Skin, and protects 25% better. Do you want to rush it into production at double-hideous expense?

There's also the usual military bias towards uniformity. Standardization of equipment is a big deal, there are real benefits to it in a variety of areas, and they're not going to give it up without a very good reason.

So, an order that seems unreasonable on its face is actually grounded in some perfectly reasonable basic operating requirements of the military. If people see the process that leads to this order, maybe they'll have a better understanding of why it came about.
posted by jellicle at 12:09 PM on January 17, 2006

"Allowing soldiers to bring their own equipment breaks this and introduces a social class issue (richer soldiers will have the best equipment) leading to inevitable frictions in the ranks."

Yeah, remember when Hawkeye got the long johns? What a mess that turned out to be!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:09 PM on January 17, 2006

Yeah, it seems like the guy is complaning that he can't wear the dragon skin instaid of the other stuff. - delmoi

This is also how I read it. They've been issued body armour, but they've purhcased other body armour that they believe is better.
posted by raedyn at 12:10 PM on January 17, 2006

Excellent comments from furtive and jellicle.
posted by OmieWise at 12:32 PM on January 17, 2006

The whole thing reads like memetic PR for whoever makes Dragon Skin (tm).
posted by craniac at 12:33 PM on January 17, 2006

Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra.

Could they lose their death benefits if they get hit?
posted by Sparx at 12:39 PM on January 17, 2006

The whole thing reads like memetic PR for whoever makes Dragon Skin - craniac

Yeah, reading the linked articles, I kept checking the headers and URL to figure if it was just marketing schlock.
posted by raedyn at 12:41 PM on January 17, 2006

The army did not mind us sending them kevlar blankets. Why would this be different? Link
posted by kudzu at 12:43 PM on January 17, 2006

Could they lose their death benefits if they get hit?

Perhaps, but I doubt they'd care, and they can affort lawyers to contest it anyway. It must be nice to be a general.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:44 PM on January 17, 2006

I'm with Furtive - a damn good explanation of an always touchy subject. I've seen it before - unit cohesion goes down the tubes when everyone starts to pimp out their gear... which is an aside from the fact that 'No gear' SHOULD = 'No go'.

There may other circumstances, but from my observations the only sure-fire way for your beneficiary to be denied the SGLI death benefit is to commit suicide.
posted by matty at 12:44 PM on January 17, 2006

affort afford
posted by me & my monkey at 12:45 PM on January 17, 2006

Could they lose their death benefits if they get hit?

By what? An ice cream truck?
posted by srboisvert at 12:53 PM on January 17, 2006

“Army body armor is the best military body armor in the world. Anything you could procure commercially would not be as capable.”

Yeah. That’s horseshit.

“There is also the logistical question of how do we repair or replace something that isn't supported in the field?” - posted by furtive

Yeah. That’s true.

But lots of folks have been trying to get the army to switch. The big problem is - years past - the (US) military has thought first of lowest bidder and second of what is more efficient in the field. Lots of that still lingers. And there are always political considerations (Red or Blue). But there are some adaptations in infantry weapons systems that are looking nifty.
One of the few good things that comes out of a war, you learn what works.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:58 PM on January 17, 2006

To add to jellicle’s comments I’d say that as training costs go up (and if we’re beefing up special forces - they will) that calculation for individual equipment costs will change as well.
It’d be even nicer if we spent enough on our non-coms and mid-grades to make retention more attractive and had a professional military corps. That’d even out the political pull and we’d avoid this rollercoaster funding ride.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:05 PM on January 17, 2006

I had a pal who was in the Navy and was also an heir with a monthly allowance check that was more than his commanding officer's pay. They hated him because he'd go out and blow his monthly allowance on cool stuff and they had to take care of their families.

Strangely, he didn't last through his entire enlistment and they found a way to send him home.

I can understand the unit cohesion argument better than any other involved. But I've read and heard interviews of people saying they were sent into battle without vests at all. And that is unconscionable, regardless of Rummy's assertion that you go to war with the army you have.
posted by fenriq at 1:05 PM on January 17, 2006

Bill Gates should read this and just sponsor a whole unit's armor.
posted by pez_LPhiE at 1:14 PM on January 17, 2006

Thanks, Furtive. What's your experience with the Military, if any?
posted by V4V at 1:30 PM on January 17, 2006

At the risk of being out of the mainstream, (ooooohhhh noooo) I offer this purely rhetorical question:

If we in fact did not armor our soldiers at all, and we were forced to go to war with the same equipment as our enemy, would it reduce our appetite for war? In other words, does the fact that we can deploy troops that have a disproportionatly low chance of serious injury compared to our adversary make for a relatively 'painless' war, and does this make us more likely to get involved in violent conflict? Or perhaps more accurately, does it make our leaders more likely to choose this approach?

I would suggest that it does to some degree. I tend to see the modern war as extremely painless for the US. Does the leadership have the will or will the electorate stomach a really brutal war. I think thats unlikely, and I wonder if we were forced to accept much more brutality in our wars, if we would participate in fewer.

Just thinkin'
posted by sfts2 at 1:36 PM on January 17, 2006

any land Army, specially infantry, tries to be a classless group based upon obedience to superiors

Classless superiors? Sergeants get more leeway than privates when it comes to what gear they have to carry. Officers get more leeway than sergeants. Generals get to wear Dragon Skin that grunts are prohibited from wearing.

Classless. Sure.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:43 PM on January 17, 2006

I assume the logistical demands of WWII led the US military to standardizing equipment, and looking down on people buying their own equipment (IANAVeteran, but I imagine many soldiers would rather have something other than a Beretta as a sidearm). I know that during the Civil War, it was common for both sides to procure the best stuff they could get their hands on--and didn't Southern officers have to pay for the upkeep of their own horses? There were some pretty awful experiments with body armor as well.

Interesting discussion. I can imagine that lots of US soldiers have only contempt for the Blackwater mercs--not just for the fact that they're making about 10 times as much, but they probably have cooler toys as well. And this would be a none-issue if Rumsfeld had managed to up armor Hummers. But stopping incoming rounds and shrapnel--that's old-style military.
posted by bardic at 1:48 PM on January 17, 2006

I've talked to a number of guys that served in Vietnam (ancient history) and it seemed pretty common (or at least not uncommon) for guys to carry non-standard equipment - shotguns and the like.

I wouldn't be surprised that the military's decision was to some extent based upon all of the press regarding body armor.

...and I think 'classless' was meant as relating to their 'class' outside of the military, not within it.
posted by sfts2 at 1:51 PM on January 17, 2006

Kirth Gerson : "Classless superiors? Sergeants get more leeway than privates when it comes to what gear they have to carry. Officers get more leeway than sergeants. Generals get to wear Dragon Skin that grunts are prohibited from wearing."

I meant to say classless among each different rank members. Obviously sergeants have more freedom than privates, but the ideal is that any sergeant is equal to and interchangeable by the next sergeant, and so are privates, captains and even generals.
posted by nkyad at 1:55 PM on January 17, 2006

Bardic -- you are correct, prior to WW-I, soldiers had to provide a significant part of their own equipment.

Furtive's got some major points, though. I can imagine some serious envy coming up, especially if the "pimped" gear makes you safer. Might also lead you to take extra risks, either out of guilt or foolhardiness. I would imagine that behavioral predictability is a really important trait in your comrades....

This is a PR disaster, to be sure, but (I think) I understand why they're doing it this way.
posted by lodurr at 1:59 PM on January 17, 2006

... also, anyone who knows people who served in 'nam has heard stories about taking their own gear into the field. An ex-Army guy I met once told me that they carried AKs whenever they could get ammo, and that officers and noncoms would often sell their Colt .45s becase they didnt' want ot carry them in the jungle.
posted by lodurr at 2:04 PM on January 17, 2006

If we in fact did not armor our soldiers at all, and we were forced to go to war with the same equipment as our enemy, would it reduce our appetite for war?

sfts2: No. The ones doing the fighting are not the ones making the decisions. I think we should make a constitutional amendment that any president deploying troops somewhere must lead the charge himself.
posted by knave at 2:08 PM on January 17, 2006

I actually like the idea from that '70's movie, where the two presidents were put on an island and whoever survived won the war...or something like that.

Your constitutional amendment idea won't work, our leaders would just ignore it.
posted by sfts2 at 2:13 PM on January 17, 2006

I hate to say this, but i think furtive and nkyad are mostly correct.

Though, then the army should forbid such armor, and not punish the families of the dead. The way they've implemented this is piss poor... If the army doesn't want you to wear something, I'm fairly certain they stop you.
posted by Freen at 2:19 PM on January 17, 2006

2sheets, I served for more that 4 years in the border cav. The SGLI was 40k at the time and you could be denied if you were found dead in your overturned car (or military vehicle) in second gear when the sign at the beginning of the curve said "slow use first gear only". They have quite a few reasons to deny your SGLI claim. Still in all, just another embarassment for an (ex) soldier.
posted by winks007 at 2:34 PM on January 17, 2006

If we in fact did not armor our soldiers at all, and we were forced to go to war with the same equipment as our enemy, would it reduce our appetite for war?

I'd say yes, though it's a completely irrelevant question. The people deciding to go to war do not worry about our appetite for war. They have bigger concerns, like "unnegotiable" rights to consume massive amounts of natural resources.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:59 PM on January 17, 2006

So... who's going to take away the generals' body armor? Will his pearled-handle revolver be next?!
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:00 PM on January 17, 2006

I really hate to imply that money has any effect on Pentagon procurement but, IIRC on of the companies that makes the Interceptor OTV (the current issue) is run by the guy who spent $10M on his daughter's bat mitzvah (Point Blank Body Armor)

I think the proper response from those guys should be "since approx. 80% of marine casualties in a recent study have been to rifle shots that could have been stopped by this armor, I will wear my dragon skin and reduce the chance of my family needing death benefits"
posted by Megafly at 3:14 PM on January 17, 2006

"you could be denied if you were found dead in your overturned car (or military vehicle) in second gear when the sign at the beginning of the curve said "slow use first gear only"."

Thanks for the info and - wow.
I was wondering if they would essentially penalize your family because you did something stupid or against regulations and I guess the answer is yes.
I used to work with an army artillery guy who said it wasn't all that unusual to have to bag up what was left of some guy who just didn't listen and follow procedures.
posted by 2sheets at 3:32 PM on January 17, 2006

From what I've heard recently, the war is going to cost us about $2,000,000,000,000. Two trillion dollars.

Much of this expense will be tied up in the future medical expenses of the tens of thousands of soldiers who will be permanently injured because they lacked adequate protection.
posted by insomnia_lj at 3:37 PM on January 17, 2006

Obviously sergeants have more freedom than privates, but the ideal is that any sergeant is equal to and interchangeable by the next sergeant, and so are privates, captains and even generals.

And this is what is fundamentally fucked up about being in the military. It's obvious that the life of a general is worth more than a sergeant, than a private. Tell that to the private's parents.

Everyone who hasn't been in a war has this romantic idea about service, and honor, and defending the fatherhomeland. It's crap. War is not about any of those things. It's about furthering the ends of a bunch of old, rich, and powerful men. They don't get maimed and killed, because, like Cheney, they have "other priorities." It's the young and gullible who wind up losing their limbs and lives.

Don't buy the myth. Tom Clancy and his entire readership are idiots. You don't have to be one.

And there is nothing new and unusual about this body armor situation. As I have related here before, my unit in Vietnam had their flak vests confiscated because we weren't a combat unit (never mind that we regularly came under mortar attack, which is about the only thing those flak vests were good for). They took our protection away, and rather than giving the vests to combat troops who could have used them, they burned them.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:35 PM on January 17, 2006

I don't want to get into to an argument about the diffs between officers and NCMs, but every sergeant did his time as a private, and every general did his time as a lieutenant. Just like in any company, with experience and age come certain privileges.
posted by furtive at 4:57 PM on January 17, 2006

every general did his time as a lieutenant

[pedant mode=extreme]
Don't physicians start as (USAF/Army) captains?
[/pedant]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:34 PM on January 17, 2006

There have been many a good reason stated why the Army might not allow Bring-your-own-Body-armor, though I would hope (like after and during most wars) the necessities of the field would lead to better equipment.

As for generals and other ranks. Every-so-often you have a (somewhat) rouge superiors. They might say "I don't care what they on high say, you guys can use this body armor." Thus sometimes the pockets of doing one thing or another.

SGLI tries to directly discourage military members from doing stupid things. Unfortunately, the way they do this is by refusing claims to things they see as negligence. (drinking while driving, using unapproved safety gear) It's harsh, but there is reason for it. Ultimately, you are responsible for the eligibility of your claim for your family. (Usually, they won't refuse people who make normal mistakes, only above and beyond acceptable. Or foreseeable. Plenty of dead idiots still got their family benefits.

And yes, people don't just appear as generals; they all did their time at some point. And a growing amount of officers (like me) are those with prior enlisted service.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 5:34 PM on January 17, 2006

Kirth Gerson

yeah, seeing old pictures of WW2, the disparity between the brass and the grunts was quite though-provoking.

The professional military was fighting a different war -- a cocktail party war -- than the ROTC, enlisted, and draftees.

In Vietnam, this was extended to the career enlisted vs. draftees. Career military got their asses to the base areas as best they could, leaving the actual fighting and dying to the draftees, ROTC company-grade officers, and warrant officer chopper pilots.

In 1968-69 80% of the 10B-10 riflemen KIA had been drafted.

Like any organization, the cadre that runs the show is going to look out for its own.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:51 PM on January 17, 2006

Sorry, 11B-10 not 10B.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:54 PM on January 17, 2006

1968-1969 Army KIA, draftee/total, by MOS grade:

11b-10: 3369/4400 (76% KIA were SS)
11b-20: 1994/2700 (73%)
11b-40: 825/1481 (55%)

Total: 6188/8581 (72%)

source
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:03 PM on January 17, 2006

FYI, PBS is running Frontline: Private Warriors right now.
posted by bardic at 6:04 PM on January 17, 2006

KG, no shit. When I was in the gulf war I did whatever the fuck I wanted as long as it was WITHIN REGS. That doesn't mean that the fuckin' regs ever make any sense. Anyway KG, I'm glad you made it back alive, (you didn't mention if you are still in one piece or not.)

One thing I learned in the Army was to follow my instinct. There were many times when I told people to fuck off with their orders and to be proven right minutes later. That's a tough call though.

FTA!!!!!!
posted by snsranch at 6:40 PM on January 17, 2006

Someone mentioned the old 70's saw about putting the leaders of two warring factions on an island and letting the "best man" win for his faction.

Here's the thought that came to mind.
George and Osama on a one square mile desert island.
Each is armed with only a bayonet. I'm not so curious about who would win.
I'm wondering who would be the hunter and who would be the hunted?
What do you think?
(sorry about the rerail:)
posted by notreally at 6:42 PM on January 17, 2006

derail
posted by notreally at 7:00 PM on January 17, 2006

I think the issue brought up before about the cost benefit analysis is the most important in the issue.

personally, i'd prefer it if no one died (on either side), but the fact is, America went to WAR and that means people die, even people from "our" side. i think its fairly ridiculous to be having debates like this when the ratio of American's killed to that of Iraqi's (not even counting civilians) is so unbalanced. the idea that soldiers can go to war and be "safe" is ludicrous PR bullshit spun by the government/military in their quest for more cannon fodder, no matter how advanced the technology, right now we still need bodies on the ground and in harms way. its just a fact of what going to war means. if the public gets outraged at the army's cost/benefit analysis of just how much a nameless grunts life is worth, then maybe they shouldn't have supported the war to begin with. in the realistic planning and execution of a war, individual soldiers are just cogs in the machine that can be replaced. the only concern for the individual comes from a desire to control public opinion and support for the war, which is something the current administration clearly has control of, what with their clamping down on mainstream media reports of individual soldiers deaths outside of the championing of a few "heroes".

its war, soldiers will die, and they are dying way, way less than they have in any other war the US has fought.

if people are so concerned with the life of an individual solider, then don't put them in harms way to begin with.
posted by teishu at 7:36 PM on January 17, 2006

Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra.

"Cause the General's sip bacardi, while the privates feel the pain."
posted by thirteen at 8:15 PM on January 17, 2006

I can't be the only one for whom "Dragon Skin" sounds like a power up in a video game.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:37 PM on January 17, 2006

MtG enchantment/equipment mayhaps.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:23 PM on January 17, 2006

Every-so-often you have a (somewhat) rouge superiors.

Doesn't that violate "Don't ask, don't tell"?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:47 AM on January 18, 2006

if people are so concerned with the life of an individual solider, then don't put them in harms way to begin with.

Exactly. This is not how we should be using our military - for creation of corporate profit, or for erasing self-determination in somebody else's country. If we have to have a standing army (and it looks like we do), it should be used only to defend our country from attack. If we're going to send it overseas for some other purpose, then the U.N. or someone else should pay the bill.

How far would $200 billion go toward developing alternative energy sources that would end our strategic dependence on Mideast oil? How about $2 trillion? That is a gigantic debt that my children will be paying off long after I'm gone. FTA, and FTGOP, too.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:58 AM on January 18, 2006

What Kirth Gerson said.
posted by nofundy at 8:46 AM on January 18, 2006

“If we in fact did not armor our soldiers at all, and we were forced to go to war with the same equipment as our enemy, would it reduce our appetite for war?”
- posted by sfts2

That presumes our leaders care about the men rather than public opinion. That also presumes our public cares about anything that doesn’t directly impact them.

“War is not about any of those things. It's about furthering the ends of a bunch of old, rich, and powerful men” -posted by Kirth Gerson

...it is fun tho...of course I recognize I’m in the minority there. And don’t even ask me to analyze rationally why I feel that way.

Love to see mustangs Lord Chancellor.


“If we have to have a standing army (and it looks like we do), it should be used only to defend our country from attack.”
- Kirth Gerson

I’m not playing the devil’s advocate here...neither am I one of the neo-con dogmatists that belives in this nebulous “War on Terrrrrrrr” but the concept of what “defense” is has changed. Not since 9/11. Since we started engaging non-territory based groups. I’d say early 60s to late 70s or so. It’s one of the reasons Kennedy created the SEALs.

Calling it a “War” is a bit much. But we do need to operate without mobilizing our entire force and we do need to engage in aggressive pre-emptive action on small scales sometimes. Particularly after the fall of the Soviet Union. We’ve been chasing ass all over the place helping them police up their nuclear technology - etc. We’ve spend God knows how much money (not that it’s been well spent - more that a few spaznuts...’scuse me, spetsnaz outfits have set themselves up in biz - typically criminal, to be fair tho they might not be actual black berets, mebbe they just read Suvorov’s book) to chase their crap down.
This is just one of many threats that’s out there.

That said, I don’t believe we should engage in nation building and while I’m by no means an isolationist I’m probably closer to your position than I am the neo-con unilateral “bomb the shit out of everything” sort of policy. I’d rather work with the U.N. et. al. Germany or Poland particularly. Those guys are on the f’ing ball lately. (The Italian SF (Alpini, etc. - guys with the black feathers) seem kinda...mellow).

Anyway, before I get to far afield - the connection is - if we’re pouring more $ into our SF and we’re training our guys better, we’re going to have to spend more money on equipment - and definately on retention or at least bonuses for hiring - because you don’t want a massive influx of guys who know how to break things and hurt people coming home having a hard time finding jobs.
But that’s given that we’re identifying “defense” as preventative action with (or without if necessary) cooperation only.
Right now we’re doing asshead things like bombing in Pakistan if we hear some guy we’re looking for is there.
I’d rather send in a denyable covert team in and clip him (if necessary - rather do it with cooperation from the Pakistanis...depends, it’s a dynamic situation).

But this all gets back to the attitude. If we look at our men as cogs in the war machine rather than skilled operatives - and indeed if we don’t train them to be all that skilled but like fritos (crunch all you want -we’ll make more or Bush’s “Bring ‘em on”) then it does become a simple cost-benefit analysis (is it worth it to buy the really good stuff) instead of a variable based on the policies you’re looking to enforce (what do we want to achieve by buying “X”).

Which, to my mind, is the current problem. This is just a symptom.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:43 AM on January 18, 2006

Everyone who hasn't been in a war has this romantic idea about service, and honor, and defending the fatherhomeland. - Kirth Gerson

Bullshit. Some people have that idea maybe. I've never - not even for a second - had a romantic idea about war. I've always thought it was dirty and scary and dangerous and awful, and that you might be fighting for something you don't even believe in, because you just have to do as your told. I've never understood why anyone might think it's glorious. It's sure as hell not "everyone".
posted by raedyn at 11:04 AM on January 18, 2006

That's what you call bullshit? OK, I will amend it to "almost everyone." Congratulations on being one of the few.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:35 AM on January 18, 2006

I am likewise one of the few. As is, I expect, anyone who has ever seen a well-made war film.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:43 AM on January 18, 2006

Smedly, I don't think we're quite on the same page. We don't have to be World Cop. That's why we made the U.N., after all. Let them do it. Supply resources to help them do it. There is no rational reason we can't behave in a moral fashion toward the rest of the world, without the use of Predator missile platforms or covert hit squads.

We don't have to stabilize the Middle East, or East Asia, or anyplace but the U.S. If the Iraqis couldn't summon the political will to get rid of Saddam, then that's an expression of their self-determination. We don't have the right to make some other choice for them. Really, we don't.

I honestly believe that if we had no military presence on Muslim soil, and if we refrained from trying to force our will on other countries, that Al-Quida and the rest would shrink to a handful of religious loonies with no power.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:55 AM on January 18, 2006

As is, I expect, anyone who has ever seen a well-made war film.

You mean like, say, Patton? I hear Nixon really liked Patton. So he must have been really in touch with what war's really like, and all.

Film, sure.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:59 AM on January 18, 2006

Bush would win if he was stuck on an island with Bin-Laden simply because he wouldn't have to drag around a kidney dialysis machine.

The Army is always going to buy US* and it's always going to go for the lowest bidder. The SOCOM guys have always had far greater leeway and that will always be the case simply because TOE is not designed to be a choice. Logistics wins wars and logistics means having everybody using the same gear.

*even when it buys foreign gear they open up a US based factory or licence the equipment first - Beretta and FN for example.
posted by longbaugh at 12:18 PM on January 18, 2006

p.s. Kirth - I think you'll find that the horror of war doesn't actually require presence within a combat zone. Quite a few pacifists have never seen one and still have as much of a dislike of war as the most experienced vet.
posted by longbaugh at 12:23 PM on January 18, 2006

further to longbaugh:
Me for instance. I've never lived or served in a war zone or anything close to it, and neither have any of my family. I now have one friend that served in Iraq, but I had this idea longlong before I ever met him.

I suspect (I don't have studies to back me up, just a guess) the "war is heroic and glory" is a more commonly held belief in men than women.
posted by raedyn at 12:49 PM on January 18, 2006

longbaugh, may I ask, are you speaking from personal experience? Because I think you're mistaken. "Dislike" is way too mild a word for what a lot of us feel.

I don't go to war movies much. The one I saw that came closest to capturing what Vietnam felt like to me was Apocalypse Now (up to where Brando appears). But I was still sitting in a chair, smelling popcorn, not napalm. The air-conditioning was on. I got to leave at the end - in fact, I could have walked out any time. Not quite the same as the real thing.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:54 PM on January 18, 2006

I'm ex-British Army Kirth but was lucky enough that I weren't stationed in a warzone during my brief time in the military. I have been pulled up for saying it before (someone thought I was referencing Full Metal Jacket) but I joined to kill and when I realised what a fucking stupid idea that was I bought myself out. I have an awful lot of friends who have served and quite a few who are still serving. Although I have never had to fire a weapon in anger or even been shot at I think I've got a pretty good idea how it is. My use of the word dislike was just British understatement and was not meant to denigrate your experience.
posted by longbaugh at 1:06 PM on January 18, 2006

I didn't take it that way, longbaugh. I was reacting more to the "film will bring people to the light" idea, which wasn't really your point.

I am interested in this concept of "bought my way out". If I'd had an option like that (or if all those unfortunate weekend-warrior National Guardsmen did), things would probably be different over here. Once again, we're shown up for the uncivilized yahoos we are.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:16 PM on January 18, 2006

Soldiers May Be Reimbursed for Protective Gear.
posted by fixedgear at 1:52 PM on January 18, 2006

“We don't have to stabilize the Middle East” -Kirth Gerson

I more or less echoed that we shouldn’t police the world and that we should work with the U.N. (If you go back and read what I wrote).
That said, there are areas where we have strategic interests. By areas I don’t mean geopolitical regions, but a swath of issues from economic to resource, etc.
One big problem - and its been the dragon on the doorstep for a long time - is that we’re so oil dependant that someone could monkey with oil prices and attempt to dictate American policy both foreign and domestic.

Obviously that sword cuts both ways. There are large multinationals that could be doing that as well. Fairly complex set of issues there and I agree that it has not been handled well under the current administration.

However, I will argue that we cannot simply remain within our borders given the energy dependance we have.
Obviously I’d love to see that dependance change whether it be hydrogen or solar or whatever we can come up with.

But the way it is now, we’re living with a noose around our neck. Whether we have the “right” to do something doesn’t factor into what we have to do to survive.

I’ll also agree we don’t act in the most moral fashion. But there are a great many forces arrayed against us, simply because we’ve got money and power, etc. etc. and other countries want it.
They are competing with us as well. It’s a two way street. Lots of folks would like to see us taken down a peg.
This doesn’t mean I endorse what is happening currently. But I can’t rewrite the past. I can only deal with the situation as it sits now.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:21 PM on January 18, 2006

Army getting new side armor next month

"The Army next month will start shipping new body armor to protect the side of soldier's torsos from bullets and shrapnel, the Army secretary said Wednesday."
[UPI | January 18, 2006]

posted by ericb at 2:33 PM on January 18, 2006

I've always been interested in military history, and I used to have romantic ideas about war. That was cured by watching Ken Burns' Civil War, which came out right about the time of the Gulf War. It was a very interesting juxtaposition.7

As is, I expect, anyone who has ever seen a well-made war film.

I'd always thought so, until I read Jarhead:

"We yell Semper fi and we head-butt and beat the crap out of each other and we get off on the various visions of carnage and violence and deceit, the raping and killing and pillaging. We concentrate on the Vietnam films because it's the most recent war." The fact that these films are meant to be antiwar doesn't faze them. "Actually, Vietnam war films are all pro-war," Swofford writes, "no matter what the supposed message." Marines love them because "the magic brutality of the films celebrates the terrible and despicable beauty of [our] fighting skills."

All the money from those ribbons = a lot of body armor

Nah, just make body armor out of the yellow ribbons. Hardcore!
posted by kirkaracha at 2:34 PM on January 18, 2006

kirkaracha - indeed.

"Magnificent! Compared to war all other forms of human endeavor shrink to insignificance. Gold help me, I do love it so!" "  - General George Patton

...but that’s a visceral reaction not a reasoned one. The reasoning - that is in the chain of command - is that might does not make right.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:53 PM on January 18, 2006

In other news: Pill could erase PTSD memories
posted by homunculus at 3:00 PM on January 18, 2006