[From the diaries - BarbinMD]
THIS IS AN ACTION DIARY.
Action Item 1. Please watch this video:
The body armor you have just seen stop 40 rounds of 7.62-mm AK-47 ammo from 20 feet, and 150 rounds of 9-mm Uzi ammo from 10 feet, has been forbidden to our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is, however, worn by President Bush's Secret Service bodyguards.
THIS IS AN ACTION DIARY.
Action Item 2. Please read this diary.
Kossacks, I need your help. It's a matter of life and death.
I've diaried on this fourtimesbeforenow, and evidently nothing's been done about it yet. So I think we need a really big push.
Given that our troops are still being sent into harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be criminal if they were being denied the best equipment available to keep them safe.
Well, they are being denied it. I think.
For nearly six years, Pinnacle Armor has been trying to convince the Pentagon that Pinnacle's Dragon Skin is a superior product to the Interceptor Body Armor that has been in use since the early 1990s. The Pentagon has been very reluctant to give Dragon Skin a fair shake, and only after much wheedling, cajoling and some negative press did the Army finally consent to new tests of Dragon Skin. Those tests were commenced in May of last year, but were never completed. The person conducting the tests for the Army stopped the tests about 30% of the way through; the tests have never been resumed.
In the meantime, soldiers are dying in the field.
There is much anecdotal evidence to support the contention that Dragon Skin is a much superior system to the Interceptor system that is currently being issued to our troops (but not, I guess, to George Bush's Secret Service bodyguard detail, since they use Dragon Skin). Pentagon officials, however, refuse to admit this. And you know what? Dragon Skin just might not be a better system; no one knows for sure.
But there's a ridiculously easy way to find out. So what I am proposing is this: a simple, quick, inexpensive, elegant, indisputable, transparent way to settle the question -
Conduct an open, fair, side-by-side test, in front of Congressional investigators and representatives of the news media, of both Dragon Skin and Interceptor.
If Dragon Skin fares better, it should be put into use immediately by our armed forces. If Interceptor prevails, the debate will be silenced.
This is a very simple proposal. No one who truly has the welfare of our troops at heart can possibly object to such a test. If nothing else, it would remove the cloud of doubt that has been hanging over the Army's testing procedures of the Dragon Skin system.
It'll take, what, three hours of testing to settle the issue. And you know what? I'd be willing to bet Pinnacle Armor would be happy to absorb 100% of the costs of the testing if their armor is not demonstrated to be superior to Interceptor.
Allow me to outline the history of this situation since last January (when I first learned of it) in very simple political terms:
- A year ago, in January 2006, the Pentagon, through its various field commanders, spread the word that our troops were not to wear any body armor other than that supplied to them by the military, in spite of the fact that another body armor type might be much more effective at stopping multiple rounds from penetrating the armor. The government-issue armor is supplied to the military by a couple of companies that are big Republican campaign contributors.
- In spite of a large outcry about the unofficial banning, the Pentagon came out with a Safety of Use Message (SOUM) in late March 2006, expressly requiring the use only of the standard-issue armor made by a big Republican donor, and expressly prohibiting the use of Dragon Skin.
- After much cajoling, the Army agreed to retest Dragon Skin (it had maintained that Dragon Skin had failed earlier testing). The testing was conducted on May 19 at a private testing facility. The tests were conducted by the individual who is the lead engineer on the Interceptor program for the Army. The tests were stopped about a third of the way through with no explanation. They have never been completed, and the Army has never offered an explanation.
- In the meantime, the companies that supply body armor for the military have continued to receive contracts running in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
- Since the testing was halted on May 19 of last year - well, here I'll quote (and update) from my December diary:
Since the Army’s test of Dragon Skin body armor was abruptly halted without explanation on May 19, 2006,
505651 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq (as of this writing). Since March 17, 2006, when the Pentagon issued its Safety of Use Message (SOUM) specifically forbidding the use of Dragon Skin,639785 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Since January 15, 2006, when word first got out about the military's order not to wear non-regulation body armor,739885 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Would better body armor have saved any of them? I don't know - but I do know that the fact that the question can even be reasonably asked is unconscionable.
Oh – and once those open, side-by-side tests are completed, and if Dragon Skin should be proven superior to Interceptor? Well, then,
If it turns out that the earlier testing of Dragon Skin was conducted in a dishonest manner, those responsible for such dishonesty must be held to account.
Following the money is never a bad idea when it comes to politics or military procurement; when the two intersect, it is imperative. If you look at what happened to the disposition of Armor Holdings' stock after the aborted Dragon Skin testing in May (i.e., its major shareholders sold off all of their Armor Holdings stock after the tests; see December's diary), and you realize how much money Armor Holdings has been giving almost exclusively to Republicans for the past several years - the notable Democratic exceptions being Hillary Clinton, Marty Meehan and Bill Nelson - it wouldn't be too great a stretch to imagine that perhaps AH, having seen the handwriting on the wall on November 7, has been suddenly showing more love to the Democrats - but that reporting is not yet in for the 2008 election cycle. In any event, I would hope that any such contributions would not deter any Democrats from doing the right thing, and pushing for fair, open, public testing of the two types of body armor.
I'm not going to rehash all of the background as to why the Army has refused to properly test Dragon Skin - I covered those pretty thoroughly in my December and July diaries (I'd strongly urge you to read those if you haven't). Suffice to say that some of the biggest financial backers behind the current Interceptor body armor are big-time Republican campaign donors. Also note that the person charged by the Army with running the tests on Dragon Skin was the lead engineer for the Interceptor program.
Yeah, I know - it stinks to me, too.
With the recent airing of an episode of "Future Weapons" featuring Dragon Skin, buzz has increased about the armor. Pinnacle, whose body armor was awarded Level III certification by the National Institutes of Justice in September, is working to create a Level IV standard for flexible body armor, and should have it tested within a few months.
As for Armor Holdings? Well, because of its purchase of a Texas-based armored-vehicle company during the year, Armor Holdings' profits for 2006 were flat. But not to worry. BushCheneyMcCain's war policy is great for Republican cronies’ bottom lines:
Stephen Hoedt, an analyst with National City Private Client Group in Cleveland, is bullish on Armor [Holdings] because of increased government spending.
"The outlook looks very bright for companies that have exposure to the U.S. Army, in particular," he said.
Gee, now, there’s a noble cause worth dying for in Iraq.
It’s been long enough. Our soldiers deserve better.
[Action information below the fold]