I don’t understand this:
Fewer than 70 service members have sought reimbursement for the cost of combat equipment they bought for use in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a program that the Pentagon originally opposed.
Pentagon officials had said the reimbursement program would be a strain on its budget and could undermine the accountability and effectiveness of equipment.
So far, however, the official who oversees the processing of such claims for the Army said, only 30 soldiers have requested reimbursement for equipment, primarily for tactical body armor, at a cost of about $22,000.
“We were gamed for a high volume of claims,” said the Army claims official, Maj. Paul J. Cucuzzella. “And to date, it has not been what we planned for.”
Something does not seem right with this at all. I was under the impression that hundreds if not thousands of troops were buying body armor, and my experiences with the military and watching people fill out travel pay and TDY forms, if they were due a refund,they would have filed for it. This leads me to several possibilities:
1.) The number of folks who had to buy body armor was less than we were led to believe ( Find this the least plausible- I doubt the number was as large as some on the left would like to pretend, but it surely was more than a couple dozen).
2.) The reimbursement program was/is not widely advertised (which is really hard to believe- this sort of news spreads like wildire, and was covered in publications like the Army Times).
3.) The requirements to provide proof of purchase to make individuals eligible for reimbursement are unduly strict.
4.) It is simply too early to come to any conclusions.
Your thoughts?
Paul Wartenberg
5) It’s kinda morbid, but the troops who might have used the refund coulda gotten KIA’d before getting the paperwork filed.
Slide
I don’t trust the pentagon for one second. I dont’ trust that they are giving us the true numbers. I don’t trust that they have make it possible for soldiers to request reimbursement. I don’t trust that they don’t actively discourage such requests. Guess thats what happens when the Pentagon continually lies to us. i.e.
Saving of Private Lynch
Death of Pat Tillman
Wedding party bombed
Abu Garib
Torture isolated “night shift” problem
Domestic spying on Quakers, etc.
body armor being supplied
use of WP denied
just a couple thousand “dead enders”
looting not widespread
millions spent on “propoganda”
we don’t negotiate with terrorists
it goes on and on and on. I dont’ know about you John, but I would take anything this Pentagon says with a grain of salt.
Capriccio
Possibility #5
“Pentagon officials had said the reimbursement program would be a strain on its budget and could undermine the accountability and effectiveness of equipment.”
So somebody down the chain of commnd made it known how much it would be appreciaated if the good soldiers did their patriotic duty to strain the budget.
Hey, after you’ve put your ass on the line for George W. Bush’s foreign policy, what’s it take to help him out with his fiscal policies as well?
Capriccio
On Edit:
Possibility #5
“Pentagon officials had said the reimbursement program would be a strain on its budget and could undermine the accountability and effectiveness of equipment.”
So somebody down the chain of commnd made it known how much it would be appreciated if the good soldiers did their patriotic duty to NOT strain the budget.
Hey, after you’ve put your ass on the line for George W. Bush’s foreign policy, what’s it take to help him out with his fiscal policies as well?
Mark
Maybe the soldiers are not going to file for reimbursement until they return from Iraq?
Lines
You know, John, the Cool Kids arn’t going to like you if you don’t follow the new party line: Body armor is unusually heavy and cumbersome for the high temperatures of Iraq, so none of the soldiers would wear it, even if they had it.
Stick to the line, John, or you might be called out during recess.
space
It was reported that the Pentagon had threatened that troops who purchased non-issue body armor risked forfeiting their death benefits in the event they were killed. If true, it would not shock me if body armor by unapproved manufacturers did not qualify for reimbursement.
John Cole
Lines- I tend to agree that some of the expectations about body armor are unrealistic- it is hot and cumbersome, and some of the attempts by the left to overstate the need for more body armor have been wrong.
Steve
I agree with John that this discrepancy seems difficult to explain. If it’s in the Army Times, then everyone must know about it. Even if the word on the street is that you get on some kind of shit list if you ask for reimbursement (which I kinda doubt), we’re talking about a lot of money here.
This may provide some kind of clue. Also, the list includes helmets, body armor, and hydration, but apparently there are lots and lots of items that aren’t on the list.
It’s amazing how much money gets thrown away on excessive government contracts (don’t make me say the H-word) and yet we have to cut corners on the protective gear we give to our troops. What a messed-up set of priorities.
john
Given the undiputed validity of every utterence of the left, the MSM and all those who are vehemently against this war, I’m going with #1
Lines
Well, ok John, I wrote that as an extreme tweak to see if I could get a small rise out of you. Kudo’s for not biting and fighting.
The only political news I get in my home state is that of the extreme right, Dr. Laura, Savage and Hannity. These people have taken the side that NO soldier wants armor, that the burden is not worth the cost, that absolutely no soldier wants to have them on. It ignores the reality of the situation where the armor should be available, where soldiers were digging in landfills to find pieces of metal to wear as chest protection, where military welders were working 20 hour days to modify Hummers and other vehicles to add anything to the carriage to protect the riders and driver.
But the right took this issue and turned it into “the soldiers wouldn’t wear it anyway”. A whole complex issue and the simplified Republican version makes the soldiers look like Rambos, ready to sew their skin up with a pine needle.
So sorry for the snark, but this is just another example of the disgust I feel for the PR machine of the right.
srv
The story about guys wearing dragon skin being told they might not get death benefits:
Death Benefits
But doesn’t explain anything before this issue.
Jim Allen
I hope applying for the refund is easier than figuring out what Medicare benefits you’re entitled to.
Lee
Here is why the Pentagon has only 70 requests for reimbursement. The COs have probably been told to keep the number to an absolute minimum or given X amount they can approve (in order not to strain the DoD’s budget) or even the amount is taken out of THEIR budget.
OCSteve
Maybe there just are not that many that meet the criteria:
Many of the stories circulated revolved around members purchasing it before they even deployed. That is, they had not yet been issued personal armor and as it got closer to the time to ship out they decided to take matters into their own hands. Some of that was just a feedback loop. The stories circulate, faster through the rumor mill than even the MSM, causing more people to make their own purchase, causing more stories to circulate…
You don’t get off the plane in Baghdad and head right out on patrol. There is a period of in-processing and acclimation. If the armor caught up to you before you were “engaged in imminent danger or hostile fire” then you may be SOL.
The CO approval here is mostly just confirming that you did in fact find yourself “engaged in imminent danger or hostile fire” before you had DOD issued body armor.
Hopefully this will open things up some more:
I would say that if they did not get it until the last moment when they needed it then the purchase should be justified.
In general – you would not even be allowed to use such a personal item in combat. For example, you would not be allowed to bring personal weapons on patrol just because the DOD issued M16 and 9mm suck like a Hoover.
$22,000 is a year’s pay to lower enlisted. Anybody that can possibly qualify is going to submit the paperwork. And their CO is not going to shaft them if it is justified.
The Other Steve
This didn’t come from the left. The stories of people buying their own equipment were all over the place.
I’m going to throw out an alternative theory, unsubstantiated…
Whisper campaign that says “Look, you can file for reimbursement if you want to, but we can’t guarantee you’ll get a promotion”… or some other bad consequence.
The Other Steve
Well that’s a relatively low qualification… My college Engineering Physics final exam was easier than that.
Chuck Simmins
For an overview of this issue since 2003, see my posts in the body armor category
http://blog.simmins.org/index.php/category/military/body-armor/
No United States military personnel went in to Iraq or Afghanistan without body armor. The issue is that this is the first war where all military personnel are “required” to have top of the line body armor regardless of their duties or station. It is also the first war where all vehicles are “required” to be armored regardless of their duties or station.
This means that hundreds of thousands of vests have had to be purchased far sooner than planned, and issued to soldiers, sailors and Marines who would not have received these vests under the guidelines in place for a generation. The military has also been forced to armor a wide variety of vehicles that were not designed to be armored, such as fuel tankers.
The issue of body armor or armored vehicles is not a matter that should be decided by newspaper editorial staffs or Congresswomen from Rochester New York. It should be decided by the military based upon the needs cited by the commanders in the field.
The manufacture of armor, especially ceramic armor, requires strict QA. The companies who do it tend to be small and production lines limited. The Stryker armor was originally rejected due to flaws, as have several batches of armor plates for vests. QA / QI has to be far superior than for the manufacture of a toilet.
A search at the Army JAG site will find the process and procedures for reimbursement. A price list is also available on the site, and reimbursement is limited in dollar terms. The Dragon Skin armor retails at $4800, far above the costs of the Interceptor armor, and well above the reimbursement prices.
The physics behind armor, vest or vehicle, reveals that no armor can be made completely protective. At some point you are forced to accept a trade off between utility and protection. At some level of force / energy, any given piece of armored vest or vehicle will lose its ability to dissipate the force without injury to what’s inside the armor. Get hit with something moving fast enough or something big enough, and the force is transferred to the wearer or the vehicle despite the armor.
This issue is merely another way to oppose the war in Iraq. It never came up in Kosovo, Somalia or Haiti.
Patrick Lasswell
Paul Wartenberg,
Over 500,000 troops have pulled a tour in Afghanistan and Iraq. Less than 2,500 have died in both those conflicts. Odds of dying in GWoT: 2,500/500,000= 0.005. Your assertion is bad math and perpetuates a false stereotype.
Please stop putting forward this insult to the military. Our enemies don’t deserve the help.
Wickedpinto
My bet.
The guys behind the desks who have a 12lb’s of extra gear that is relatively useless to them, or at least, of a low priority for them to accomplish a mission (the tech’s, the admins etc) are lending out equipment to their buddies who are out doing patrols. OR! guys who are doing more hazardous work, are using the pog’s as a float inventory system, and the pog’s are going to the supply depot for the purposes of exchange. I think that that is the most likely answer. Rather than BUYing body armor, some intelligent mission accomplishment focused cats are doing what needs doing, and the DoD is accepting these exchanges as though they were “legal” when it is just honorable scrounging. ALWAYS a valuable skill in wartime.
If you wanna take it to very simple terms that everyone who has ever served can understand. 1/3 of my platoon had a J.O.B. inspection, one realized that his NBC cap on his canteen is screwed up. I’m NOT slated for a J.O.B. so I give my buddy my canteen with a serviceable NBC cap, and while my buddy passes his J.O.B. I take the canteen to the inven guys, and have it replaced.
Imagine that, with body armor. Thats the likeliest answer.
Pooh
Given the nature of beauracracies, I’m going to go with #4 until I know more. The armor issue is one I’ve never been on board with for a few reasons.
1. the mobility vs. protection tradeoff – the study they did is vastly unscientific – X number of torso wounds would not have died had they had ‘better armor’. But how many more would have been hit due to decreased mobility, or prolonged engagements because of degraded flexibility? How many of those would have been head or leg wounds which the additional armor would not have helped?
2. It seems to me that kewl armor would be right up Rummy’s alley given the high “Oooh. Shiny!” factor.
3. I had more, but I forgot them…
ats
A Reserve kid I know is just back from the Green Zone. He said all the soldiers place condoms over their muzzles to keep sand out (and, in a pinch, to shoot through in a hurry).
But our puritanical White House will not pay for them, however, lest they be used for . . . . . eek! good heavens!
ats
A Reserve kid I know is just back from the Green Zone. He said all the soldiers place condoms over their muzzles to keep sand out (and, in a pinch, to shoot through in a hurry).
But our puritanical White House will not pay for them, however, lest they be used for . . . . . eek! good heavens!
Steve
Yeah, exactly. Troop levels are also an issue that should be decided by the commanders in the field. But it didn’t exactly work out that way, did it?
The problem is that the needs of the commanders in the field are typically secondary to the wishes of the politicians and the procurement folks who sign the contracts. That’s why the media and the traitorous libs sometimes need to get involved.
RTO Trainer
At least part of teh answer is that the reimbursement has a maximum ($1400?, IIRC). Anoteh factor is that on reimbursement, the armor you have been reimbursed for is no longer your own, it’s Uncle Sam’s, you turn it over.
In essence the military is buying back the body armor, but not necessarily at cost.
You going to take that deal on a set of Dragon Skin you paid $5K for?
And the “If you wear Dragon Skin and die your insurance might not pay off” story is bunk: http://www.insurance.va.gov/sgliSite/SGLI/mythsRumors.htm
RTO Trainer
Yeah it did. Why do you think otherwise?
Wickedpinto
Steve? if you can validate that argument by using a general who’s name isn’t shinzeki or however you spell it, then it might be a statement, but to use that arbitrary statement as a proof of fact is silly.
Here is how the modern war machine in the US is built. Maneuver.
That pretty much says it. Right now there are political arguments about “occupiers” and “footprints” well the maneuver and combined armes aspect of our current fighting forces is highly efficient in terms of battlefield success, and it is also a way to NOT be occupiers. At worst we are very scary “residents” not occupiers.
So Which is it? should we have 300K military troops in iraq giving off the impression that we are occupiers, and with the larger, more condensced nature of a large military force, we will also have more US casualties, also we are likely to have more “collateral” incidents because of the common nature of the US presense with 300K troops on the ground. . . . . . Is that what you want?
Or do you want a smaller foot print, to allow the Iraqi’s to stand up on their own without the oppressive foot of the US military standing on their neck? A small support force that can help the Iraqi’s stand up and create a nation of their own?
Pick an argument, THAT is why this is such a STUPID discussion.
Are there arguments for overwhelming force? Of course, and I have no problem reading about them.
I’m more of a fan of Maneuver.
Wickedpinto
Or Steve? are you just hoping we fail at any cost?
Lee
Sorry this is not correct. I know of 2 Marines that deployed into Afghanistan without body armor. They did not participate in any operations until it was issued, but they were deployed without it.
Steve
Yes, clearly, someone who thinks the war was incompetently prosecuted must want us to “fail at any cost.” That makes a fucking lot of sense.
I don’t understand your basis for claiming that Gen. Shinseki’s opinion doesn’t count. Is he not a “real” general? He was the Army chief of staff, for the love of God, and he made his statements openly to Congress. Word has since emerged that Colin Powell and Paul Bremer both urged the administration to send more troops.
The evident fact is that the administration wanted to sell this war as something that would be cheap and easy and require no sacrifice on the part of the average American. That’s why we, mind-bogglingly, somehow have tax cuts in the middle of a trillion-dollar war. That’s why the politicians vetoed any request for more troops – because ramping things up, maybe requiring a draft, would have been too much sacrifice to ask for. The American people never would have gone for it, not for a war whose basis was so dubious in the first place. So the politicians make their decisions for political reasons, commanders like Gen. Shinseki get ignored, and military objectives go unfulfilled.
I don’t know why I waste my time making this case, because it’s obvious you’re nothing but a useless little Bushbot who will defend whatever decision the administration makes to the death. If they sent more troops, you’d be cheering them on. If they sent fewer troops, hey, we’re just “keeping our oppressive foot off their neck”! If we fail in Iraq, it won’t be because of people like me who ask questions, it will be because of people like you who refuse to.
The Other Steve
That would be true if this were a War of Necessity.
But it’s a War of Choice, as such the American people have a say in to how it is fought.
Hence why Democracies shouldn’t fight Wars of Choice.
Wickedpinto
Steve?
I apologize, I shouldn’t have risen to your bait, this should have been about the body armor. Since I’ve already screwed up. I’m gonna ask one question.
You said “commanders” plural, like shinseki.
Give me a name, that would rationalize your use of the plural.
Wickedpinto
Aside from disagreeing with you, I must also say. I shouldn’t have jumped right to the “lose at any cost” line. It was inflamatory, and I shouldn’t have done that so quickly.
RTO Trainer
And none of the three names cited, Shinseki, Powell, or Bremmer were commanders in the field.
Show me a veto. Heck, show me a request from a commander in the field. And, regardless of the circumstances, a draft, as a practical matter, is nigh impossible.
What military objective was not fulfilled?
The Real Steve
Other Steve said-
Whisper campaign that says “Look, you can file for reimbursement if you want to, but we can’t guarantee you’ll get a promotion”… or some other bad consequence.
You just don’t have a clue do you?
Sadly for you the military isn’t completely run like a private company.
Take a look at the rank insignias of the current soldiers in the mideast. You won’t find that many E-1’s. (you do know what an E-1 is don’t you)
It takes just as much effort and paperwork to keep someone back as it does to promote them. Regardless of your Hollywood interpretation, for the most part the members of the armed services look out for each other. They have to, their lives depend on each other. Someone playing the game that you suggest would not last very long.
Jason Van Steenwyk
I am currently assigned as a company commander. I can categorically state that no guidance, written or unwritten, was issued to limit the number of applicants for reimbursement.
I can also categorically state that my entire battalion, the 1-124th infantry, did, in fact, deploy to Iraq without body armor, and engaged in combat operations from early May through most or all of June 2003 before we received the modern SAPI plates.
I can also categorically state that I do not know a single soldier who bought his own body armor. That phenomenon was VASTLY overreported.
A lot of guys spent their own money on these high-speed, 200 dollar rucksacks. But that was a colossal waste of money. For other patrolling equipment, we were generally able to contract to get pretty much everything we wanted. It doesn’t surprise me that the number of troops actually putting in for the reimbursement is low.
Maybe you guys should conjecture a little less, hmmm?
ET
Much like rebates offered by manufacturers of TV, washing machines, computers etc. – reimbursing for combat equipment is like jumping throught hoops on one foot while rubbing yor tummy and patting your head and then landing in the exact proscribed position in the designated spot.
Plan for a run on the bank but make is so difficult no one can qualify and then talk about how soldiers aren’t filing for reinbursement. You can claim you offered while giving little money back.
Jill
The Pentagon lies and is untrustworthy.
TBone
Jason,
Just a note for the uninitiated. 1-124th is a Florida National Guard unit, not an active duty unit. I don’t know of any active duty infantry guys that didn’t have at least the “Ranger Body Armor” (RBA); which was upgraded to the Interceptor or other SAPI systems. The Guard was not adequately prepared; where was your State’s Commanding General on this?
I think your experience was the exception, not the rule. I know the supply system is silly sometimes, but your experience was ridiculous.
Note to others: Jason’s blog has a good post on his experience with body armor. Check it out.
Jason Van Steenwyk
Once we were activated, the state had nothing to do with it. Providing SAPI armor to deploying troops was always a federal responsibility, not a state one.
Rather, the delay in issuing the armor was a result of a dispute between CENTCOM and FORSCOM – both 4 star commands on the active duty side.
CENTCOM insisted, through a subsidiary headquarters (CFLCC) that it was the mobilization station’s responsibility to provide the armor. FORSCOM, or Forces Command, runs the mobilization stations, and their position was that we were under the control of CENTCOM, once we departed for overseas, and they had nothing to do with it.
It took a while to get that sorted out. Meanwhile we were getting shot at in Ramadi.
Everyone in country had been issued the plates by September or so of that year, minus contractors and translators, who probably would have had to talk to their employers. The army doesn’t equip contractors, generally.
My point is that those who insist there was never a problem are wrong. As are those who vastly overstate the problems that now exist. Both sides have become uncoupled from the facts in order to serve a political agenda.
This ignorant speculation about how soldiers will be dissuaded from getting promoted if they apply is a particularly obnoxious load of crap, though. That’s all it is – speculation from those who are egregiously uninformed.
All enlisted promotions below E-9 are approved at brigade level or below. E-1s through E-4s are handled at company level and below. E-5s and E-6s are handled at battalion level, but based entirely on EPS scores that they receive at the company level.
The company commanders and First Sergeants are the key players here, throughout the Army. And we deployed along with everyone else, and we wouldn’t stand for any attempt to intimidate soldiers from applying if they would legitimately qualify.
To insinuate otherwise belies a deep ignorance of the subject, and is furthermore insulting.
On the other hand, deep-seated ignorance doesn’t seem to dissuade a lot of people on this board.
Wickedpinto
RTO made my point. Thank you RTO for being a thoughtful individual.
I did mock shinseki, or rather, the arbitrary USE of shinseki as PROOF! that our civilian leadership ignored the desires of the uniformed forces.
And my retraction wasn’t an apology, I have no doubt that steve has no clue of anything that he is talking about, only repeating arguments that date back to the day after aggressive action began. I was apologizing for my own lack of discipline to give reasonable response to my own opinions. I was VERY wrong in that. and everyone, even if some of you might agree with my poorly made point, I appologize, because I painted myself as a farcical partisan fool, which I most definately am not.
Thank you NRO, for being able to say what I meant, and also, I am ESPECIALLY appologetic to you NRO because my gut response built on irritation and anger might have made you look worse.
Jason Van Steenwyk
Well, Shinseki was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Good Hawai’i man. :-)
But the CJCS’s role is advisory and administrative only. He doesn’t command anything. The nine unified combat commands like CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM, Space Command, Transportation Command, etc., report directly to the Secretary of Defense. They do NOT report to the Chief of Staff of the Army, the CNO, the Chairman of the JCS, or anyone else.
The CENTCOM commander in 2001-2003 was General Tommy Franks. Nobody else. (Well, until General Abinazaid took over.)
Even if a commander did want more troops, though, you can’t always give them everything under the sun. Most of the time, asking a commander if he wants more guys is like asking an alcoholic if he could use another drink.