Body armor: Why soldiers are saying "no more."

Here's part of military analyst Andrew Exum's op-ed in today’s New York Times:

From 2000 until 2004, I was an infantry officer in the Army. I deployed with a light-infantry platoon to Afghanistan in 2002, then with a platoon of Army Rangers to Iraq in 2003 and back to Afghanistan in 2004.

While I can testify that soldiers usually appreciate the protection body armor gives them, the load shouldered by the average infantryman often hinders his ability to fight - especially at high altitude as in Afghanistan.

But in Iraq, as well, the "soldier's load" is often unbearable. Most studies recommend that a soldier should not be burdened with more than one-third of his body weight. But if you take a 160-pound soldier and put 40 pounds of Kevlar and body armor on him and then he picks up an automatic weapon, ammunition, water and first aid equipment, it's not long before he is carrying half his body weight - and he is then expected to run, jump and fight insurgents, themselves carrying little more than a 10-pound AK-47. All of this, of course, often takes place in 120-degree heat in the cities of Iraq.

Lost among the politicians' cries for more extensive armor for the troops is the fact that most soldiers, in my experience and based on discussions with many, feel they have enough armor already - and many feel they are increasingly being burdened with too much equipment.

Exum is saying what most soldiers now in Iraq seem to be saying: they have enough body armor. More will only make their service more dangerous while giving the enemy important advantages. It all has to do with speed, accuracy and exposure to enemy fire.

If that seems hard to understand, imagine you're a soldier in Iraq.

Your armored vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb. You managed to climb out a second or two before it was engulfed in flames. Carrying 30 extra pounds, you’d never have made it.

Yesterday, you were able to quickly shoulder your weapon and fire a split second before your enemy could. You lived; he died.

For accuracy, your shoulder-fired weapon must be held very steady. That’s tough to do, especially in combat. You know it’s going to get a lot tougher if Congress and the Pentagon decide you need to hang another 5 or 6 pounds of armor on each arm. Why can't folks back home understand that?

When you move from place to place in the open, speed is one of your best protections. It doesn't just limit the time the enemy has a clear shot at you; it limits the time he has to observe where you're going and cell-phone to others who then have some seconds to site their weapons on the corner they know you're about to turn. This time, the enemy will fire first. So he may live; and you may die.

If we can imagine some of what troops in combat face,it shouldn't be hard to understand why so many of them in Iraq are reluctant to put on more body armor.

But Senator Hillary Clinton seems to want to weigh them down with more armor.

Here's some advice for Senator Clinton: You want to be the soldiers' next Commander-in-Chief. Then listen to them when they speak about body armor.

Your deciding about body armor makes as much sense as my telling you how to organize a Hollywood fundraiser.

But if you feel you must decide about body armor, please first wear 30 pounds of it for a few weeks.

Hat tip and trackback: Michelle Malkin