Body Armor reply from Soldiers for The Truth

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

As I mentioned I emailed the gentleman who wrote the piece about the body armor ban for DefenseWatch at Soldiers for The Truth, Nat Helms. He received the same message I did from the Public Affairs Officer at US SOCOM, but was unconvinced it answered the claims. I was convinced that it showed SOCOM did not have such a policy and that any subordinate commands who were making these statements would stop doing so. I believe that what they claimed probably did happen, but it is much more likely that this is an isolated incident of overactive anal-retention by some boot-licking officer who recently came over from supply and logistics. SOCOM has publicly stated that they have no such policy and I do choose to believe them. Here is the message from Mr. Helms:

Hi Uncle Jimbo,

No can do... spoke with the guys, their mother, and SOCOM hasn't "debunked"the story - their guy said... as we posted... he could not find any such order... Nor have we received from either USSOCOM or OCPA any denial or confirmation about the alleged SGLI threats - which I personally think are both unlawful and terrible if true... We have received probably a dozen or more reports since confirming both ban on armor and threats... We know eleven soldiers from the unit in question had to return their privately purchased BA and other gear. And... we have received much commentary via phones etc. confiriming similar instances in other non-SO units.... and not only Dragon Skin stuff. I suggest you call Pinnacle in Fresno, CA and ask if they had a sudden flurry of requests to return Dragon Skin and get refunds from soldiers deploying immediately. We have asked for from SOCOM and OCPA a statement refuting claims which we posted along with their responses so far. When we do receive a denial we will post it.

I will tell you the unit in question deployed last Monday. It is now in theater. We are caught between a rock and a hard place because we know all about the unit, its members, training, etc. and can't reveal any of it because of operational security... which we agreed in advance to respect.

But SOCOM damn well does. If you choose to believe them that is both your call and understandable. We don't and won't until we receive an official clarification to the contrary.

However, I will forward your note to the lady who first enlightened us and if she cares to talk she can respond. I will ask her to. She is supposedly going on a network news TV show with it so she may talk to you and then you can take it wherever you wish.

Good luck,

Nat Helms
Editor
DefenseWatch

I appreciate his response and once again ask anyone who can shed any light on this to let me know. But in my mind if there ever was an issue, it has been aired and beaten down mercilessly. SOCOM specifically stated that they did not have such a policy and that there was no threat to SGLI. No leader in our military should ever allow mindless obedience to uniformity to outweigh the safety of the troops. If someone in SOCOM did then I assume they will be shown the error of their ways, but in no way does this add to the ongoing urban myth that we are sending our soldiers into combat with nothing but a loin cloth and a sling shot. The preeminence of IEDs and therefore the need for explosion-proofing all our people and equipment is an anomaly in the history of our warfighting and we have reacted with reasonable speed in doing so. Now we have a collection of ponderous, plated behemoth vehicles and soldiers in Imperial Storm Trooper armor and the next conflict will undoubtedly be a maneuver war in open terrain rendering all those modifications useless.

The standard demanded by the press and others opposed to the war and war period is that no US or civilian casualties occur, and that all enemy be dispatched humanely. Otherwise the administration is callously sending the poor, minority kids to die for lies, without basic safety gear in order to pad Halliburton's profit margins. Our military industrial complex is far from a well-oiled machine, but the idea that it does not have the welfare of our troops at heart is an insult to all involved. No one deploys with everything they could use, but I believe we do a better job than critics give credit for in equipping, deploying and supporting our troops.

                                                         - Uncle J

---

Mission: To protect and promote the reputation and dignity of America's Warriors.
Join us!

Comments

Body Armor reply from Soldiers for The Truth

As I mentioned I emailed the gentleman who wrote the piece about the body armor ban for DefenseWatch at Soldiers for The Truth, Nat Helms. He received the same message I did from the Public Affairs Officer at US SOCOM, but was unconvinced it answered the claims. I was convinced that it showed SOCOM did not have such a policy and that any subordinate commands who were making these statements would stop doing so. I believe that what they claimed probably did happen, but it is much more likely that this is an isolated incident of overactive anal-retention by some boot-licking officer who recently came over from supply and logistics. SOCOM has publicly stated that they have no such policy and I do choose to believe them. Here is the message from Mr. Helms:

Hi Uncle Jimbo,

No can do... spoke with the guys, their mother, and SOCOM hasn't "debunked"the story - their guy said... as we posted... he could not find any such order... Nor have we received from either USSOCOM or OCPA any denial or confirmation about the alleged SGLI threats - which I personally think are both unlawful and terrible if true... We have received probably a dozen or more reports since confirming both ban on armor and threats... We know eleven soldiers from the unit in question had to return their privately purchased BA and other gear. And... we have received much commentary via phones etc. confiriming similar instances in other non-SO units.... and not only Dragon Skin stuff. I suggest you call Pinnacle in Fresno, CA and ask if they had a sudden flurry of requests to return Dragon Skin and get refunds from soldiers deploying immediately. We have asked for from SOCOM and OCPA a statement refuting claims which we posted along with their responses so far. When we do receive a denial we will post it.

I will tell you the unit in question deployed last Monday. It is now in theater. We are caught between a rock and a hard place because we know all about the unit, its members, training, etc. and can't reveal any of it because of operational security... which we agreed in advance to respect.

But SOCOM damn well does. If you choose to believe them that is both your call and understandable. We don't and won't until we receive an official clarification to the contrary.

However, I will forward your note to the lady who first enlightened us and if she cares to talk she can respond. I will ask her to. She is supposedly going on a network news TV show with it so she may talk to you and then you can take it wherever you wish.

Good luck,

Nat Helms
Editor
DefenseWatch

I appreciate his response and once again ask anyone who can shed any light on this to let me know. But in my mind if there ever was an issue, it has been aired and beaten down mercilessly. SOCOM specifically stated that they did not have such a policy and that there was no threat to SGLI. No leader in our military should ever allow mindless obedience to uniformity to outweigh the safety of the troops. If someone in SOCOM did then I assume they will be shown the error of their ways, but in no way does this add to the ongoing urban myth that we are sending our soldiers into combat with nothing but a loin cloth and a sling shot. The preeminence of IEDs and therefore the need for explosion-proofing all our people and equipment is an anomaly in the history of our warfighting and we have reacted with reasonable speed in doing so. Now we have a collection of ponderous, plated behemoth vehicles and soldiers in Imperial Storm Trooper armor and the next conflict will undoubtedly be a maneuver war in open terrain rendering all those modifications useless.

The standard demanded by the press and others opposed to the war and war period is that no US or civilian casualties occur, and that all enemy be dispatched humanely. Otherwise the administration is callously sending the poor, minority kids to die for lies, without basic safety gear in order to pad Halliburton's profit margins. Our military industrial complex is far from a well-oiled machine, but the idea that it does not have the welfare of our troops at heart is an insult to all involved. No one deploys with everything they could use, but I believe we do a better job than critics give credit for in equipping, deploying and supporting our troops.

                                                         - Uncle J

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfadb53ef00d834267d1653ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Body Armor reply from Soldiers for The Truth:

» Body Armor - from the e-mail of Prchal from Pros and Cons
Blackfive has some sort of related materials (and debunking) on body armor today here and, shortly thereafter, here. Now on to my e-mail, inspired by Michael Yon. From me today to retired airlift man: Armor is easier than a pack, even the modern inte... [Read More]