Assuming the story is true (I am not certain what biases the site publishing the story may have), I would have to side with the military for two main reasons. First, the definition of “Better” can be very subjective. Is the armor “better” at stopping armor piercing rounds? Is that the main risk that soldiers face in Iraq? Is the armor “better” at stopping shrapnel from an Improvised Explosive Device? Ask yourself “What’s the better car, the faster car or the car that gets better gas mileage?” It depends on the situation and the requirements of that situation.
Secondly there is a huge potential for situations to occur where those that are financially well off to end up with better protection. That’s heading down a road that leads to all sorts of problems.
The complexity of the decisions being made by soldiers and commanders in Iraq is staggering. It’s easy for us to sit back in the safety of our homes and second guess everything that happens there. I don’t advocate blind support, but there are many things that the average person simply has no way of comprehending the factors involved.
__________________
Jack1.0
----------------------------------------------
I've learned to embrace my inner Geek.
I haven't found anything else I'm good at.
|