Why would this Administration prohibit our kids wearing protective gear?

[shance]

They say because it may not be up to standards? They are not providing proper gear to begin with. This is an obvious no-win situation for the troops who are now sitting ducks. How is that in any way sensible? First they send them to a country to perpetuate a war that was all a lie to begin with, and now they are intentionally making them more vulnerable to being killed?

How can one look at this logically when there is no logic in the equation? Is it an effort to destroy our military? They are intentionally, by disallowing troops proper protection, making our kids more vulnerable to death and injury. How can that be anything other than intentional malevolence?

Is it also true the troops are being told that IF they were "private" protective gear, and if they just happen to die, their families will not receive any death benefits?

I don't even know how to comprehend this. Like everything else it appears to be another assault on America, our power as a Democracy, and to make the troops more vulnerable, and in the end everyone else in this nation.

[JeffR]

1. Couple this policy with the other one discussed here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2200234

And you have to wonder if the Joint Chiefs aren't actually hoping the insurgents prevail.

[Lerkfish]

2. cannon fodder to them

[Richard D]

3. Because it glaringly points out . . .

. . . that what is being provided isn't any good. Imagine a situation where a squad was attacked and those with private protective gear survived, those with government issue didn't? Legal ramifications as well.

[DBoon]

4. It makes them look bad

and for this administration, PR is more important than human lives

[shance]

5. Are you saying they want bad PR?

This seems much more than bad PR to me.

:shrug:

[DBoon]

7. Having soldiers buy their own armor makes the DoD look cheap

and incompetent.

If soldiers no longer buy their own armor, then the problem is solved.

I know it really doesn't make sense, but I'm trying to think like * here

[newspeak]

6. well, since the administration's friends

sold the defective gear--maybe they are protecting their "friends" from being sued by soldiers for said defective gear. It's not about protecting the soldiers, but protecting corrupt war profiteer's pocketbook.