The directive applied to any non-government-issue armor, not just Dragon Skin , and it came from very high up:



The soldier said the order came down Friday morning from Headquarters, United States Special Operations Command (HQ, USSOCOM), located at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.



But evidently what's good for the goose (grunt) is not good for the gander (brass):

Currently nine U.S. generals stationed in Afghanistan are reportedly wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin body armor, according to company spokesman Paul Chopra. Chopra, a retired Army chief warrant officer and 20+-year pilot in the famed 160th "Nightstalkers" Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), said his company was merely told the generals wanted to "evaluate" the body armor in a combat environment.

It's pretty well understood among active service personnel that the Interceptor and Second Chance body armor issued by the Pentagon for our soldiers is sorely lacking. These soldiers are the ultimate "motivated consumers" when it comes to wanting a product that works well in real-life situations. Throughout the literature, one can find many reports of the operational superiority of Dragon Skin over the government-issue Interceptor and Second Chance armors. This article in Defense Review, and this transcript of a PBS story are just two examples; a quick Googling of "dragon skin body armor" will pick up more.

Those inside the defense community closest to the soldiers on the ground have been talking for some time about alternatives to the woefully inadequate armor supplied to our troops. This article posted on NavySEALS.com says, regarding the standard-issue Interceptor armor that has proven defective,



As good as Interceptor armor is, numerous experts concluded, it is far less capable than another product sold on the open market.



- meaning, Dragon Skin.

What are some of the problems with Interceptor? Well, for starters,



The so-called SAPI (Small Arms Protective Inserts) used in the Interceptor system are too fragile and incur about a 60% loss/replacement rate in the field because the design is inherently brittle and fractures when dropped or slammed into solid objects such as the ground.



"Solid objects such as the ground"???? Well, thank goodness soldiers would never come into contact with a solid object such as the ground.

Plus, the stuff doesn't allow the wearer much in the way of mobility. Think of it as the difference between a medieval knight wearing a suit of armor (Interceptor) and one wearing chain mail (Dragon Skin). To the soldier literally on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan, that's a vital consideration. That's why these soldiers are willing to lay out $5,000 to $6,000 of their own money for this equipment.

So - given that the Pentagon has been incompetent enough not to provide our combat troops with the best armor available - which in and of itself is inexcusable - why in the world would the U.S. military forbid our troops from supplying themselves with the best, most life-protective gear they can find?

The answer is not as glib as Rumsfeld's callous, "You go to war with the army you have." After reading the Soldiers for the Truth article, I did what I often do when it comes to the Bush administration: I asked myself, "Whenever something totally irrational threatens the safety of U.S. citizens, what is the underlying reason?" And, of course, the answer is simple: money.

Here's a graph of the stock performance of Armor Holdings, Inc., the company that has the exclusive contract to supply body armor to the Army and Marines (NYSE trading symbol: AH), over the past three years, since the start of the Iraq war:

Not bad, huh?

Now, if you had to hazard a guess as to who owns almost 6% of the shares of Armor Holdings, Inc. - shares with a current market value of $88,000,000.00 - who would you guess? Maayybeeee - a company owned by a top Republican campaign donor?

DING-DING-DING-DING DING!!!

What do we have for 'em, Johnny? Yes, that's right - you've won confirmation of your belief that the military procurement system in the U.S. armed forces is RIFE WITH CORRUPTION!!

Yep, it turns out that the company that has the exclusive contract to supply body armor to the Army and Marines is home to a very heavy-hitting Republican campaign donor. Foster Friess, individually and through various family members, has contributed more than $575,000 to Republicans in the previous three campaign cycles, and has chunked in $51,000 so far for 2006.

That $88,000,000 in Armor Holdings stock held by Friess Associates LLC? Before the Iraq war began, it would have been worth about $30,000,000. No wonder he's throwing money the Republicans' way.

I would like to believe that the fact that our soldiers have been forbidden from buying or wearing non-standard-issue body armor that will save their lives, has nothing to do with any of this. But I'm having a hard time shaking the thought.

UPDATE: Thanks to BarbinMD for this link, from defensereview.com, with the latest in the body-armor war: