Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

■"Don't add to armor, some soldiers say: Troops complain that protective gear is heavy and restricts their movement," by Ryan Lenz (Associated Press), Indianapolis Star, 8 January 2006, p. A13.

The Pentagon study looks at 93 fatal wounds in Iraq from March 03 to July 05, and it decided that in 74 of the cases, armor with more coverage over the body would have made a difference.

Thus the logic implied is "the bigger the armor coverage, the more lives saved."

Makes sense at first blush, until you talk to soldiers who say the gear they wear is already too constricting. Of course there is the usual fatalism of soldiers talking here: as one puts it, "You can slap body armor on all you want, but it's not going to help anything. When it's your time, it's your time. Second Lt. Josh Suthoff says he'd wear less if his superiors would let them.

So it's a trade that probably doesn't make sense to people who haven't worn the gear in combat.

I've always wondered why so many NFL receivers and defensive backs go without knee pads I mean, why risk the career-ending injury? But when you ask them, they'll tell you straight up they'll take the mobility and speed edge over the safety.

This story reminds me of what Rumsfeld told me on such equipment shortages and weaknesses. He basically said, stuff doesn't win it for you, or keep you aive. Better tactics do, because as soon as you get better gear in this Global War on Terrorism, you can expect our enemies to figure new ways around them.

The key is not our stuff, or our technology, but our capacity to learn and change, PLUS all that stuff and technology.

But the latter never substitutes for the former in Fourth Generation Warfare, a point I will never argue with the 4GWers.

And that's the sort of thrust I was working on in the Esquire piece Mark and I edit this week (he turned in his edited first copy draft to the production crew today; we wil be editing various "passes" between now and Thursday late per his latest estimate).