The Washington Post's Mike Allen learns that body armor (but not laptops) are still in insufficient supply among the American forces in Iraq:
Posted by DeLong at December 1, 2003 04:52 PM | TrackBackPool Report on Bush's Baghdad Trip:
9:31 a.m. Washington time (5:32 p.m. local): Touched down [at Baghdad International Airport] in swift abrupt landing, but not the emergency spiral that had been prepared for. Press walked down dark stairs onto Tarmac.
10:50 a.m.: I had taken off my body armor to type, then saw a soldier I wanted to interview. I came back and my vest is gone. The laptop is still there.
"The President's manner was that of a stern father reprimanding his children, but in good humor."
Jeepers. And not a good jeepers, either.
Posted by: Nasi Lemak on December 2, 2003 02:55 AMWell, I guess some grunt's need was greater than than a pissant journalist's.
It seems amazing that this hasn't been fixed, and quickly. How long does it take to ramp up a production line?
Posted by: derrida derider on December 2, 2003 03:22 AMWhen it's Republicans in charge, and they profit from profits, not from increased production - a long, long time.
Posted by: Barry on December 2, 2003 04:05 AMJust checking -- the "pissant" comment was meant to be ironic, right?
Posted by: K Harris on December 2, 2003 05:21 AMDoes value only depend on supply? Don't we use two curves?
Posted by: Stan on December 2, 2003 07:08 AMI heard Mike Allen talk about this on c-span Friday morning. The press were given the vests and encouraged but not required to read them. Upon entering the hall with the troops, Allen recounts noticing none of them were similarly geared and feeling inhuman or too distant with the vest on... thus the taking it off and it not being there when he went back for it.
As for the supply question, a caller from Ark noted a local story about a guardsman on R&R canvassing local police etc stations for vest donations to take back to Iraq. Supply would not seem to be a problem if they wanted it solved. Is their a priority curve?
Posted by: tegwar on December 2, 2003 08:59 AMIt's just weird: I'd understand shortages of some specialized equipment, but body armor, I'd think, would be something that every fighting soldier would be equiped with (or at least have one availabe for each soldier) as soon as they finish basic training. I'd understand if, say, some equipment specially designed for Iraq were in short supply, but body armor? Isn't that a basic thing that you use in all combat situations? Why would there be combat soldiers without it, even in peacetime?
Posted by: Julian Elson on December 2, 2003 02:13 PMI rather suspect that the military supply system holds mysteries far too deep to be understood by mere civilians. Rather reliable reports abound of American soldiers using Iraqi AK-47s in combat -- with complaints that certain companies don't have enough rifles, let alone good, modern body armor.
Posted by: Ray on December 3, 2003 02:26 AM