WASHINGTON - Nearly a year after Congress demanded action, the Pentagon has still failed to figure out a way to reimburse soldiers for body armor and equipment they purchased to better protect themselves while serving in Iraq.
Soldiers and their parents are still spending hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars for armor they say the military won"t provide. One U.S. senator said Wednesday he will try again to force the Pentagon to obey the reimbursement law it opposed from the outset and has so far not implemented.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said he will offer amendments to the defense appropriations bill working its way through Congress, to take the funding issue out of the hands of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and give control to military unit commanders in the field.
"Rumsfeld is violating the law," Dodd said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It"s been sitting on the books for over a year. They were opposed to it. It was insulting to them. I"m sorry that"s how they felt."
Pentagon spokeswoman Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke said the department "is in the final stages of putting a reimbursement program together and it is expected to be operating soon." But defense officials would not discuss the reason for the delay.
Krenke said the Pentagon"s first priority is to ensure that soldiers "have all they need to fight and win this nation"s wars."
Others don"t see it that way. 'Not good enough'
"Your expectation is that when you are sent to war, that our government does everything they can do to protect the lives of our people, and anything less than that is not good enough," said a former Marine who spent nearly $1,000 two weeks ago to buy lower-body armor for his son, a Marine serving in Fallujah.
The father asked that he be identified only by his first name " Gordon " because he is afraid of retribution against his son.
"I wouldn"t have cared if it cost us $10,000 to protect our son, I would do it," said Gordon. "But I think the U.S. has an obligation to make sure they have this equipment and to reimburse for it. I just don"t support Donald Rumsfeld"s idea of going to war with what you have, not what you want. You go to war prepared, and you don"t go to war until you are prepared."
Under the law passed by Congress last October, the Defense Department had until Feb. 25 to develop regulations for the reimbursement, which is limited to $1,100 per item. Pentagon officials opposed the reimbursement idea, calling it "an unmanageable precedent that will saddle the DOD with an open-ended financial burden."
In a letter to Dodd in late April, David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel, said his office was developing regulations to implement the reimbursement, and would be done in about 60 days. 'Serious shortages'
Soldiers and their families have reported buying everything from higher-quality protective gear to armor for their Humvees, medical supplies and even global positioning devices.
"The bottom line is that Donald Rumsfeld and the Defense Department are failing soldiers again," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Operation Truth, an advocacy group for Iraq veterans.
"It just became an accepted part of the culture. If you were National Guard or Reserve, or NCOs, noncommissioned officers, you were going to spend a lot of money out of your pocket," said Rieckhoff, who was a platoon leader with the 3rd Infantry Division and served in Iraq from the invasion in March 2003 to spring 2004. "These are bureaucratic failures, but when they make mistakes like this, guys die. There has been progress made, but we"re still seeing serious shortages."
Dodd said he is worried the Pentagon will reject most requests for reimbursement. Turning the decision over to the troop commanders will prevent that, he said, because the commanders know what their soldiers need and will make better decisions about what to reimburse.
Dodd also said he wants to eliminate the deadline included in the original law, which allowed soldiers to seek reimbursement for items bought between September 2001 and July 2004. Now, he said, he wants it to be open-ended.
"I"m tired of this, obviously they"re not getting the job done," said Dodd. "If you have to go out and buy equipment to protect yourself, you"re going to get reimbursed."
function readCookie(ck){var anyCookies=document.cookie;var pos=anyCookies.indexOf(ck.toUpperCase()+"=");var value="";if(pos != -1){var start=pos + ck.length + 1;var end=anyCookies.indexOf(";",start);if(end == -1){end=anyCookies.length;}value=anyCookies.substri ng(start,end);value=unescape(value);}return value;}
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
I keep seeing these reports of soldiers who are buying their own body armour, but I wonder how widespread these cases are? My brother has been in Iraq for nearly a year now, and while his unit did have to use scrap metal to up-armour their vehicles, they have not had to purchase items for their personal protection. I also have a friend in the U.S. Army who just returned from Iraq and he didn't have to purchase anything, either.
I'm not saying there is a justification for ANY soldier having to purchase their own protection items, no matter how few they may be; there isn't. But there are some who would have us believe that the administration's connections with Haliburton result in the private contractor being reimbursed fully while our troops are largely ignored and I have to wonder about the validity of that.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
I'd want to know how widespread this is also BUT the gov't should reimburse the soldiers for privately purchased body armor. That is a reasonable item to reimburse soldiers for and especially so since congress has provided funding to do just that.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
The problem is economics. A lot of soldiers can be fielded if there is not a lot of expense in fielding them. The more equipment is added, the smaller the number of soldiers can be fielded at any one time. The government has to try to find the optimal amount of armor and the optimal amount of soldiers that can be fielded given financial constraints.
Also, everyone currently in the military is there of their own free will. They knew the hazards of the job when they decided to accept the pay.
__________________
You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride!
I meant no offense by that Ben , I was merely pointing out that body armor for the soldiers may not even be on their Basic Equipment List yet , perhaps a current Army service member could clarify ? If it isn't on the BEL it usually isn't issued for general use .
When I served I had to purchase my own uniforms , among many other things , and I was never offered compensation . If the DOD is in fact guilty of breaking an agreement that's legally binding then I agree that they should pony up , but if the armor is not standard issue should the Army be required to reimburse those who buy their own in the first place ?
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
Soldiers still buying their own body armour??
