2
Body Armor: Saving and Destroying Lives
By James Goodrow Jr.
LBS 492
Dr. Luckie
12/11/05
On March 20, 2003, explosions were seen and heard throughout Baghdad, the capitol of Iraq. It was the beginning of the war in Iraq. After the attacks by Saudi terrorists on New York City and Washington DC, President George W. Bush and his administration had set their sights on Iraq. This war has been going on ever since, and seems as if it will have many similarities to the Vietnam War. In both wars, the American public showed great support in the beginning. As time dragged on, though, this support began to diminish. Even the fighting styles of the enemies bare many resemblances.
One important difference of these two wars is body armor used by the military. The flak jackets used in Vietnam were 25 pounds compared to the 16.4 pounds of the new Interceptor body armor used in Iraq (Labbe, 2003). This new armor may only be a third lighter, but that is significant. Interceptor body armor can also protect soldiers far better than the previous flak jackets (Labbe, 2003). This new armor means less and less critical wounds to the chest, stomach, and back, but what about the limbs? This is the problem faced with new body armor. Instead of lives lost, limbs are lost. Thousands more are being wounded and sent home maimed. Sure it is great that life is saved, but few consider the life that ensues after soldiers are sent home with their new handicap.
The U.S. military’s new Interceptor body armor has saved countless lives since the beginning of the war in Iraq. It is so strong it can even stop a bullet from an AK-47 traveling at 2,750 feet per second (Labbe, 2003). The horrible fact surrounding these new vests is that the U.S. started the war in Iraq without enough to supply all of its soldiers. The Army decided only to supply the armor to dismounted combat soldiers at the beginning of the war. Many families of these soldiers were shocked and could not allow their sons and daughters to go without the best, so many actually bought the new armor and sent it to their soldier in Iraq. These are not cheap either. They go at about $1,500 dollars a piece (Labbe, 2003). Not only did these families have to worry for their soldier’s life, but now they had to spend their own money on something that should be readily supplied by the U.S. army. It was said best by Senator John W. Warner, this is “totally unacceptable” (Labbe, 2003). It wasn’t until June of 2004 that every soldier in Iraq was reported to have Interceptor body armor (Associated Press, 2004). Some 835 soldiers had died up until this point in the war (Pike, 2000-2005). Who knows how many of these lives could have been saved.
Wounds to the chest, stomach, and back are being prevented by the new body armor, but what about the face and extremities? Serious injuries to the extremities are creating a large number of amputees, but many doctors are not complaining. They are very glad to see the survival rate increase significantly. Most soldiers in the past would also get hit in the chest, stomach, or head and would never even reach a doctor of the battlefield before they died (Labbe, 2003). To understand how effective this armor is, as of mid-November 2005, only twelve percent of the total number of people wounded were killed. That means 88 percent have had their lives spared (Pike, 2000-2005). This is compared to the Vietnam War where 28 percent of those wounded were killed (Murphy, 2005). Without this new armor, chances are that more than 4000 soldiers would be dead by now. With it only a little over 2000 have been killed.
Soldiers in this war face many obstacles, not only physical, but also mental.
They are vulnerable to stress, adversity, and trauma on the battlefield that may result in chronic mental health problems. The worst of these diseases is chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, otherwise known as PTSD. This disease has a negative effect on the soldier’s relationships, work, and self-care. The estimated risk for PTSD has been estimated to be at about eighteen percent. Although combat exposure and the risk of PTSD are highly associated, it is not the only source of stress, conflict, and danger in war (Litz, 2005).
Unlike other wars, there is no safe place or duty. Everything around them is a potential threat. The enemy hides in buildings, in cars, disguise themselves as civilians, and even set traps and mines. The rules of engagement can be very constraining, and when you are having trouble distinguishing civilians and enemies apart, it takes its toll on your thoughts. Not only do soldiers have to keep this all straight in their heads, but they also must do everything they can to not cause any collateral damage to civilians. All these factors, and more, cause an excessive production of stress factors. All this helps increase the rate of PTSD in soldiers (Litz, 2005).
Another side of the war in Iraq that increases the rate of PTSD is the ratio of wounded to killed-in-action. This ratio is higher than in any other American war. This means that not only are soldiers thinking about being maimed for life, but they are also witnessing their friends and comrades suffer from their wounds. Almost nine out of every ten soldiers report knowing someone that was serious injured or killed, more than six of out ten said they saw dead or seriously injured Americans, and more than one our of two soldiers have handled or uncovered human remains. Witnessing all this violence and death has been shown to increase risk for PTSD, anger and aggressive behavior, and anxiety among other things. Causing and/or witnessing civilian suffering also shows a great increase in the risk of PTSD. Almost three out of ten soldiers say they have been responsible for the death of a civilian (Litz, 2005).
Wounded soldiers coming back from Iraq not only have to deal with all of these effects on their mental stability, but many are also running into problems financially. The Army’s pay system is not very organized, and many wounded soldiers get lost in it. Some may be listed as absent without leave, or AWOL, and their pay is then cut off. The reason they do this is they know that if the soldier is still out there, they will come to complain. A problem with this is if a soldier is in a coma, which has happened. They obviously can’t stop it and their families could go weeks or even months without pay. This problem must be solved because now the wounded not only have to begin learning to cope with their new physical disability, but now they have to deal with major financial problems (Barnes, 2005).
In an audit conducted in 2005, 82 percent of soldiers in one division alone had “significant errors” in their paychecks (Barnes, 2005). This is totally unacceptable. These soldiers are putting their lives on the line and losing money over it. Soldiers are sometimes overpaid as well. This occurs because they are paid for overseas cost of living and even get raises, but when they return home wounded, this pay is cut. If the rate of payment isn’t corrected, then the soldier continues to get more money then they should be. Eventually the Army finds the mistake and actually docks further payment until they catch up (Barnes, 2005). This can have a horrible effect on a family that is living
paycheck by paycheck. As one soldier said, the worst thing about losing his leg wasn’t losing it, but all the bureaucracy he dealt with afterwards (Barnes, 2005).
Another problem that wounded soldiers have to deal with is their new physical disability. They have to begin new lives. They can no longer do many things that we all take for granted every day. It depends on the type of wound, but they all have life changing effects on the soldier. Many now have to rely on others to help them with even little things like preparing a meal, eating a meal, getting from room to room, taking a shower, getting dressed, and maybe even going to the bathroom. Life certainly is not easy after you put your life on the line for your country and come back maimed. These soldiers were trained to take care of themselves even in the worst of conditions, and now they have to be one hundred percent reliable on others to get around. This can also have a negative effect mentally and help increase risk of PTSD (Litz, 2005).
The new war in Iraq has certainly shown a new face of battle. There are no longer large battlefields where two sides line up to take each other on. Instead the war takes place within cities, buildings, and on the street. It has also given us a new perspective on body armor. It has proven to be very effective and saved thousands of lives and will continue to do so. A new horror of war has now reared its ugly head. Thousands of maimed and wounded soldiers are now returning home. They have to start all over again when they return. They must go through many hardships before, during, and after the war. These soldiers are beaten up mentally, physically, and even financially. They must learn to cope with civilian life after seeing horrid things that no human being on the face of this earth should see. They must adjust mentally to maintain healthy relationships with family and friends and also take care of themselves. On top of all of this they must learn to rely on others on a daily basis. All of these things are tough for anyone to go through. They must overcome these challenges so that the body armor that saved lives does not also prove to destroy that life in the long run.
Bibliography:
Associated Press, June 8, 2004. http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_armor_060804,00.html
Labbe, Theola, and Vernon Loeb, 2003. http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000971.asp?cp1=1
Pike, John, 2000-2005. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
Barnes, Julian E., and Alex Kingsbury, October 24, 2005. http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1936&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Murphy, Dan. October 26, 2005. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1026/p07s01-woiq.html
Litz, Brett T. 2005. http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/facts/veterans/fs_Iraq-Afghanistan_wars.html