| (Washington, D.C.) U.S. Representative Mike Ross (AR-04) plans to call for a full, unbiased, external investigation to explore whether the U.S. Army is using the most effective body armor and equipment available for our troops’ protection.
The issue at hand involves the U.S. Army’s recent testing and comparison of Pinnacle Armor’s “Dragon Skin” body armor and the Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) currently in use by the Armed Forces. This issue was brought to the attention of Ross by a constituent whose son is a member of Arkansas’s 39th Infantry Brigade, which was recently informed that they could be deployed to Iraq by the end of the year.
“I believe that it is our duty and obligation to supply our troops, who risk their lives on a daily basis, with the most advanced technology and resources available,” Ross said. “We owe it to all soldiers and their families to ensure that our troops are given the finest armor and equipment available. We must resolve this issue for our soldiers’ welfare and their families’ peace of mind.”
Ross is enlisting the support of his colleagues in House of Representatives by asking them to sign onto a bipartisan letter he plans to send to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army. Ross said that his letter will demand that the most stringent tests possible be conducted to resolve recent reports that have led many to question whether our troops are being given access to the absolute best body armor available.
In response to equipment shortages in 2005, some troops purchased equipment at their own expense, including body armor, and Congress enacted legislation to reimburse these soldiers. Months later however, the Army issued a “Safety of Use Message,” in which they prohibited the use of any body armor except for the IBA and dispelled reports that Dragon Skin was superior to the IBA, citing that Dragon Skin has failed various tests and therefore, does not meet the Army’s requirements for Soldier Body Armor protection.
“As a result of this message by the Army, if a soldier purchases and uses any armor other than the IBA, their action will be construed as though the soldier has disobeyed a direct order and could jeopardize his or her receiving Service Group Life Insurance, if killed in combat,” Ross says in the letter that he intends to send to the Pentagon. “This concerns me greatly because our combat soldiers should not be denied the use of the latest and most effective body armor, regardless of the cost involved, if it will result in the preservation of their lives.”
Military support organizations such as “Soldiers for the Truth” along with Dragon Skin manufacturer Pinnacle Armor argue that Dragon Skin did not fail any tests, stating that the testing was biased and stands behind their assertions that Dragon Skin is superior to the IBA.
Pinnacle also notes that Dragon Skin has been approved and is used by the U.S. Air Force, CIA, NSA, U.S. Department of Energy officials in Iraq, the U.S. Secret Service Presidential Protection detail, some Special Forces Units, and various police departments and SWAT teams around the nation.
“I am calling for an unbiased, external investigation to determine whether the IBA is the most effective armor available and if additional testing reveals that Dragon Skin Body Armor is, in fact, superior, then the Army should provide it to our troops,” Ross said. “My only goal is to protect our troops in harm’s way by ensuring that they receive the most advanced body armor on the market today as they carry out their mission.”
-30- |
