Body armor should not be optional

Among the many concerns that have been voiced about the Iraq war, questions about U.S. preparedness have been raised frequently.

Was the administration prepared to operate a conquered country once the main military action was over? Opponents have been strident in pointing out the shortcomings in America's post-war plans.

Were our soldiers' armored vehicles and Humvees safe enough to withstand roadside bombs and other insurgent attacks? At the outset, there were definite doubts, and although some progress has been made, improvements in armor for vehicles still aren't universal in Iraq.

Now a new question arises: Did inadequate body armor lead to more U.S. deaths than necessary?

According to a once-secret Pentagon study reported by The New York Times, as many as 80 percent of Marines in Iraq who died from upper-body wounds could have survived if they had better body armor.

The study looked at a random sampling of 93 fatal wounds from March 2003 through June 2005 and concluded that 74 were bullet or shrapnel wounds to shoulders or the torso that were not protected by ceramic plating.

According to the medical examiner's study: "As many as 42 percent of the Marine casualties who died from isolated torso injuries could have been prevented with improved protection in the areas surrounding the plated areas of the vest. Nearly 23 percent might have benefited from protection along the mid-axillary line of the lateral chest. Another 15 percent died from impacts through the unprotected shoulder and upper arm."

If you extrapolate those numbers to the 1,700-plus American troops who have died from hostile action in Iraq, some 300 or so lives might have been saved with better armor.

How did it come to this?

Delays in the bureaucracy, difficulties in the military procurement system and even manufacturing delays and shortages have kept the ceramic armor plates from getting to those who need them - those who are in the line of fire in Iraq.

Unfortunately, those are the same problems that have plagued the military's efforts to upgrade vehicle armor and safety.

According to The New York Times, the body armor situation got so bad at one point in fall 2003 that soldiers were hanging crotch protectors under their arms while waiting for additional protection to arrive for their sides and shoulders.

The military says it's working to upgrade the body armor, but it seems those efforts aren't nearly swift enough considering the young lives at stake.

Understandably, there's a challenge in saddling soldiers with additional armor while not sacrificing mobility. We can't expect modern troops to be bedecked head to toe with armor like medieval knights.

And simply upgrading the shields won't guarantee safety for our soldiers. If there's anything we've learned from battling insurgents in Iraq, it's that they are resourceful and adapt their tactics as we change ours.

So it's likely that even if all our troops are absolutely armored, they will still face dangers.

But if better protection is possible and can even slightly diminish the dangers to our soldiers, it should be a priority. Some congressmen are calling for hearings on the delays in providing body armor.

Our soldiers, however, don't need hearings. They need armor and they need it now.