Am glad you have your armor. And I know it restricts mobility, is hot, and contributes to fatigue. I had a hard time keeping my troops in the old style flak vests in Vietnam when I was a company commander there. But I'm glad to see soldiers wearing them in Iraq.

In those days the flak vests stopped flak, sometimes, but not bullets. And the steel pots weren't kevlar, either. Now, with the ceramic plates, there's a good chance to stop a round. But the truth is, the kevlar without the plates may not stop a bullet. It depends on the bullet, how far away it was fired, the angle it strikes, and so on. And some of the plates apparently work for only the first round - I'm told that they shatter upon impact. And the plates don't cover the full frontal area.

So that's what the dispute is about.

Should troops have the best armor, that which has the best chance of stopping a bullet, or just the old style stuff. The difference in cost might be several hundred dollars. Which, of course, is nothing. Nada. Not in a $400 billion dollar defense budget, and not even if you multiply this by a million so every soldier and Marine can have it.

As you indicate in your email, the armor might not stop bullets. But it could. It could. It could save your life, or your friends lives, if the country cares enough to give you the very best.

So please understand there are lots of us who want to help. We're trying to support you. And your chain of command. It's just that we know how "it works.". And if we don't make a bigger fuss, some of you guys over there will die, when you didn't have to.

By the way, I've gotten lots of letters from parents and others who do think there's a need to raise an outcry. I want you guys to win, and to come back alive and whole. And so I'm going to contiinue to speak out. And I'll always appreciate hearing from you.

With respect and appreciation,

Wes Clark