More and more body armor isn't the answer.

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Bud Lang For The Register-Guard

Many Americans have been complaining about a so-called lack of proper body armor for our troops fighting on foreign soil, especially in Iraq, and the high casualty rate that seemingly is the result. Evidently in response, the Pentagon announced (Register-Guard, Jan. 12) that it would be sending 230,000 side-protecting armor inserts to Iraq.

A better solution would be to interdict the weaponry that makes body armor necessary in the first place.

Many of our soldiers have been balking at the thought of having to wear more armor. Why? American fighting men and women are burdened with carrying not only large backpacks, but fighting under conditions most have never experienced. They are fighting an ``invisible'' enemy, an enemy who doesn't wear a uniform - an enemy who drives up to a checkpoint and then blows himself, and our troops, to pieces. Summer temperatures of 120 to 130 degrees also turn our fighting men against carrying more weight.

Finally, the armor they are wearing, while covering their back and chest areas, is often very uncomfortable, for the simple reason that it doesn't come in a wide variety of sizes and does not conform to every body shape. These are some of the conditions that making fighting dangerous.

I would like to clear the air on the subject of soft body armor - a product many call "bulletproof vests," modern versions of which our personnel are wearing. First of all, let's do away with the term bulletproof vest.

Richard Davis created a company called Second Chance Body Armor Inc. in the early 1970s. He developed what was known as a ballistic nylon vest containing layers of Kevlar, a material somewhat like fiberglass cloth, designed for use by law enforcement and security personnel.

Each vest contained a specific number of Kevlar panels. The more panels, the more protection afforded, and the heavier the vest. While the heavier vests were hot and uncomfortable, they did provide protection.

Most of these vests would stop handgun projectiles. Naturally, vests that might stop a low-velocity, small-caliber projectile would fail when it came to a high-velocity round. That's when more layers of Kevlar came in. And more weight.

Rifle projectiles were a different matter. So Davis and other manufacturers developed trauma, or ballistic, plates that would stop many of these high-speed, pointed projectiles. Many law enforcement personnel owe their lives to these products. Soft body armor protects the chest and back, not the sides or lower abdomen. It appears that the aid the Pentagon is reportedly sending is heavy armor plating to protect the sides of our combat troops' chests.

While body armor developed for both law enforcement and military personnel is outstanding, it's not always user-friendly. It doesn't come in a dozen different sizes and doesn't conform to all body shapes. It is stiff and hot, and while it may "fit" some people, for the majority of our troops it is probably uncomfortable. How can anyone fight a war when the equipment you're wearing or carrying is doing its best to hamper your actions, and makes life itself so miserable?

In no other war have our soldiers been faced with defending themselves against point-blank rocket propelled grenades and other high explosives. Just as armored Humvees and other military vehicles cannot be protected against roadside or buried explosives, neither can our troops. No amount of body armor will protect them completely under these conditions. But we have to do something, and if the armor will protect some or all of our personnel, we must supply it.

While the so-called insurgents (I call them murderers, as they indiscriminately kill civilians, including women and children) reportedly acquired many of their weapons and explosives from stockpiles accumulated by Saddam Hussein, they are certainly being supplied by foreign-based jihadi and terrorist organizations by way of Syria.

One step our government might take is to encourage all other governments to inform Syria and like nations to cease supplying terrorists in any other country or face serious sanctions from the free world. Sanctions? Yes - like no ships, motor vehicles or aircraft will be permitted to enter or leave their countries.

We don't have to threaten them with an invasion. We don't need another war. But we must protect our people, civilians and military alike. Period! If we deny lethal weaponry to the insurgents, then the question of better body armor for our fighting men is moot.

Bud Lang of Eugene served in the U.S. Navy as an aviation ordnanceman and has worked for a variety of firearms magazines in the United States and Europe. He has tested all types of handgun and rifle ammunition, as well as soft body armor used by law enforcement personnel.