Dragon Skin Controversy Continues

Dragon Skin Backers Hammered on Hill, according to military.com:

In testimony submitted to the House Armed Services Committee during a June 6 hearing in the issue, Coyle stated Dragon Skin - manufactured by Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor - was "better … against multiple rounds and in reducing blunt force trauma" than the Army's current rifle-resistant Interceptor armor.

But after being confronted with conflicting information by lawmakers who questioned the NBC test results and provided Army-supplied data of vest failures from a May 2006 test, Coyle backed away from his staunch defense of Dragon Skin.

This hearing highlights one significant aspect of the present controversy over troop equipment and shortages. While Congressmen and women raise a stink about a lack of proper supplies to the troops, here at home we cannot even decide what to send over. The issue over body armor draws some parallels to the dispute over armored vehicles. Should existing humvee's be reinforced? If so, how many? Should newly developed MRAP's be sent as fast as we can make them? If so, which one's?

As I've pointed out before, many reports from the troops place most of the blame squarely on one thing: Bureaucratic red tape.