As one who has been in a lot of humvees and has been lens-to-detonator with IEDs, I have a mixed feeling about the armor debates.

(If you want to know what I mean by lens to detonator with an IED, buy the DVD)

More armor on vehicles is great, but it is not an end solution.  As a Colonel mentor of mine used to say--seeking out, locating, closing with, capturing or killing those who manufacture, emplace and detnoate IEDs is the end solution.

When I landed in Fallujah in the spring of 2005, the humvees we fell in on were a mixed bag of from the factory up-armors and hillbilly.

On one mission I rode in a Humvee with steel saloon doors and sat on a kevlar blanket.

By the time I left, every humvee in the unit was either a from-the-factory up-armor or had the Marine Armor Kit on it and the suicide sled--an advanced version of hillbilly armor--was only used to haul stuff around base and then as spare parts.

As the Marines and Army develop new kits there will be a lag time between invention, production and deployment.

From the photos sent by Captain M.S., it is obvious even the from-the-factory up-armors have undergone an up-armoring in Iraq.  (That is a lot of armor!)

The solution is not more armor.  Armor doesn't win wars, subduing the enemy wins wars.

It would be more effective for our politicians and Editorialist to deploy their intellect to develop strategies that win wars. 

But that assumes they want to win.

---