Why are we fighting this?

At my place of work, I use a solar-powered calculator with oversize buttons for my blunt fingertips. Others in my office use pocket-portable adding machines.

I schedule my appointments on Outlook. Most folks I work with still use daytimers.

I've arranged with our office manager to have remote access to my computer desktop from home, since I live a good distance away from the office, and there are times when it makes more sense to work from home than to battle in and out of mid-town Toronto. The majority of my contemporaries live within a twenty-five minute commuting radius of work, and so have no need for such an accomodation.

My employer gives me, within a broad framework, the tools I deem necessary to do my job. They'll make suggestions if I ask, and they reserve the right to refuse my choices if they're too expensive or incompatible or whatever. But by and large, I pick what I need.

Soldiers have been doing the same thing with personal kit since the first monkey hefted a big stick in his hand and thought: "Geez, that feels like the right weight to brain my neighbour with." Medieval soldiers had to balance the weight and protection of armour against the mobility and vulnerability of none. Today's soldiers (ht:MC) look at combat loads and realize there's no such thing as a perfect answer (ht:JofA).

That's why I'm amazed this story is even hitting the papers, let alone getting any legs at all (ht:ST):

"If the equipment the Armed Forces is providing for military operations is not adequate then it is up to us in the military to provide adequate equipment," O'Connor said during a tour of the Edmonton Garrison - the home base for most of the 2,200 troops serving in Afghanistan.

"There should be no case where any soldier pays out of his own pocket to buy equipment for military operations. It's unconscionable."

"No case," he says? That's rubbish:

So what's new about soldiers buying their own gear? Generally, it's not because the "army issue" is no good -- although in some instances this may certainly be the case. Canada's military history contains examples of such shoddy goods. Soldiers usually purchase a non-issue item for several reasons. The prime one is that the army, for whatever reasons, has not seen fit to buy it, but the individual nevertheless considers it to be necessary for his personal safety or comfort. I recall, for example, the days when I would gladly pay cash to a friendly Yank to purchase a sleeping bag, rather than rely on the makeshift bedrolls that we otherwise had to fashion from our regular issue of three grey wool blankets and two rubber groundsheets, which also served as our rain gear. The same went for U.S. pattern combat boots and rubber over-boots. In cold, wet weather, they were preferred over the regularly issued leather ankle boots. "Any damn fool can be uncomfortable in the field" is an adage acknowledged by all good commanders and most sergeant majors. In the interest of maintaining morale, they usually wink a blind eye to non-issue material.

That same letter by a retired Canadian Colonel points to a U.S. program that reimbursed American soldiers for up to $1,000 of personal kit purchased at their own expense. Of course, even that program isn't quite what it seems:

Army Protective Equipment Reimbursement
Between now and October 3, 2006, the Department of the Army will reimburse both current and former Soldiers who purchased body armor and certain other protective, health and safety equipment for use in Operations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom. Reimbursable equipment includes protective body armor, combat helmets, ballistic eye protection, hydration systems, summer weight gloves, and knee and elbow pads. To qualify for reimbursement, the equipment must have been purchased after September 10, 2001, and before August 1, 2004, and all equipment for which reimbursement is sought must be turned into the Army at the time a claim for reimbursement is filed. Claimants who no longer have the equipment must explain in writing why the equipment is unavailable for turn-in. Former Soldiers and survivors of deceased Soldiers may file a claim by mailing a completed DD Form 2902, along with the items noted above, directly to the U.S. Army Claims Service (USARCS) at the address provided in block 12 of the DD Form 2902. Although the claims process has been designed to ensure rapid settlement and payment of claims, potential claimants should not wait too long to file claims, as all claims must be filed by October 3, 2006. More information on the body armor and protective equipment reimbursement program - including a printable DD Form 2902 and a list of reimbursable items together with the pre-established compensation rates – can be found at https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/85256F33005C2B92/(JAGCNETDocID)/HOME?OPENDOCUMENT

A program that pays soldiers to turn in their personal kit may relieve the conscience of politicians and taxpayers who think they've underequipped their military, but it doesn't go to the root of the problem. And in my mind, the root isn't that the military isn't giving soldiers the right stuff, it's that a one-size-fits-all approach is backward in today's professional fighting force.

Oh, don't get me wrong: some standards need to apply, and not all kit can be open to negotiation. If your weapon fires some exotic species of ammo, and you can't get resupplied by your unit, that's not on. But most soldiers wouldn't ever do something that ridiculously counter-productive when it's their own tender backside on the line.

No, I'm talking about stuff like boots. The CF issues leather lace-up combat boots. They're general-purpose. If you're fighting in the cold, they're too light. If you're fighting in the heat, they're too heavy. If you're fighting in snow, they're too black. And God help you if your feet are oddly-shaped. Again, don't get me wrong: the CF bends over backwards to customize footwear. But if soldiers are out there buying their own, all it tells me is that the CF is expending a lot of useless effort that simply isn't making the grade with your average line-unit guy or gal. Save the money and effort and let the soldier decide.

Today's professional, volunteer soldier is better able to make his or her own decisions about kit than at any other time in history. I say we facilitate that evolution by providing a reasonable amount of discretionary funding (say $1,000 per person) to deploying soldiers for personal kit. If they want to upgrade from the perfectly serviceable CF boots to something better, it's up to them. If they want to purchase the latest in ballistic eyewear, it's their call. If the issued long underwear which is perfectly acceptable to the vast majority happens to chafe their private parts, off to MEC they can go.

Standardization can only take a soldier so far. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it always will be as far as I can see. So don't fight it, work with it.