The soldier's load: A response from an officer in Afghanistan who is a climber

By Lt. Lucas Enloe

Best Defense guest columnist

I can definitely understand Mr.
Woods' perspective, from a number of
levels. Having carried rucks weighing upwards of
60 pounds up mountains,
I can certainly say that it sucks. I'll admit
that I haven't done any
rucking in Afghanistan yet, where it would only
suck even more. That
said, Mr. Woods' argument that applying the
philosophy of extreme
alpinism would significantly reduce soldier
loads is wrong. As an avid
alpine mountaineer myself, I can safely say that
even the extremest of
alpiners would still be forced to carry heavy
packs on extended trips.
Take, for example, an 8-day trip up and around
Mt. Rainier. Even when
climbing with some incredibly talented and
experienced mountaineers, the
average pack weight was about 65 pounds. Food
weighs a lot. And that was
operating under the convenience of being able to
melt snow to get fresh
water. Soldiers in Afghanistan don't have that
luxury.

Imagine all the food, water, and gear a hiker
would need for even a
short three-day hike. Now add a weapon, your
basic combat load of ammo,
radios, and a week's worth of batteries. And
contrary to Mr. Woods'
point, even if I was carrying no extra weight,
I'd still need a
significant amount of water, you know, because
I'm doing combat patrols
at 7,000 feet in 95 degree weather. The problem
isn't that soldiers and
NCOs are taking more than they need, the problem
is that what they need
is pretty heavy. As much as I would like to say
"Yeah, let's make our
weapons and ammo and armor and water
lighter!" I know the ridiculous
amount of time and money it would take to do
that.

Mr. Woods then argues that somehow the 60 pound
ruck is a major cause of
difficulties in counterinsurgency operations,
and then implies (I think)
that we should do without body armor or helmets.
I don't think I need to
go into more detail other than to say that I
strongly disagree.
Unfortunately Mr. Woods' lack of military
experience is the primary
reason for a large part of his argument being
infeasible.

That's not to say that all of Mr. Woods' points
are wrong. The Army has,
to an extent, recognized the need for lighter
gear in Afghanistan (see
the introduction of plate carriers, M240Ls,
etc...), but I think it can
do better. By studying the design of similar
gear in the civilian
sector, I think we can make the load easier on
our soldiers. Take, for
example, the shape and design of our rucks. If
you compare your standard
issue ruck with some large-capacity expedition
packs made by companies
like Gregory or Arcteryx (or Mystery Ranch,
whose packs I've seen
running around in Afghanistan), and you'll notice
that the Army's ruck is
much rounder, whereas the packs are narrower,
but taller. Having carried
both I can say with absolute certainty that my
civilian pack is far
superior to my issued ruck. I think that by
studying the design
philosophy of civilian mountaineering equipment
the Army can continue to
improve our gear.

Again, though, any major changes in gear take
time and money. Until
then, we'll have to continue to rely on the NCO
corps to train our
Soldiers, both physically and mentally, to deal
with the burden they'll
bear in combat. I definitely welcome any disagreements
or other
perspectives on this issue.

Lucas Enloe is an Army 1LT currently in Afghanistan. He has
years of experience in walking uphill.