----- Original Message -----
From: XXX
To: Brad Giordani
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:00 PM
Subject: E-mail to Schexnayder

Hi Brad,
Here is the e-mail I've written up to send to you and Michael Schexnayder but I wanted to run it by you first. I will ask Schexnayder to confirm if it correctly represent the discussion that we had yesterday. Let me know your thoughts on it.
Best, XXX

Dear Brad,

Yesterday I had a long conversation with Michael Schexnayder. I called him because I was concerned about the reports we’ve had that troops deploying to Iraq are being told they must use CLP on their weapons. We know that CLP causes guns to jam in the desert environment and it puts our soldiers at risk and I was hoping that Mr. Schexnayder would take action to stop that.

The result of my call was mixed. On the good side, Mr. Schexnayder said that he wants to see objective testing of weapon lubricants for the desert environment so that the best product can be identified and subsequently supplied to our soldiers out there. He said that such testing is long overdue and if it were his decision some time ago, he would have had the testing done then.

So while he acknowledges that testing is needed, he defends the use of CLP on the desert because, as he claims, the evidence is not in that CLP is the wrong product to use on the desert. He also says that the evidence is not in that MILITEC-1 is the product to use on the desert. He said that while we have reports from individuals that MILITEC-1 works well on the desert, he said that he has seen reports that CLP works well and that there are other lubricants that have also had positive reports. I told him that the PEO Soldier AAR report on the experience of troops that were in combat on the desert advancing on Baghdad specifically said that CLP was problematic and that MILITEC-1 was found to work well. He was not familiar with that so I read him the exact wording from the report. He asked about how the study was conducted and I told him that there were interviews with 8 units and about 7 to 10 soldiers in each unit. He said that was a very small number and of those there were probably of couple of soldiers in each group who dominated the discussion so the effective number of interviewees was much too small to make any conclusion.

I told him that we have seen a preponderance of evidence that CLP is causing weapons to jam due to blowing dust and sand and much of this was forwarded to him by you. He said that he has seen the e-mail you have sent him with reports from individuals saying that CLP is a problem and that MILITEC-1 works well. However, he says that this is just anecdotal information and cannot be used for making any decisions. I told him that many federal law enforcement agencies have tested MILITEC-1 against CLP and found MILITEC-1 to be the better product and they have made it their issued lubricant for the past dozen years. He said that they don’t have to fire weapons in desert conditions so their testing and use of the product doesn’t count for what the Army is now facing in Iraq. I told him that DEA operates in many hostile foreign environments and they found MILITEC-1 handled those environments well. He asked me if they operated on the desert and I told him I didn’t know.

I tried to express how overwhelming the information has been that CLP has caused jamming of weapons on the desert. He said that this is our opinion and he hasn’t seen enough information to come to that same conclusion. I explained that when it is said that weapons have jammed on the desert due to inadequate maintenance, it is because CLP requires weapons to be cleaned a number of times every day during combat operations and that requirement is hard to meet when in battle, while MILITEC-1 can be fired 1,000 rounds and more without jamming and without maintenance, so that the argument that the problem of maintenance is really a CLP problem. Again he said that it is our opinion and he doesn’t share that opinion.

He said that he knows we would like to see CLP removed from Iraq and replaced by MILITEC-1, but he doesn’t see any reason to do that since the evidence isn’t there to support it. But he did say that he is looking forward to the results of the current study they have initiated to see how a number of lubricants fare in serious testing in desert conditions, and that testing may show that we are correct, but it also may not.

So that’s how we left it.

Best regards,
XXX

----- Original Message -----
From: Brad P. Giordani
To: XXX
Cc: Russ Logan
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: E-mail to Schexnayder

Hi XXX,

There is nothing I can add to your discussion with Schexnayder, since it was between the two of you.

I guess the fifty million dollar question is, why are other products in LTC Smith's 15 May report acted on by PEO Project Managers and not MILITEC-1?

If LTC Smith's report is only anecdotal, (as Schexnayder wants the world to believe) why are changes being made, except for MILITEC-1?

Thanks,

Brad