10
Loading video...
By Dr. Josh McConkey
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
After 24 years of military service as a decorated Army officer and Iraq War veteran, an Air Force Reserve commander, and now serving in emergency management with Joint Task Force–National Capital Region, I’ve learned that equipment is only as good as its ability to perform under real-world conditions.
In the Arctic, a failed boot is not just an inconvenience. It can become a safety issue and potentially an operational readiness problem.
That’s why the recent Newsweek report of Marines experiencing boot failures during cold-weather training in Norway deserves serious attention. Marines training ahead of NATO’s Cold Response 2026 exercise reported holes forming in their boots, soles separating, and freezing water getting inside. Some Marines had to be pulled from training, and post-exercise inspection found hundreds of additional deficiencies in the same model of cold-weather boot.
Read More on Opinion
While a strong domestic defense industrial base is an important national security asset, we don’t want to find ourselves in a major conflict unable to produce the uniforms, footwear and equipment our service members need because critical manufacturing capacity has moved overseas. Supporters of the BOOTS Act make exactly that argument: relying too heavily on foreign suppliers creates vulnerabilities of its own.
...
But there’s another side of readiness that is non-negotiable. The equipment has to work to protect the safety of our troops. During my military career, I’ve learned that conditions thousands miles away on the ground almost never match the plans made at home. Commanders need to be able to respond to the environment in front of them, especially when the health and safety of their service members are at stake.
That’s exactly what happened in Norway. When American cold-weather boots failed, U.S. forces used an established Host Nation Support mechanism to obtain locally available footwear. Marines were able to continue training with equipment suited to the conditions rather than waiting for another shipment from the United States. That’s not a failure of American readiness. Flexibility is part of our readiness.
Norway has spent generations preparing its military to operate in extreme cold. The Norwegian M77 boots obtained for some Marines were developed with the Norwegian military decades ago for their environment. If one of our NATO allies has proven equipment designed for a specific environment, commanders should have an appropriate pathway to use it when American equipment cannot meet the immediate operational requirement.
The debate over the BOOTS Act brings that question into sharper focus. The legislation would require optional combat boots worn by U.S. service members to be entirely manufactured in the United States using American-sourced materials. Its supporters argue that doing so would strengthen domestic manufacturing, reduce dependence on foreign supply chains and ensure the United States has the industrial capacity to supply its military during a major conflict. The experience in Norway shows why sourcing requirements and performance requirements have to work together.
We should, without a doubt, invest in American manufacturers. We should build the domestic capacity to produce the best military equipment in the world. We should have rigorous standards for durability, safety and performance, particularly for equipment designed for extreme environments. America should always strive to have the best equipment and set the highest standards. At the same time, we should preserve enough operational flexibility to recognize that no single supply chain can anticipate every battlefield, climate or mission.
Congress has already recognized the importance of performance. Current law requires the military services to establish combat-boot quality assurance processes addressing durability, quality, specialty-specific operating environments and biomechanics. American service members should have the best equipment available for the mission they are being asked to perform.
If American manufacturers can provide it, we should be proud to put American-made boots on American troops. If domestic capacity or equipment falls short in a specialized environment, commanders should have a clear and accountable way to obtain proven equipment from trusted allies until that gap is fixed at home.
We ask our service members to operate in deserts, mountains, jungles and Arctic cold. We ask them to deploy around the world, often with little notice, and perform under conditions most Americans will never experience.
They should never have to wonder whether the boots on their feet can survive the mission. Buy American should strengthen military readiness, but it should never come at readiness’s expense.
Dr. Josh McConkey is a US Air Force Reserve Colonel, Army combat veteran, emergency physician and candidate for Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines