 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
This comment regarding a Dawn Patrol link to the New York Times story on Marines who've returned from Iraq reaffirms my ever growing faith in Mudville readers:
"Marines From Iraq Sound Off About Want Of Armor And MenRight on, Don. The Times would have us believe that without them, no one would know of the logistical nightmare that is war. What? Vehicle armor shortage? Why hasn't anything been said about this before?!?
...In returning home, the leaders and Marine infantrymen have chosen to break an institutional code of silence and tell their story"One click, New York Times registration. Why am I not surprised.
Has anyone missed the griping about body armor, unarmored Hummers, etc. over the past couple years? So where is this 'institutional code of silence' other than in the imagination of the [usual suspect] writer from the NYT? Bitching is an old and contiuous tradition of service. Code of Silence my eye. BTW, Napoleon's elite Old Guard were nicknamed the 'The Grumblers' for obvious reason.
Here's another telling passage:
Toward the end of their tour when half of their fleet had become factory-armored, the armor's worth became starkly clear. A car bomb that the unit's commander, Capt. Kelly D. Royer, said was at least as powerful as the one on May 29 showered a fully armored Humvee with shrapnel, photographs show. The marines inside were left nearly unscathed.So why isn't the focus of the story on the ability of the Marines and the military establishment to adapt and overcome? Finally can anyone make sense of this paragraph?
The company leaders say it is impossible to know how many lives may have been saved through better protection, since the insurgents became adept at overcoming improved defenses with more powerful weapons. Likewise, Pentagon officials say they do not know how many of the more than 1,500 American troops who have died in the war had insufficient protective gear.I get Few lives have been saved, because no amount of armor would be sufficient, and no one knows how many died due to insufficient armor. Can someone explain the point of this paragraph? And if so could you reconcile it with the previous one I quoted?
Okay - I need say no more, because fellow MilBlogger Jason Van Steenwick - who was there before the Marines - has plenty more. And without saying as much, he lays waste to that institutional code of silence garbage too. But he presents his acknowldgement of systemic military shortfalls with a focus on improving that system. If there were any qualified reporters or editors at the Times they could see the difference. "Look this is broken" Milblogger answer: "Fix it." Times answer: "We're doomed!"
The Times story tells a classic example of early failures, lessons learned, foes that adapt to enemy tactics (on both sides) and utlimately triumph. But the Times story failed to mention the triumph part - in fact it twists it into a tale of death and loss. Not a single quote from a Marine in the story supports the Time's characterization of them as whining failures. Too bad a heroic outfit had it's accomplishments and sacrifices disgraced by the New York Times - there's another lesson for military units to learn, and not repeat.
Go read Jason - no registration required.
