thedrifter
03-17-06, 11:12 AM
How to kill U.S. Marines
Thomas Smith, Jr., writing at Townhall.com, draws our attention to an incredibly irresponsible (and that’s the most charitable interpretation) New York Times article published in January. The Times gave our enemies what amounts to a briefing in how to exploit vulnerabilities of the body armor worn by our troops. Smith quotes Maj. Gen. William D. Catto:
“Mr. Moss [author of the Times article] highlighted and discussed the actual areas of potential vulnerability in the armor, which we specifically asked him not to do, and he did it anyway,” Catto says. “You having been a Marine can understand why we would ask him not to do that. But he did.” [....]
The story did not simply specify that there were unprotected areas of the body perceptively protected by existing body armor, but it highlighted those areas in both content and a color graphic, which illustrated in red exactly where bullets and shrapnel had previously struck and killed Marines. Certainly, any terrorist training camp where the bad guys are learning how best to kill American soldiers could make use of such a graphic.
Michael Moss, author of the Times piece, disagrees:
“Case after case of American soldiers being killed in Iraq are of soldiers standing or running, then being mowed down at 90-degree angles by randomly sprayed AK-47 fire,” he says. “The chart isn’t going to be of any value to those types of un-skilled insurgents who are just spraying, not aiming. And the professionally trained snipers already know what they are aiming for. They’ve already done their research. So, I’m a little hard-pressed to think how this diagram would help either of those two examples of insurgents.”
Can anyone imagine a World War II article in the press describing the vulnerable spots on a P-51 Mustang, or describing the weakest spots on a Sherman Tank? Would a writer justify such revelations on the grounds that the Germans already knew all of this via combat experience?
Hat tip: Alex
Thomas Lifson 3 17 06
Ellie
Thomas Smith, Jr., writing at Townhall.com, draws our attention to an incredibly irresponsible (and that’s the most charitable interpretation) New York Times article published in January. The Times gave our enemies what amounts to a briefing in how to exploit vulnerabilities of the body armor worn by our troops. Smith quotes Maj. Gen. William D. Catto:
“Mr. Moss [author of the Times article] highlighted and discussed the actual areas of potential vulnerability in the armor, which we specifically asked him not to do, and he did it anyway,” Catto says. “You having been a Marine can understand why we would ask him not to do that. But he did.” [....]
The story did not simply specify that there were unprotected areas of the body perceptively protected by existing body armor, but it highlighted those areas in both content and a color graphic, which illustrated in red exactly where bullets and shrapnel had previously struck and killed Marines. Certainly, any terrorist training camp where the bad guys are learning how best to kill American soldiers could make use of such a graphic.
Michael Moss, author of the Times piece, disagrees:
“Case after case of American soldiers being killed in Iraq are of soldiers standing or running, then being mowed down at 90-degree angles by randomly sprayed AK-47 fire,” he says. “The chart isn’t going to be of any value to those types of un-skilled insurgents who are just spraying, not aiming. And the professionally trained snipers already know what they are aiming for. They’ve already done their research. So, I’m a little hard-pressed to think how this diagram would help either of those two examples of insurgents.”
Can anyone imagine a World War II article in the press describing the vulnerable spots on a P-51 Mustang, or describing the weakest spots on a Sherman Tank? Would a writer justify such revelations on the grounds that the Germans already knew all of this via combat experience?
Hat tip: Alex
Thomas Lifson 3 17 06
Ellie