"In the Know" regarding MRAPs (Updated)

"In the Know" refers to the St. Petersburg Times' advertising jingle.

In blogging over the past several months I've spent some time looking into Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles.
What would I know about MRAPs if I were relying on the St. Petersburg Times?

TOOL OF WAR TRUMPED

With roadside bombs claiming troops at an alarming rate, a general urgently requests an armored replacement of the Humvee. Two years later, the vehicles are arriving in droves, but the enemy is already prepared.

U.S. soldiers in Iraq will soon see shipments of specially armored trucks designed to withstand the roadside bombs that have killed more service members there than any other single cause.

This should be good news, but the truck's troubled path has tempered optimism for it.

(St. Petersburg Times)

Well, well, well.

As nifty as MRAPs are, and as much as the troops like them, the enemy has trumped them already as a tool of war. The futility of using MRAPs is conveyed in the title ("Tool of war trumped") and the nut graf ("the enemy is already prepared").

Thus, writer David DeCamp tells us, the optimism regarding MRAPs is "tempered."

Sorry, Mr. DeCamp. Your story looks like journalistic malpractice.

1. Is the enemy "already prepared"?
Iraqi insurgents probably do not have the capability of self-producing the "explosively formed penetrators" that might take out the first generation of MRAP vehicles. DeCamp supposes that insurgents just "go to a machine shop for changes" in order to cook up an EFP. British and U.S. intelligence services, however, report that Iran provided the technology and parts for the EFP. In other words, the theme of DeCamp's narrative--that the loosely-organized insurgency gives it the flexibility to stymie the bureaucratically handicapped United States, doesn't apply in this case. In addition, DeCamp ignored the Golan MRAP, which reportedly has EFP protections. Sixty Golans had already been ordered in February, while the advanced vehicle that DeCamp mentioned, the Bull, remains in development. I should emphasize that 60 Golans were ordered before Mr. DeCamp's story went to press.

2. Is optimism for MRAPs tempered?
DeCamp says the optimism is tempered. But what part of his story supports that assertion?

• DeCamp quotes Brigadier General Dennis Hejlik indicating casualties will continue at their current rate without MRAPs.
• DeCamp notes that the secretary of defense has place the MRAP program as its highest priority.
• DeCamp quotes Senator Joe Biden calling for more rapid implementation of the MRAP program

But what accounts for the "tempered optimism"? Apparently, it is DeCamp's optimism that is tempered. The last portion of his story has a title: No problem for foes.

A version of the MRAP has been on patrol in Iraq in small numbers almost from the beginning, but not for routine patrols. The insurgent bombs that penetrate the armor, called "explosively formed projectiles," began appearing in 2005.

American military leaders have blamed Iran for pushing the penetrating bombs into use.

The military reports that enemies are expected to employ them more frequently - just as MRAPs are expected to arrive in Iraq by the thousands.

DeCamp evidently figures that the MRAP program is a waste of money. By the time we get the vehicles over there, the insurgents will be routinely using EFPs to blow up our troops and their expensive new toys. After all, MRAPs are "no problem for foes."

That just doesn't follow, or else DeCamp would easily be able to quote a relevant source expressing tempered optimism.

As noted above, MRAPs are already incorporating measures to deal with EFPs. On top of that, the fact that Iran is probably supplying the technology and materials that allow the insurgents to use EFPs in turn allows the possibility that their use can be curtailed through improved border security. Production of an EFP is not, as DeCamp earlier appeared to suggest, a matter of running to the machine shop and tweaking the bomb components a bit.

My opinion? DeCamp was engaged in agenda journalism. He put an amazingly sour spin on what will probably turn out to be another victory of U.S. and allied technology--if the Democrats don't succeed in declaring defeat first. And DeCamp's story was a little bugle toot calling for retreat.
***

Update: EFPs are easier to make than I thought.
They've been around for some time, and it primarily just takes know-how to make one rather than specialized parts or equipment. On the other hand, the criticism of DeCamp's story remains: it wasn't the flexibility of the insurgents that implemented EFPs, it was assistance from nations that possessed the technology.
Reducing EFP usage would thus be more complicated than simply exerting tighter border controls. Factories would have to be located, and killing or capturing enemy combatants who possess the knowledge to make the devices would certainly contribute.

Bottom line: There's no reason to despair that the insurgents can't be beaten, nor to fear that they will keep the upper hand in battlefield tactics.

I sent my critique to the writer, and he responded (partly accounting for this update). I hope to post a follow-up entry within a few days.