Old MRAP news from McClatchy

A recent story by Jonathan S. Landay captures in large measure a theme explored a few years ago by David DeCamp in the St. Petersburg Times. That is, that the insurgents facing U.S. armed forces have the means to inexpensively and quickly counter our expensive toys of war.

Landay, writing for the McClatchy news organization, fails to reach the heights of exaggeration reached by DeCamp. But the message remains:

WASHINGTON - Taliban-led insurgents in Afghanistan have devised ways to cripple and even destroy the expensive armored vehicles that offer U.S. forces the best protection against roadside bombs, by using increasingly large explosive charges and rocket-propelled grenades, according to U.S. soldiers and defense officials.

At least eight American troops have been killed this year in attacks on Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles, or MRAPs, and 40 have been wounded, said a senior U.S. military official who, like others interviewed, declined to be further identified because of the issue's sensitivity.

Why is the issue sensitive?

I would hope that Landay and his sources ponder that issue deeply. The only reason why the issue is particularly sensitive, so far as I can surmise, is that providing clues to the enemy about our vulnerabilities serves to undermine the war effort and assist the enemy.

The source who will not allow himself to be identified because he does not want to be known for giving the enemy a bit of a boost seems to set a challenging standard for lack of integrity.

I do not know Landay at all, including by reputation, but I would not put it past the average journalist to misrepresent the reasoning of his sources.

As for the mere facts of the story, they are not news. Anyone looking at past stories about armored vehicles and using a bit of common sense will know that they are not and have never been advertised as invulnerable. Bigger bombs are easier to detect, and technological advances like EFPs and rocket-propelled grenades typically require harder-to-acquire materials.

The story does bring up the legitimate question of how the M-ATV will fulfill its role. My take is that the new truck's versatility will make it tougher for insurgents to target patrol vehicles. The new trucks will not be tied as closely to predictable routes. Bigger bombs always represented a way to defeat an MRAP or other ground vehicle. That is not news. It probably won't take as much explosive to flip the M-ATV compared to the MRAP.

It isn't rocket science.