More on the Alex Sink cheating debacle (Updated)

Alex Sink cheated during last week's gubernatorial debate with Republican candidate Rick Scott.  And, as is so often the case, the coverup ends up as the larger story.

Sink blamed the cheating on campaign staffer Brian May, who sent Sink a text message by phone.  But video shows Sink looking at the message for some 10 seconds or so and excusing the event to the CNN staffer who confiscated the phone shortly after by saying "Oh that's okay. It didn't have anything on it that was-."  Yes, she clammed up abruptly at that point.

Regardless of May's actions, Sink was guilty of cheating when she received debate advice from the makeup artist "They want you to stand up."  And evidence keeps popping up that pokes holes in Sink's story about the incident:

John King, a co-host of the debate, said on CNN Tuesday that CNN reviewed an audio clip that clearly reveals that the makeup artist alerted Sink about the message.

"We listened very closely to the audio,'' King said, "And the makeup artist, when she approached Alex Sink, said, 'I have a message from the staff.' And at that point they looked, it was on a cell phone... It was essentially advice after the last segment of the debate telling her if that question comes up again,
remember this, and be more aggressive when Rick Scott questions you.''

(Miami Herald "Naked Politics" blog)

The Herald blogger, Marc Caputo, notes that we're taking John King's word for the audio content.  The aired portion of the video that includes the conversation between Sink and her makeup artist picks up with the attempt to read the message on the phone.  Caputo has a point that hearing the audio firsthand would be nice, but if we're not trusting the reports of journalists without seeing the evidence where does that end?  Do we need a Marc Caputo for anything other than posting audio and video clips?

I find it interesting that the Herald--a liberal newspaper if there ever was one--is still on this story while the St. Petersburg Times has gone silent since Oct. 28 (a story about a Rick Scott ad that mentions Sink's cheating).


The Times sponsored the debate, but has demonstrated no real interest in the story.


Oct. 27
Oct. 27

Update (Nov. 1, 2010)

Looks like I missed a Times story from Oct. 28 that mentions the cheating episode.  But the story is not objective reporting, instead making editorial excuses for Sink based on an earlier Caputo story that did the same thing:

Sink has spent the last two days responding to the flap after debate moderater John King of CNN concluded that Sink knew she was receiving coaching from an aide during the debate. It took Sink's campaign two days to persuade the media that she did not cheat and unwound the video to show that she did not realize why she was being handed the phone.

Simply reporting the facts ought to lead any reasonable reader to the conclusion that Sink ought to have known she was cheating.  King stated that CNN had audio of the stylist telling Sink she had advice from her campaign staff ("[T]he makeup artist, when she approached Alex Sink, said, 'I have a message from the staff.'").  The stylist also wondered aloud--loud enough for CNN's microphones, anyway, whether it was campaign staffer Brian (May) who sent the message.  On top of that, Sink received advice separately from stylist, who told her twice--the second time in response to Sink's request--to "stand up" to Scott. 

There's simply nothing in the video that permits any so-called "objective" determination that Sink did not know what she was doing.

This is probably a good example of how, when the chips are down and the pressure is on, the desire to see the Democrat win affects a news staff's ability to report the news.

I naively felt that Rick Scott was unwise to put so much emphasis on Sink's debate cheating.  I did not think the media would be able to ignore it.  It lasted about two days in the news cycle before the Times eventually accepted Alex Sink's fig leaf as though it was a suit of armor.

Though King's statement appeared on Caputo's Miami Herald blog, regardless the Herald published a story with largely the same content as the one from the Times:

Again, there's no objective indication from the video that Sink didn't know why she was show the phone screen.  And such determination relies on granting Sink the benefit of the doubt.  Consider, for example, that Sink might be smart enough to pretend that she doesn't know what's going on long enough to look at the message while preserving plausible deniability.  An objective reporter doesn't dimiss that possibility out of hand.

Displaced Iraqis returning

Talk about rapid validation of a prediction.

In a post just a few days ago, I took on a story in the U.K.'s Independent that used the number of displaced Iraqis to support the claim that "murderous violence" in Iraq had not declined.

The report referenced by Doyle indicates that military operations have tended to stabilize some areas, with resulting destabilization in other areas. The latter destabilized areas become the new targets for stabilization, and with the "clear and hold" strategy implemented by Gen. David Petraeus, an expectation that the troop surge will end up addressing the displacement problem seems reasonable. Predictably, none of that ends up in Doyle's story.

(The Independent: The level of "murderous violence" in Iraq has not declined)

The author, Leonard Doyle, had made a poorly reasoned argument in the first place but nonetheless I find it gratifying that my final paragraph has found some empirical justification mere days after I wrote it.

BAGHDAD (AP) - In a dramatic turnaround, more than 3,000 Iraqi families driven out of their Baghdad neighborhoods have returned to their homes in the past three months as sectarian violence has dropped, the government said Saturday.

Saad al-Azawi, his wife and four children are among them. They fled to Syria six months ago, leaving behind what had become one of the capital's more dangerous districts—west Baghdad's largely Sunni Khadra region.

(Breitbart.com)

We'll have to wait and see what other bad news the stalwart press can squeeze out of the positive happenings in Iraq. There's always the plight Iraqi gravediggers in light of the depressed market for funeral services, I suppose.

*****

The Independent: The level of "murderous violence" in Iraq has not declined

It's still possible to find journalists utterly convinced that things are going horribly in Iraq.

The example in this case comes from the Independent, a UK newspaper that helps exemplify the difference between traditional American journalist and its European counterpart.

Calling it the worst human displacement in Iraq's modern history, a report by the UN migration office suggests that the fierce fighting that has followed the arrival of new US troops is partly responsible.

The spectre of ethnic cleansing now hovers over the once relatively harmonious country. The UN found that 63 per cent of the Iraqis fled their neighbourhoods because of threats to their lives. More than 25 per cent said they fled after being thrown out of their homes at gunpoint.

The statistics were released as President George Bush's policy of staying the course in Iraq was under grave threat yesterday as the scale of the humanitarian disaster became clearer and a key Republican senator said that it was time to bring the troops home.

A dangerous rift has also emerged inside the US military between the high command, which says the strain the war is putting on the military endangers American security, and commanders on the ground who still say it is a winnable war.

(the Independent)

Though author Leonard Doyle emphasized that the surge of U.S. troops is to blame ("partly to blame" minus the mention of any other factors), the report itself seems very reluctant to make that connection. From page 1:

However, displacement is not limited to sectarian violence; many IDPs are fleeing their homes due to lawlessness experienced throughout the country that is creating an environment of fear in which criminals, militia, and insurgents thrive. In addition, humanitarian agencies are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to provide assistance to those most in need.
(Iraqi Displacement 2007 Mid-Year Review)

In Baghdad in particular:

The majority (63%) of those assessed reported that they fled direct threats to life, and over a quarter said that they had been forcibly displaced from their property. When asked why they were targeted, 89% said it was due to their religious/sectarian identity.
(page 2)

In fact, after reviewing the document, it looks as though Doyle is simply lying. There is nothing in the report to suggest that the U.S. troop surge is even partly responsible for the displacement of Iraqis, at least not in the normal sense of "suggests."

Doyle may have meant that something in the numbers suggested to him that U.S. military operations were to blame. As for what that was, Doyle feels no need to tell us. Add to that Doyle's entirely dubious conclusion that displacement is indicative of no decline in "murderous violence."

The report referenced by Doyle indicates that military operations have tended to stabilize some areas, with resulting destabilization in other areas. The latter destabilized areas become the new targets for stabilization, and with the "clear and hold" strategy implemented by Gen. David Petraeus, an expectation that the troop surge will end up addressing the displacement problem seems reasonable. Predictably, none of that ends up in Doyle's story.

*****

The O'Reilly race kerfluffle

Ye Olde Tempeste in Teapot. CNN's coverage is horrible. Even the gloriously partisan Media Matters did a fairer job on the story than CNN. Compare:

During the September 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, discussing his recent trip to have dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at Sylvia's, a famous restaurant in Harlem, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful," adding: "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." Later, during a discussion with National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams about the effect of rap on culture, O'Reilly asserted: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."
(Media Matters)

I have yet to see a full transcript of the radio show, but the Media Matters account should cue the fair-minded person that O'Reilly's comments were not a big deal at all. CNN, in the two clips shown, consistently treated them as if they were indeed a big deal.

The key point is that CNN took comments made "later, during a discussion with ... Juan Williams" and put then onscreen while playing the audio of the earlier comments. That's a textbook case of misrepresenting the context.

Media Matters is probably tickled pink that CNN was able to distort the story beyond a mere insinuated attack.

O'Reilly, I'll give you and Juan Williams the last word.




OK, one more thing. Brian Maloney at The Radio Equalizer did a bang-up job analyzing this story, making all the points I've made and more. I'd have gone on to something else if I'd known about the job Maloney did from the start.


*****

Media continue to twist Bush's remark about Iraqi Mandelas.

Hilarious stuff--but frighteningly irresponsible journalism.

NELSON Mandela is still very much alive despite a gaffe by US President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African leader's death in a speech yesterday.

"It's out there," said Achmat Dangor of the Nelson Mandela Foundation of Mr Bush's comment, which received worldwide media coverage.

(news.com.au)

Apparently these Aussies want you to believe that Dangor was calling Bush's comment "out there" in the sense of being crazy.

That doesn't appear to be the case.

Former president Nelson Mandela is alive and well after comments on Iraq by US President George Bush appear to have been misunderstood, the Nelson Mandela Foundation said on Friday.

"It appears that his statement has been misunderstood and we wish to assure everyone that Mr Mandela is alive and well and enjoying some rest and relaxation at his home in Johannesburg," said Achmat Dangor, chief executive of the foundation.
(Independent Online)

But why bother representing the entirety of what Dangor said when you can twist it to make fun of Bush?
The Independent account went on:

Dangor, said, "We know that his statement was made in the context of the difficulty in finding Iraqis capable of resolving the conflict in their country."

Thanks to Reuters and a slew of other dingbats in the business of journalism, many will never get enough of the story to have Dangor's understanding of it.


*****

Reuters sticks foot in media mouth

Captain's Quarters has done a nice job with this story, but I can't pass up commentary because this type of media coverage is exactly what chiefly motivates me to blog.

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing gaffe by U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African leader's death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq.

"It's out there. All we can do is reassure people, especially South Africans, that President Mandela is alive," Achmat Dangor, chief executive officer of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, said as Bush's comments received worldwide coverage.
(Reuters)

Even without the background information provided by Cap'n Ed, isn't it perfectly obvious even in the immediate context what Bush meant?

"I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush, who has a reputation for verbal faux pas, said in a press conference in Washington on Thursday.

They seriously thought that Bush believed that Hussein killed Nelson Mandela?

This serves as yet another example of the way a set pattern of thinking leads to editorializing in "objective" news stories. There is no faux pas here by Bush. It's a faux pas by the person who wrote the story for Reuters, and it's a black eye to every editor who passed the story on to its readership.

Why there's no correction or apology attached to the story already is beyond me (barring a brazen attitude in the press regarding such matters).

Compounding the problem, they couldn't even get the wrong punctuation right. There's a single quotation mark after the question mark with no mate to be found in the rest of the paragraph. They probably meant to have it this way:

"I heard somebody say, 'Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush, who has a reputation for verbal faux pas, said in a press conference in Washington on Thursday.

But it should have been like this:

"I heard somebody say, 'Where's Mandela? Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas,'" Bush, who has a reputation for verbal faux pas, said in a press conference in Washington on Thursday.

Here's egg on your face, Reuters.

*****

Eyes shut tight, they make their recommendations

The St. Petersburg Times has pretty much always irked me with its liberal slant--a slant that routinely escapes from the editorial pages to infect the news writing.

Last year, I had an opportunity to sit in on an editorial board meeting.

It was no less liberal than I expected, with Robyn Blumner and Bill Maxwell providing the most outstanding examples of left-tilted fulmination.

This time, it's one of the Times' byline-less editorials that caught my eye. Let's say I expect that Blumner's hand was in this one (high Bushes-per-paragraph rate one of the telltale signs).

Fresh on the heels of Gen. Petraeus' testimony, the Times' editors give their opinion of the Iraq War and give us a window into their view of Iraqis.

We strongly come down on the side of those, including a majority of the American people, who believe it's time to start winding down the war and for the United States to put the responsibility for that miserable country's future where it belongs, in the hands of the Iraqi people and their leaders.
(St. Petersburg Times)

Skipping past the Sir Robinesque beginning (let's bravely run away, away!) with their "strong" stand for withdrawal, the disdain for Iraq is plain. Iraq is a "miserable" country (don't bother contacting the SPT ombudsman--all they were saying, we'd hear, was that Iraq is war-torn and anyway that's Bush's fault), and saving Iraqi lives isn't worth spending American lives.

The editors appear to have no perspective on Iraq in terms of world events and the balance of power.

If there were ever any doubts, Bush's speech made it clear that he has no strategy for ending this war, much less winning it.

No examples forthcoming, I note. Did Bush's speech dispel my notion that the war is won when the central Iraqi government can maintain itself and remain an ally of the United States?

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.
(Newsday.com)

Looks like a strategy, particularly combined withe counterinsurgency tactics that Petraeus was tabbed to implement. But what do I know? Shouldn't I simply trust the SPT to put me "In the Know"? Impart to us thy great wisdom, St. Petersburg Times.

Bush revealed none of their doubts in his speech to the nation.

Sure he did. He just did it implicitly, by acknowledging that victory isn't a foregone conclusion and by acknowledging that the Iraqi government needed to start meeting some goals.

Realizing this vision will be difficult, but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.

If the commanders and diplomats thought that success was assured, then Bush would be saying "Our military commanders know we will succeed" or the like.

He maintained that enough military progress has been made to justify continuing his policy, even though by his own standard the troop surge has failed.

I wasn't aware that the benchmarks were all slated to come due in September, a mere two months after the full complement of forces arrived in Iraq to implement the new strategy.

While our strategic goal requires a long-term relationship with Iraq, we are at a new phase in the effort and must sharpen the objectives we believe are achievable in the next 12-18 months.

The above came from a presentation accompanying the original announcement of the surge by Bush, preceding a list of eight goals.

He told the nation last spring the surge's goal was to give the Iraqi government more time to bring about political reconciliation. That hasn't happened

Not soon enough for the Times to call it over and done, anyway. The editorial goes right on to claim that Bush predicts a likely victory in his speech. That's simply inaccurate, from what I can glean.

Good luck being "In the Know" if you rely on the St. Petersburg Times.

D'oh, I forget to point out one of the most hilarious things about the editorial. It assures us that we need to change course in Iraq--the sooner the better. Change course to what? Apparently it doesn't matter, and requires no discussion.

"In the Know." Whatever.

*****

DeCamp defends "A tool of war trumped"

David DeCamp remains confident about his reporting in the St. Petersburg Times story I analyzed last week, "A tool of war trumped."

In that story, DeCamp reported on the vulnerability of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles to the Explosively Formed Projectile IEDs.

I took DeCamp to task for presenting a misleading view of insurgent war capabilities versus those of the United States, omitting (or failing to uncover) information about MRAPs that already possess EFP protections (the Golan vehicle produced by Protected Vehicles, Inc.) and for editorializing with his assertion that optimism about the MRAP program has been "tempered."

I forwarded my blog critique of the story to DeCamp, and he responded with the following:

Thanks for your note. I'll try to respond to your points. I believe the facts support the story.

1. EFP use is not solely limited to Iranian production, according to military commanders and Pentagon officials public testimony and statements. While EFPs are employed less than other forms of explosive, defense analysts and military in my story -- and in public statements -- found them being used and adapted more frequently, and predict their use could increase. In addition, the BBC story you cited questions evidence of "a direct link to Iran."

2. There have been, as of my report, 4,900 MRAPs ordered. You reference 60 ordered in February that are mine resistant and EFP defensive, and others are being tested . The vast majority of troops will not be in those 60, obviously. Most models ordered by midyear far are without a substantiated EFP defense.

3. I'll stand by the story's report that optimism has been tempered by the delays rolling out the vehicles since Hejlik's 2005 request and the adaptations enemies are making. Congress members on both political sides have expressed frustration and criticism. The optimism in Hejlik's request was in 2005, and two years elapsed before large orders for MRAP vehicles were given. Meanwhile, credible sources in the story have substantive questions about the program as it goes forward.

1. In his first point in response, DeCamp claims that EFP production is not solely limited to Iranian production. DeCamp addressed my statement that insurgents probably did not have the capability to produce EFPs without Iran, and DeCamp's response is effective on that point. His response does not, however, support his original characterization of insurgent capabilities: "Insurgents get their hands on an explosive, go to a machine shop for changes, and trigger it with a common cell phone." The technology for EFPs was borrowed from a technological proxy (Iran, and/or foreign fighters who personally possess the know-how to produce EFPs).

Producing EFPs is not as easy as running to a machine shop for changes.
It's like getting technological and logistical assistance from Iran and then trying to spread the technology through experience. The latter makes the enemy's EFP programs vulnerable to disruption. DeCamp ends up hiding that aspect of the situation.

2. DeCamp shows no concern at all for having overlooked or failing to report on the Golan vehicle, with a composite armor that has (since DeCamp's story was published) shown good results in resisting EFP attacks during testing. The tool of war is "trumped" even if the tool of war has been upgraded to resist the alleged trumping. DeCamp's excuse is that the Golan provides its protections to a minority within the U.S. military. DeCamp could have pushed the same narrative even if all of the MRAPs had EFP protections, since the MRAP program is not presently designed to replace the Hummer. A majority of U.S. soldiers would be in unprotected vehicles in that case, also.

In any case, DeCamp's theme is clearly disrupted by the existence of the Golan. The Golan trumps the EFP, in terms of technology, and the insurgents need to find a way to deal with it in order to justify DeCamp's glowing admiration for their ability to run to machine shop and make the necessary changes.

3. DeCamp's excuse for his "tempered" optimism for the MRAP vehicles is a bait-and-switch. In his original story, the "tempered" optimism is clearly from the expectation that the new vehicles have already met their match in the theater of war because of EFPs ("A tool of war trumped").

The portion of the story that emphasizes the plodding steps in getting MRAPs to the front lines does not contribute to the claim of "tempered" optimism. The optimism remains, but in the company of frustration. But the frustration itself should be tempered, because if the MRAP had been ordered to replace the Humvee before technology made a vehicle like the Golan possible then the argument that the tool of war had been trumped would actually be stronger.
***


I can't explain DeCamp's resistance to my challenge to his story other than by supposing that his ideology trumps his reason. I asserted in no uncertain terms that nothing at all in his story indicated tempered optimism for anybody except for DeCamp, implicitly challenging him to offer a counterexample. I did not and do not expect that any counterexample is possible (having read the story!), and DeCamp did nothing to dispel that impression.

Here, by the way, is the context of the quotations DeCamp provided from Secretary Gates.

Q Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask you about the IED problem in Iraq. I mean, as you know that yesterday an IED attack killed five soldiers and wounded six or seven others in southern Baghdad, I'm wondering what -- have you just accepted this threat as one that cannot be defeated, or are you -- are either of you pressing for some new, better way to address the problem?

SEC. GATES: We absolutely are not accepting it as a challenge that can't be defeated. I met with General Meigs just this week for a regular update on our efforts. One of the things that we have found that is very helpful in locating these IEDs is establishing personal relationships in the neighborhoods and in the areas, and where the local inhabitants have looked to the coalition for support and for protection.

The result of that is that in Anbar province, I was told that, thanks to help from the locals, they are finding something around 70 percent or so of the IEDs they believe are implanted.

This is significantly higher than in areas that are still being contested or where we don't have a presence and the kind of local support.

I also had this week another update, a regular update on the MRAP vehicles and how fast we can push those into the field, and particularly those with the capability to withstand the EFPs. But clearly they're effective against the regular IEDs. So we're -- in the technologies and in these areas, we're doing everything we possibly can. We're going after the networks. One of the results of the surge of operations that we're seeing is significant discoveries of caches of armaments, of the materials to make IEDs and so on. So I think all of these different things, including continuing to work with technology, are part of a larger effort to deal with these IEDs.

We're beginning to see IEDs in Afghanistan. This is not a problem, I think, that's going to be confined to Iraq, and so we need to keep working on it and find ways to protect our soldiers and Marines.

GEN. PACE: No, I was going to say, it's clearly the weapon of choice for the enemy. It is an asymmetric weapon for sure. We are very precise in our application of combat power. They are random, and they don't care who gets killed. But it is a problem for us, and as the secretary said, we're going after the entire network, from where the enemy usually comes from through the leadership in the network, delivery systems to warehouses where they're made, how they're being implanted, all those kinds of things. And there's been an enormous effort over the last couple years, and that will continue to be a focus of effort for us.

SEC. GATES: Yeah.

Q So how fast can you get the MRAPs out to the field you saw in your briefing?

SEC. GATES: The companies that have been awarded the contracts are ramping up their production capabilities. It will take a period of time to be able to do that, several months, probably. I am pressing them very hard to see where they can cut the time scale as well as increase their production.

I was initially told that once the vehicles were manufactured, it would take about 30 days to fit them out with all of the communications and other gear that the government puts into them, and then another 30 days to ship them by sea. I basically said that I didn't think that was acceptable.

They are looking at ways to cut that 30 days to fit out. They have already cut it by probably a week, and they're working hard to figure out how they can cut it further. They're under a great deal of pressure from me to do that, and also in terms of how we can help them accelerate the production rate, whether we can help them in terms of the acquisition of specialty steels or axles or whatever might be an obstacle to getting these things produced as quickly as possible.

And the way I have put it to everyone is that you have to look outside the normal bureaucratic way of doing things. And so does industry, because lives are at stake. For every month we delay, scores of young Americans are going to die.

And so I think that's the biggest incentive of all. These manufacturers are patriotic. They're working hard to figure out a way to cut the timelines on this, but I think that a significant flow is probably a few months off. But right now, I want them there fast enough that we're actually flying some of these vehicles to Iraq.

Q And what do you mean by significant flow? Can you put a number on that?

SEC. GATES: In the many hundreds a month.

The press conference left the issue of MRAPs for a time, but then it came up again.

Q I just need to follow up. Two things. Why are you not having conversations on the Hill? And if I could just very briefly follow up on what you said about MRAP, when you said scores of Americans might die every month that MRAP is delayed, have you now seen evidence that convinces you MRAP is an absolutely fail-safe against the largest IEDs, against EFPs? Are you really convinced that the insurgents cannot defeat MRAP?

SEC. GATES: There is no fail-safe. These IEDs, these large IEDs can destroy an Abrams tank. So there is no sure-fire guarantee that anything will provide absolute protection against these. But I think the experience of the Marines in Anbar suggests that the MRAP, and particularly with the V-shaped hull, does provide significantly enhanced protection for the soldiers and Marines inside.

But as I say, there is no magic solution to this, and I think that, you know, this has been an evolving threat and it's been an evolving response.

And we're dealing with, as you've heard us say before, a smart, agile enemy who adjusts his tactics.

It's not clear, for example, that the attack in Iraq yesterday was particularly more -- involved a significantly different kind of IED. It was a more sophisticated attack in terms of the way they planned it. And we're seeing some more of that. And General Petraeus obviously will respond to that.

But I think that we will get -- because the MRAPs provide significantly enhanced or seem to provide a significantly enhanced protection, that's why I want to get as many of them out into the field as possible.
(defenselink.mil)

With all due respect to DeCamp, the press conference indicates a great deal of optimism for the program. Perhaps optimism is "tempered" by the admission that MRAPs are not a foolproof protection--but who ever thought that in the first place? The optimism for getting MRAPs to our soldiers remains as high as ever on the part of the military.

DeCamp stands behind his story. I stand behind my charge that DeCamp is guilty of journalistic malpractice according to the "objective" standard of the American mass media.

"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.