[updated May 3, 2005]
(Monday's New York Times [4/25] reported that a particular U.S. Marine unit in Iraq had suffered heavy losses. Much of the loss was blamed on poorly armored Humvees. The reader will recall, too, that late last year Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was questioned by a soldier about insufficiently armored vehicles. Today, as last year, the media point a finger at the alleged failings of the Defense Department and the Bush Administration to adequately protect soldiers in harm's way. And Sunday's [5/1] NYT editorial rebuked the DOD for failing to adequately protect soldiers in the field.)
[updated November 24, 2006]
(As predicted here in this essay, American soldiers are indeed experiencing difficulties with military vehicles retro-fitted with armor. The vehicles were never designed to carry such weight.)
When I worked as a photojournalist, I would occasionally hear this sort of remark at the scene of a gruesome car accident: "Had they been going slower, the injuries would not have been so severe." Or, in the case of a collision that was newsworthy despite the fact no one was hurt, one might hear: "Had they been going faster, they would not have been so lucky."
That these two comments -- both on the surface oozing with common sense though utterly inane -- proves the point that most people who speak thusly are simply not thinking. For if two cars were indeed traveling faster, then they would have been in different spaces at different times, and thus would not have collided at all. There would be no injuries; and there would be no news. The truly common sense thing would be to say, "If only they had been going faster this crash would not have happened." For that is accurate.
The same goes for cars traveling slower. Two drivers chugging along the same road would not ever hit each other at point A if they have not yet reached point A; nor will they ever reach it simultaneously.
Of course, we know what people MEAN by these inane statements. They MEAN to say that "at the point" of impact it would have been better had they been going slower. But the reality remains: If they were going slower, there would be no point of impact.
Thus highlights the very stupid observations offered by those critics of the war in Iraq who believe that armored Humvees would protect soldiers: "If only they had Kevlar window panels, these soldiers would not have died."
But let me rip somewhat irrationally on this idea for a moment. For the critics' arguments are akin to this: "If the bullet that just passed through Cpl. Smith's waist had instead hit his government-issued canteen two inches to the right of entry, he'd be alive now. How dare the Bush administration only provide one canteen to each of our servicemen, and how dare Rumsfeld require the canteen be worn in one specific spot!"
Now let me be a bit more rational. A Humvee is a heavy, rugged vehicle, with suspension, transmission and various other components designed to provide optimal all-terrain behaviors in a variety of war situations. It was NEVER designed to be an armored personnel carrier. It was designed to be relatively fast (0-60 in 45 seconds, I believe), though not nearly as fast as most Democrats' Chevy Suburbans. Moreover, it is tuned according to both its dry weight, and its weight under load.
Imagine then, what would be required if all Humvees were retrofitted in the field with armor. The vehicle would be heavier; harder to drive (vision would be obscured); it would be slower. Springs, drivetrains, gas mileage: each of these would be affected. And thus the vehicle would become a potentially GREATER danger and liability. And then THIS would be the hue and cry:
"The Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld are being criticized for their failure to protect troops with better Humvees. For ever since the Defense Department retrofitted the Humvees with armor, the vehicles have become easy targets, as they are slower, less agile, and far more difficult to drive. And now that the insurgents know that the vehicles are more fortified, larger roadside bombs have been used to destroy these much more vulnerable targets. And in some cases soldiers have been killed because the modified vehicles, now barely getting 3 miles per gallon of fuel (down from 8), have run out of gas in the midst of ambushes.
"We call for a complete overhaul of the Humvee project. That the Administration would so poorly protect our soldiers with armor that has cost more lives than it saved should anger Americans everywhere."
Thus would opine the New York Times.
Moreover, let's not forget that soldiers' behavior would change, perhaps endangering them even more, once they perceived themselves to be "protected." Safety gear often causes many a young man and woman to throw caution to the wind.
Look. Soldiers are still killed while wearing high-tech gear. Police officers are killed sometimes BECAUSE they are wearing bullet-proof vests (a small caliber round can enter through an unprotected arm hole and ricochet off the inside walls of the vest and rip up the chest cavity, a worse injury than if the officer was without a vest). If that's the case, should soldiers and officers NOT be issued this gear? Or should they be issued even MORE gear, protecting them from small arms fire, for sure, but limiting their movements, making them vulnerable to merely falling over like beetles on their backs?
Let us recall, too, that motor vehicle air bags, those great safety innovations with such promise, sometimes kill people, as do seatbelts. Sometimes the only person to survive a car wreck is that person ejected from a tumbling vehicle due to having not worn a safety restraint.
The fact remains that bad things happen in war, particularly the kind of war which is Iraq: A war where the enemy wears no uniforms, flies no flag, drives cars without insignias, and mercilessly kills any target, including itself.
Kevlar is a good thing. When and if possible, vehicles and the soldiers who operate them should be protected. But there are variables to protection and war that no war critic can either predict or remove.
You know, if only people could think a little more slowly they wouldn't smash themselves into such silly little bits.
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment