Saturday, March 10, 2012
Stupid or disinegenuous?
The bomb which killed six British soldiers was so massive that it would have threatened a battle tank, says CDS David Richards – as retailed by the Daily Express. "Be quite clear", that this IED – which we are pretty certain it was – was massive and even a main battle tank that had been struck in that way would have had a problem", Richards claims.
But that, of course, isn't the point. As we have observed, the comparison needs to be made, not with a tank, but with a mine protected vehicle. The question to ask is whether, on balance of probabilities, a Mastiff would have survived the blast.
Making his comments, therefore, Richards is either being stupid or disingenuous. The man, however, has a reputation for being quite intelligent and, while high office does tend to rot the brain, one can assume that he knows his comparison is false. But in that case, the indications are that he is setting out deliberately to deceive.
The sadness is that, as far as the MSM goes, it is so easy to pull the wool over their eyes – not just on this issue but on so many others. It would have been so easy to have taken this statement apart – but, as always, the newspapers are not up to the job.
What troubles me though is that such inadequacies are not without their consequences. If the MSM challenged statements from the likes of Richards, the military might be forced to take real action to contain the threat. But, as long as it can get away with pulling wool over the eyes of the hacks, there is never any pressure to improve.
Furthermore, the officer(s) who wrongly tasked fighting vehicles to carry out routine patrols, and thereby share responsibility for the deaths of these men, are not in any way censured or corrected. Through the inadequacy of the media, therefore, the Army is allowed to perpetuate its own inadequacies.