Through Insty ran across two things. One is a different way of analyzing it, found here. Interesting read, although this pisses me off:
With 160,000 people, mostly young men, many armed, many beyond the eyes of authority, there will be some thuggery and sadism and it is doubtful that superior officers will be devoting any large amount of time and effort to finding or suppressing it.
Apparently an awful lot of people think that once troops get into combat areas, their NCOs and officers don't really care much what they do.
Other thing is here. Lots of links, and a very interesting quote from the asshat editor of NR:
The magazine granted anonymity to the writer to keep him from being punished by his military superiors and to allow him to write candidly, Mr. Foer said. He said that he had met the writer and that he knows with “near certainty” that he is, in fact, a soldier.
Got that? "Near certainty". And noted in the comments is that this has been changed: it now says "He said that he had met the writer and that he knows that he is, in fact, a soldier."
Yeah, that's real damn believable.
On a further note, Chris said in the comments to an early bit I posted on the Bradley:
The main structure and armor are relatively light aluminum; they CAN'T run though a wall as described. They'd accordion.
And what do you think would happen to the driver who did something like this in anything other than a 'no other choice' scenario?
No comments:
Post a Comment