Friday, May 18, 2007

I was driving home listening to NPR and they did a story about the MRAP, a vehicle designed to resist damage from IEDs. After the news story there was a short interview segment with Michele Norris related to the MRAP.

At one point Michele Norris asks this question to Nathan Hodge from Jane's Defence Weekly.

Starting at 1:56 she asks "The insurgents or extremists in Iraq.. How would they adapt their tactics so this vehicle would be more vulnerable" He offers an indirect answer in some ways she then follows up with this.

"Beyond the symbolic value. What would the enemy need to do to exploit the weakness or vulnerability or change their tactics so the US military lost a bit of it's advantage using this vehicle?"

I was dumbstruck. Did I just hear a NPR host ask a staff writer from a defence weekly what an enemy might do to reduce the effectiveness of a US military vehicle intended to protect US troops? It sure sounded like that to me.

NPR doesn't have the transcript up yet, but the link above will take you to the audio. Listen and make up your own mind.



Jonathan said...

Are you just discovering now that the staff at NPR is on the side of the insurgents? Good morning!

Anonymous said...

Clearly, NPR is on the side of peace, and avoidance of unecessary wars & conflicts that become wars. It was the current Republican administration who convinced the American people that Iraq was behind 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction pointed at the US. 5 years and 3400+ American soldiers later this propoganda later proved untrue.

It will take our democratic congress and eventual presidential administration to get us the hell out of Iraq and back on track for peace and a better defense here in the states. So get a clue, Jonathan!