journalists need to do a little more research before attempting to be recognized
as "experts." Much like the celebrities in Hollywood, some people believe
that being in front of a camera with millions of people watching makes them
an automatic authority on. well. everything. Cases in point:
MSNBC Military "expert" Col. Jack Jacobs was "concerned" about "Iraqi salients
"that were deep into our lines and could allow enemy troops to harass coalition
back areas." Huh? Salient? A salient is defined as "a military
position that projects into the position of the enemy." The Iraqis
weren't "projecting" anything. And these so called "salients" were
simply areas our forces had yet to "mop up." However, maybe the colonel,
being a "paid consultant" of MSNBC was attempting to keep the audience interested.
The best analogy of this would be John Madden saying a football team "could
still come back" when they are down by 40 points at the half. The Iraqis
though never seem to have made it on to the field...
Then there are the numerous references to "tanks." Note: not everything
with tracks is a tank. But they have erroneously referred to Bradley
Fighting Vehicles and the Paladin Self Propelled Howitzers as "Tanks." The
only tank we are employing in Iraq is the M1-A1 Abrams Battle Tank, probably
the best tank in the world. This "monster" has so far proved nearly
impervious to anything the Iraqis Irregulars and Fedayeen have attacked with
in combat, including RPGs, suicide bombers and even school buses. None
have been of much effect. The Bradleys primarily carry infantry into battle
and allow for the rapid deployment of ground troops into a hostile area.
They are smaller than tanks and with far less offensive armament. The
Paladin Howitzers look somewhat like tanks but are not. They are armored,
self-propelled artillery pieces which can support armored and mechanized
Concerning the air power being employed, it would be nice if they would take
the time and explain the different uses and implementations of the A-10 Warthog
"Tank Buster," the Apache Attack Helicopter and the Super Cobra Helicopter
and how these different ground support aircraft add to the technological
superiority of our forces.
The final sore point of contention is what this "conflict" is being called.
It isn't an "invasion" and it isn't the "War on Iraq." It is Operation
Iraqi Freedom; we went to war and the good news is that the Iraqi people
get a shot at running their own affairs. So, why can't CNN, ABC and
a host of others get the story straight? Or do they really cringe at the
idea of Harvard educated, Texas "hayseed" named Bush coming out of this conflict
even more popular with the American people? (Take heart Mr. President, the
left has called every Republican President since Eisenhower a "moron.")
It would be nice if these "expert journalists" would take a few minutes and
study the technology and tactics being employed on the battlefield.
It would greatly benefit their audience to know our troops have the best
equipment available, the best training and are an enthusiastic, all volunteer
military. Maybe then the these "talking heads" wouldn't waste so much
time telling us how we're losing.
Drew Taggart is the editor of VIODaily.
Email Drew Taggart
this article to a friend