![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So the Washington Post got ahold of a classified Army report on the Stryker transport vehicle that outlines its shortcomings in combat.
"Eric Miller, senior defense investigator at the independent Project on Government Oversight, which obtained a copy of the internal Army report several weeks ago, said the critique shows that 'the Pentagon hasn't yet learned that using the battlefield as a testing ground costs lives, not just spiraling dollars.'"
Well enough. I understand the desire for a watchdog group to want a "smoking gun." I understand the desire of the free press to hold the military complex up for examination.
But the WaPo article reads like a how-to manual on making a successful attack on a Stryker. Rather than stick with generalities, they get pretty darn specific - which parts fail, under what conditions, and how often.
Tell me that that's not going to cost lives.
"Eric Miller, senior defense investigator at the independent Project on Government Oversight, which obtained a copy of the internal Army report several weeks ago, said the critique shows that 'the Pentagon hasn't yet learned that using the battlefield as a testing ground costs lives, not just spiraling dollars.'"
Well enough. I understand the desire for a watchdog group to want a "smoking gun." I understand the desire of the free press to hold the military complex up for examination.
But the WaPo article reads like a how-to manual on making a successful attack on a Stryker. Rather than stick with generalities, they get pretty darn specific - which parts fail, under what conditions, and how often.
Tell me that that's not going to cost lives.
