The
article, Cover-up? Army historian says
report on deadly Afghan battle was altered to absolve faulty gun by Rowan
Scarborough, explores the American militaries current regulation rifle. The author
is highly critical, both of the guns performance and of the government’s
response to criticisms. This article is part two to the article Troops left to fend for themselves after Army was warned of flaws in
rifle by the same author.
The
articles place a large degree of focus on the flaws of the current M4 rifle
based on performance issues and user feedback. Performance issues under rapid
fire and desert conditions along with range limitations paint the picture of a
weapon ill-suited for its current use in Afghanistan. While I can definitely
agree with the assessment that our current fir arm is not sufficiently adapted
for our current war, it’s hard to ascertain the reliability of individual feedback
on the gun. The article almost exclusively shares quotes from people with at
least minor complaints about the gun, and the marines the Times interviewed
about the weapon are stated to have loved the weapon, but the first things
brought up about their interview are their issues with it. Other sources are
clearly biased, like an employee for a company paid to research improvements
whose improvements weren’t deemed applicable. While it goes into other
individuals complaints about the weapon, reading through the comments you’ll
find many people stating preferences and/or disdain for different guns, and
with how widely used the M4 is, I wouldn’t be surprised to find someone with an
even worse view of the gun than the “Put a flak jacket on the enemy and it’s
virtually useless.” from Maj. General Robert Scales, an artillery officer. One
section however focused, rather than on whether or not they thought the gun
itself was good, on why the M4 is not suited for our current conflict. In light
of this, I have difficulty judging whether the gun itself is notably subpar,
although I find it easy to believe that the transition from urban to outdoors
combat should have prompted a rethinking of the army’s standard armament.
While
government and company denial of issues with their policies or products isn’t
uncommon, the length of time for which our army went without significant
research into the issues with the M4, raises concerns. When field reports of
tech failure go buried for almost a decade, it’s not hard to see that, when it
comes to finding and solving issues, intelligent trial and error is not being
applied. With how much military funding is being put out in the US we should be
looking for ways to spend it more efficiently, rather than just being
conservative in order to avoid transferring business and employment opportunities
from an inefficient source.
While I
felt the article relied too much on biased sources, it raise some important
facts and concerns for Americans and their loved ones in the military. If the US government is this slow to react to changes in war, how can we be confident when lives aren't at risk?
No comments:
Post a Comment