Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Fifth Column Alert
On February 12th, the scumnuts at the Los Angeles Times published operational and technical details about a new device designed to defeat the enemy's roadside bombs.
Within five days of that publication, using details from the article, the enemy had published a technical advisory of his own training his insurgents on how to defeat the countermeasure.
There will be a lot of press coverage on the increased efforts to defeat IEDs, and on the vastly increased budget for so doing. Let's see how many reporters mention the LA Times' carelessness, or if the code of omerta prevails among journalists.
Publishing classified information is illegal. The Pentagon Papers precedent upheld that concept. When will the Administration put some of these editors up on charges?
When will the families of those killed or injured by roadside bombs sue the publishers for contributory negligence?
Hat tip: Cold Fury
Within five days of that publication, using details from the article, the enemy had published a technical advisory of his own training his insurgents on how to defeat the countermeasure.
There will be a lot of press coverage on the increased efforts to defeat IEDs, and on the vastly increased budget for so doing. Let's see how many reporters mention the LA Times' carelessness, or if the code of omerta prevails among journalists.
Publishing classified information is illegal. The Pentagon Papers precedent upheld that concept. When will the Administration put some of these editors up on charges?
When will the families of those killed or injured by roadside bombs sue the publishers for contributory negligence?
Hat tip: Cold Fury
Comments:
That's OK, it was reprinted in the St. Paul Pioneer Press | 02/12/2006 | Roadside-bomb busters sit idle
The gist of the Feb. 12, 2006 LA Times article entitled, "Roadside-bomb Busters Sit Idle", was the slow response of time for a solution to a problem identified 2 years ago:
(start) The Pentagon has identified the IED problem as one of its top priorities. Yet nearly two years after the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid, called for a "Manhattan Project" to cut down on roadside bombing casualties, many believe that his level of concern has not been matched in Washington.
"There's a bureaucracy that really slows things down, and sometimes people don't have the same sense of urgency," said one officer involved in the effort to counter improvised bombs. "That's where my frustration comes in."
The Defense Department under Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has faced similar charges of failing to act quickly to protect soldiers in combat.
Dissatisfaction with the Pentagon's overall response to the IED threat in Iraq follows complaints about the military's failure to provide sufficient body armor for soldiers and adequate armor for transport vehicles. (end)
Using the link you provided, I was anxious to learn the details of this disclosure by the LA Times and how the enemy used it to their advantage. I read through the transcript of the President's March 13, 2006 speech "President Discusses Freedom and Democracy in Iraq" at the Dorothy Betts Marvin Theatre, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
The pertinent section seems to support the LA Times article that Washington is lagging behind due to bureaucracy and the only supporting evidence that "the enemy had published a technical advisory of his own training his insurgents on how to defeat the countermeasure." is based on the fact that the President said it happened.
From the White House website, the date is March 16th, 2006:
(start) The third part of our plan is to develop new technologies to defend against IEDs. We are putting the best minds in America to work on this effort. The Department of Defense recently gathered some -- gathered 600 leaders from industry and academia, the national laboratories, the National Academy of Sciences, all branches of the military, and every relevant government agency to discuss technology solutions to the IED threat. We now have nearly a hundred projects underway. For security reasons, I'm not going to share the details of the technologies we're developing. The simple reason is, the enemy can use even the smallest details to overcome our defenses.
Earlier this year, a newspaper published details of a new anti-IED technology that was being developed. Within five days of the publication -- using details from that article -- the enemy had posted instructions for defeating this new technology on the Internet. We cannot let the enemy know how we're working to defeat him. But I can assure the American people that my administration is working to put the best technology in the hands of our men and women on the front lines -- and we are mobilizing resources against the IED threat. (end)
I agree that if the enemy used the information in that article to develop a counter measure to our defense methodology towards IEDs, they should be held accountable.
But this part of the LA Times article bothered me: (start) While nobody in the military believes that deploying JIN units to Iraq will eliminate the IED threat, many consider it one of the most promising technologies yet developed, and question what they believe is a slow deployment schedule set by Army leaders in charge of the IED task force. (end)
Does anyone have a link that mentions this 5-day turn around in which the insurgency overcame the above mentioned technology other than the White House transcript? Because if they are smart enough to do that so quickly (5 days?) - we're in a world of hurt. And spending lots of money! Were the JIN units ever deployed within the last 2 months? Were they scrapped? How did a reporter manage to get all the details of Weaponry Research & Development? Did the manufacturer release the information? If so - let's cancel THAT contract, for sure!
Something's not right...I'm concerned about this - I think someone's not telling the truth...
Post a Comment
(start) The Pentagon has identified the IED problem as one of its top priorities. Yet nearly two years after the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid, called for a "Manhattan Project" to cut down on roadside bombing casualties, many believe that his level of concern has not been matched in Washington.
"There's a bureaucracy that really slows things down, and sometimes people don't have the same sense of urgency," said one officer involved in the effort to counter improvised bombs. "That's where my frustration comes in."
The Defense Department under Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has faced similar charges of failing to act quickly to protect soldiers in combat.
Dissatisfaction with the Pentagon's overall response to the IED threat in Iraq follows complaints about the military's failure to provide sufficient body armor for soldiers and adequate armor for transport vehicles. (end)
Using the link you provided, I was anxious to learn the details of this disclosure by the LA Times and how the enemy used it to their advantage. I read through the transcript of the President's March 13, 2006 speech "President Discusses Freedom and Democracy in Iraq" at the Dorothy Betts Marvin Theatre, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
The pertinent section seems to support the LA Times article that Washington is lagging behind due to bureaucracy and the only supporting evidence that "the enemy had published a technical advisory of his own training his insurgents on how to defeat the countermeasure." is based on the fact that the President said it happened.
From the White House website, the date is March 16th, 2006:
(start) The third part of our plan is to develop new technologies to defend against IEDs. We are putting the best minds in America to work on this effort. The Department of Defense recently gathered some -- gathered 600 leaders from industry and academia, the national laboratories, the National Academy of Sciences, all branches of the military, and every relevant government agency to discuss technology solutions to the IED threat. We now have nearly a hundred projects underway. For security reasons, I'm not going to share the details of the technologies we're developing. The simple reason is, the enemy can use even the smallest details to overcome our defenses.
Earlier this year, a newspaper published details of a new anti-IED technology that was being developed. Within five days of the publication -- using details from that article -- the enemy had posted instructions for defeating this new technology on the Internet. We cannot let the enemy know how we're working to defeat him. But I can assure the American people that my administration is working to put the best technology in the hands of our men and women on the front lines -- and we are mobilizing resources against the IED threat. (end)
I agree that if the enemy used the information in that article to develop a counter measure to our defense methodology towards IEDs, they should be held accountable.
But this part of the LA Times article bothered me: (start) While nobody in the military believes that deploying JIN units to Iraq will eliminate the IED threat, many consider it one of the most promising technologies yet developed, and question what they believe is a slow deployment schedule set by Army leaders in charge of the IED task force. (end)
Does anyone have a link that mentions this 5-day turn around in which the insurgency overcame the above mentioned technology other than the White House transcript? Because if they are smart enough to do that so quickly (5 days?) - we're in a world of hurt. And spending lots of money! Were the JIN units ever deployed within the last 2 months? Were they scrapped? How did a reporter manage to get all the details of Weaponry Research & Development? Did the manufacturer release the information? If so - let's cancel THAT contract, for sure!
Something's not right...I'm concerned about this - I think someone's not telling the truth...
# posted by 
: 7:37 PM
: 7:37 PM
