AlterNet's Gary Brecher's intellectually dishonest assessment of the XM-25

[NJMaverick]

I stumbled across this altnet article and it's title didn't pass the smell test. I was familiar with the XM-25 weapon system that was being developed and Gary's comments seemed to fly in the face of everything that I knew about it. For those that are not familiar with it, the XM-25 is a high tech hand held grenade launder. It's short and slightly heavier than the standard infantry rifle. Basically what makes it's special is that it can be set to explode after passing any sort of cover. In other words if an insurgent is hiding in a house, or behind a boulder is can be shot at and killed like they were standing in the middle of an open field.
In the irregular warfare that characterizes the Afghanistan conflict this sort of advantage can be a game changer. After all most battles consist of groups of insurgents ambushing or attaching troops from covered positions and then retreating before air power or artillery can be brought in (assuming there are no civilians around that would prevent the us of such powerful weapons systems). The ability for squads to be able to instantly react and tack out the insurgents engaged in attacks would greatly reduce their effectiveness.
So sensing a potential change in the fortunes of Afghanistan and fearing people increasing their expectations for success, the angry left's Gary Brecher goes tearing down the system.
He starts the article on a good note. While there were a few hyperbole moments and improper terminology he describes the weapon system and what it could do pretty accurately. If he had ended there he would have had a solid and educational article. Instead he goes on to explain why this revolutionary system will not make a difference. He provides layers of unsubstantiated opinion to build his case. First he argues that weapons development process is an ugly one. He points out the many flaws in the process. He infers that the system will not work, with out a single fact to support that assertion. Still he thinks he protects his credibility by begrudgingly admitting that the flawed process has produced many effective weapons systems.
He then argues that no weapons system can change the counter insurgency warfare because weapons systems that weren't designed for or were ill suited for insurgencies haven't changed anything. He improperly suggests that insurgents with AK47s and RPGs and IEDs should not be a match for the modern US infantry soldier even though the weapons systems are not all that different.
Finally sensing the weakness in that argument he claims that even if the weapon system does have a major impact on the battlefield, that wouldn't win the war. He argues, incorrectly, that terrorists tactics are just as effective as guerrilla tactics. A claim that couldn't be further afield of the truth. Guerrilla wars have taken down nations, the same can't be said of terrorist campaigns.
This article is a perfect example of bending the facts to fit one's position rather than fitting one's position to the facts.

Here is the link to the article in question.

http://www.alternet.org/story/149146/xm2...ghanistan/

[Julie]

Excellent work Mav. So much bullshit out there! Gload someone's adressing some of it!

Julie

[Cha]

It makes me wonder what else Alter Net lets slip by the QC?