Sending Out Soldiers With A Defective Weapon

I saw the Washington Times’ first story on the M4 Carbine but failed to post about it due to other news that was going on. Now I see that part two is out.

Why should you care about the M4 Carbine?

Because we need to understand that supporting the troops and supporting the military leadership is not always really the same thing. It is especially obvious when military leadership are willing to foist suboptimal weaponry, armor, and tools onto the soldiers. Then, when they get people killed, they cover it up.

In other words, the military, because it is so huge and unaccountable, can operate just like any other area of Big Government.

In this case, the history of a battle was altered to cover for the M4 Carbine’s deficiencies.

M4 critics have long pointed to the Afghanistan battle on July 13, 2008, as evidence that the rifle’s design was flawed. They cite reports from soldiers on the ground that their guns overheated and jammed that day.

But the gun’s supporters have pointed to a single sentence in the official Wanat history issued in 2010 by the Army’s Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. It blamed the gun’s sustained rapid fire that day, not its design, for the malfunctions.

“This, not weapons maintenance deficiencies or inherent weaknesses in weapons design, was the reason a number of weapons jammed during the battle,” the sentence read.

Higher-ups inside Army command edited that sentence into the history, the report’s author says.

“That was not my conclusion,” said Douglas R. Cubbison, a former Army artillery officer and principal Wanat history author. “That was the Combat Studies Institute management that was driven from the chief of staff’s office to modify findings of that report to basically CYA [cover your ass] for the Army. You know how that works.

“Other soldiers have informally told me of similar problems they had with the M4 at high rates of fire,” said Mr. Cubbison, who is now curator of the Wyoming Veterans Memorial Museum.

Higher-ups made other changes, such as removing much of the historian’s criticism of senior officers for not better preparing the outpost for an attack.

“The Army tried to manipulate that study after it was basically done. They significantly changed things to a classic CYA,” Mr. Cubbison said

Both Part 1 and Part 2 provide a lot more evidence and background. It also matches other stories we have done. For example, it is consistent with a willingness to cover up homicides and attacks on soldiers in order to save face. It is also consistent with a record of being permitted to make money disappear without any accountability.

If anyone has time, one classic movie from the late nineties takes a comedic look at this serious issue: