AP: Scolds Military for Not Using Non-Existent 'Ray Gun' in Iraq

Newsbusters.org ^ | 8/30/07 | Warner Todd Huston

[Mobile Vulgus]

This one makes you want to say, "Captain Kirk to the Starship AP. Beam us up, there's no intelligent life in the AP News Room." on August 29th, the AP published a story scolding the U.S. Military for refusing to use a non-lethal "ray gun" to control crowds in Iraq and they quote a few military sources who claim they issued an "urgent request" for the system. It takes over half the story before the reader is finally told that this system is still experimental and that this "ray gun" has never been put into production, so "urgent requests" or no, the Pentagon couldn't ship the weapon even if it wanted to because it doesn't really even exist in a field ready state. And, even as the AP admits this, the fact that this weapon doesn't really exist is never developed well enough in the story for a casual reader to easily grasp this fact. The net effect of the story causes a reader to imagine we have a warehouse filled with these life saving, non-lethal weapons and that the Pentagon refuses to release them to desperate commanders in Iraq. But the truth is that we do not even have any such stash of these experimental crowd control devices anywhere.

Worse than misleading the public into assuming that the Military has non-lethal weapons at its disposal that it refuses to use, AP presents its story as if the Military is simply prefers to just randomly kill people. And, in keeping with the AP's anti-American stylebook, Iraqi insurgents are treated as mere loiterers that the US military indiscriminately sprays with bullets, bullets that also kill untold numbers of civilians.

Catch their opening sentences:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Saddam Hussein had been gone just a few weeks, and U.S. forces in Fallujah, west of Baghdad, were already being called unwelcome invaders. One of the first big anti-American protests of the war escalated into shootouts that left 18 Iraqis dead and 78 wounded.

It would be a familiar scene in Iraq's next few years: Crowds gather, insurgents mingle with civilians. Troops open fire, and innocents die.

All the while, according to internal military correspondence obtained by The Associated Press, U.S. commanders were telling Washington that many civilian casualties could be avoided by using a new non-lethal weapon developed over the past decade.

So the US military is just as bad as Saddam Hussein, Iraqis have always considered us "unwanted invaders," and the U.S. military goes around shooting into crowds so that "innocents die."

And, notice how that second sentence progressed: "Crowds gather, insurgents mingle with civilians. Troops open fire..." So, U.S. troops automatically fire into crowds throughout Iraq just because they think an insurgent might "mingle" there? Does the AP have a military communication to prove their rhetoric that orders have been given to our soldiers that they should fire into just any group of people without provocation? Oh, wait... did the AP forget to mention that the insurgents opened fire first? Shucks, that must have been just an accidental oversight on AP's part, right?

Next the AP disingenuously leads readers into imagining that "military leaders" throughout Iraq are requesting and being denied this weapon.

Military leaders repeatedly and urgently requested - and were denied - the device, which uses energy beams instead of bullets and lets soldiers break up unruly crowds without firing a shot.

For proof of these "military leaders" who "repeatedly and urgently" requested the devices AP mentions one Air Force scientist and a few Marine generals who asked after the system (they also cite an officer that endorsed one Marine general's request). This handful of officers mentioned, along with one scientist who is not a field commander, does not make for enough "military leaders" to justify the tenor of this story. AP writes as if dozens of officers have pleaded for these devices and have been summarily denied them by an uncaring Pentagon. The AP doesn't even make the case that most officers are even aware of the existence of these types of weapons.

After finger waging at the Pentagon for half the story, the AP slips in this fact.

Still, officials say the technology is too expensive, although they won't say what it costs to build. They cite engineering challenges as another obstacle, although one U.S. defense contractor says it has a model ready for production.

Wait a minute! A defense contractor "says it has a model ready for production?" With that one sentence we come to find out that these non-lethal crowd control devices are not even in production and that only a few experimental and extremely expensive prototypes are currently in existence. In other words, these things do not exist in field ready form, none have been produced and finally tested, none have had field trials. Yet, here is the AP acting as if these weapons have been denied repeated requests for deployment as if they are just sitting in a warehouse gathering dust.

But, how, exactly, does one deploy a system that does not really exist?

It's also amusing that the AP's chief argument that we should be making these devices is based on the word of a military contractor who will financially benefit from their production. Apparently, pecuniary gain is all the AP needs for assurances that this system is effective and ready to easily deploy. One thing is sure, if this were the AP's chief justification, it would rank as the first time they took as gospel the word of an evil military contractor that would make money off of war!

AP quotes Mike Booen, Raytheon's vice president for "directed energy programs," who assures us all that they have a version of this crowd control device called the "Silent Guardian" ready for production. So AP is obviously trying to make the reader think that the Pentagon has but to give the word and cut a check and these wonderful gadgets can flood into Iraq to "save lives."

Mike Booen, Raytheon's vice president for directed energy programs, said the company has produced one system that's immediately available.

"We have the capacity to build additional systems as needed," he said.

Well, that sure sounds like we could get dozens of them at a minute's notice, doesn't it. Well, not quite:

Raytheon has not sold any Silent Guardians to U.S. or foreign customers, and Booen would not discuss the product's price.

In other words, Raytheon has not made any, has not fully field tested any, and they have not sold any to anyone outside of the military, either -- not even civilian agencies. And, his reluctance to discuss price is telling, too. Imagine how expensive they must be?

Next the AP wonders "how many civilian deaths could have been avoided" if only we had this innovative Star Trek ray gun at our disposal?

There's no way to calculate how many civilian deaths could have been avoided had the energy beam been available in Iraq. The bulk of the civilian casualties are due to sectarian warfare.

According to AP statistics, more than 27,400 Iraqi civilians have been killed and more than 31,000 wounded in war-related violence just since the new government took office in April 2005.

It's always fun to "prove" a point with a negative, isn't it? If there is "no way to calculate" the life saving, AP, how do you base your argument on the "fact" of lives saved? Does the AP think that this ray gun would convince al Qaeda and other insurgents to just give it all up and stop the violence?

Now, I can sign on to AP's underlying point. Perhaps non-lethal systems should be pushed harder? Perhaps we should get more serious than we have been thus far about these futuristic devices? But, for AP to present this story like they already exist and can be deployed by simply filling out a requisition slip is completely misleading.

For these crowd control devices to be deployed, we have to settle on a final design, actually manufacture them, then put them into field trials before we can unleash them as standard equipment for our military forces. This is a long time process that belies the AP's seeming claim that such devices have been "denied" officers in the field.

And then there is the legal question, one to which the AP gives short shrift in their telling of this tale of woe. AP gives this important point a few lines but their focus does not reveal how important this aspect of non-lethal weapons truly is.

The main reason the tool has been missing in action is public perception. With memories of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal still fresh, the Pentagon is reluctant to give troops a space-age device that could be misconstrued as a torture machine.

"We want to just make sure that all the conditions are right, so when it is able to be deployed the system performs as predicted - that there isn't any negative fallout," said Col. Kirk Hymes, head of the Defense Department's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.

Reviews by military lawyers concluded it is a lawful weapon under current rules governing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a Nov. 15 document prepared by Marine Corps officials in western Iraq.

Private organizations remain concerned, however, because documentation that supports the testing and legal reviews is classified. There's no way to independently verify the Pentagon's claims, said Stephen Goose of Human Rights Watch in Washington.

What the AP doesn't say is that the whole status of non-leathal weapons is up in the air the world over. They have not been tested by constant use, they have not been litigated over nor have laws been adjusted for their use. So, any use of them is sailing into uncharted waters, for sure. And, in this day of constant and abusive litigation, it is no wonder that the U.S. government is reluctant to speed ahead with new devices.

Now, imagine if we had been using such a weapon and someone was killed by this "non-lethal" device? Imagine how the AP would be wailing over this death. How many calls for the heads of Pentagon officials for such "negligence" would we hear then? How many leftist NGO's would be lining up to sue the U.S. government and its contractors?

In the final analysis, the AP presents these weapons as if they are ready to use when they have not even been put into production and does not inform the reader of all the real obstacles, mechanical, financial, and legal, in the way of a deployment of these sorts of new weapons. This story just leaves readers once again damning a negligent U.S. military establishment that seems to be senselessly keeping a valuable resource away from the ranks of our military commanders who are powerlessly pleading for their use.

We all know why the AP presents this story in such a manner, though, don't we? Because it casts the U.S. government, the military and the Bush Administration as the bad guys, of course. And, in the end, isn't that what every AP story tries to do?

Read more at Newsbusters.org.

[Mobile Vulgus]

The AP will do anything to slam the military, I guess.

[Red Badger]

AP = American Pravda

[Brilliant]

The device would minimize what Natonski described as the “CNN Effect” - the instantaneous relay of images depicting U.S. troops as aggressors.

Good name for it.

[johnny7]

[Candor7]

When it comes to freedom and patriotism , the two most quintessential factors of the citizenry of the United States, AP is reduced to a collective of support for totalitarian states, all in the name of their Utopian , United Nations agenda.

The solution to global warming, defence of feedom , committment to ones nation is all painted with the same brush, or treated with the same poisonous pill: totalitarianism.

I wonder what the last AP correspondent will have to say when AP loses its ability to say anything but what their yearned-for, totalitarian state dictates?

Perhaps it will be: " Finally we are all equal?"

(Redux Absurdum)

Use the ray gun, to control the mindless masses? We already do it well with AP propaganda.

I think that Raytheon has finally found its best fit for a raygun test population: All AP employees, round them up and lets see how they like it.

[Fiji Hill]

It should be easy for the military to acquire ray guns. All they have to do is mail in box tops from Kellogg's Pep.

[Red6]

If they did use it, the same media would be screaming that this sort of system is “inhumane” and wrong to use on civilians. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

I’m surprised some cheese-ball Democrat or RINO politician hasn’t picked up this ball and tried to score a political shot with it. As with body armor, armored HMMWVs, an anti-torture bill........ these issues if they become large in the media, despite being complete nonsense, will often then be politicized by those who want to:

a) Get their name in the media (recognition)
b) Be associated with some “fix” to a problem, even if this problem is nonexistent or the so called fix is complete nonsense. I.e. anti-torture bill, it was never legal to torture, but after Abu Gahrib some statesmen decided to ride on the issue. Or Murtha’s “redeploying to Guam,” other politicians talking about “Redeploying to outlying countries around Iraq” which doesn’t even make remotely sense, but offers an answer and shows actions, something people want.

The problem is that nothing is taboo in American politics. It’s complete anarchy. Talks with declared enemies of the state, such as Pelosi’s visit to Syria; criticizing shortages of of certain equipment though production is maxed out; criticizing the lack of equipment that’s not even developed yet; declaring changes in strategy as failure, before they even happen; playing games with defense appropriation………… It is shameful to see American lives in Iraq peddled away and played with like pawns in a chess game by politicians who only have a concern when it benefits them; who see the freedom of 26 million, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands separated from their families, toiling to create a better Iraq as nothing more than another “issue” they can somehow score political capital with.

[KarlInOhio]

Let's say that the military did take one of their untested prototypes and field it in Iraq. What would AP's story be like if some Iraqi kid in the crowd had braces which burst into flames from the "nonlethal" microwaves? I could imagine the headline: American "Death Ray" kills Iraqi child and affects hundreds of others. Democrats demand investigation of the President.

[Bob]

So is it a ‘death ray’ or a ‘stun ray’? I think I’d have to call any ‘death ray’ that only ‘stuns’ animals a total failure.

[JimRed]

The AP will do anything to slam the military, I guess.

Thinking it through, the military asked for it, intending to use it. That means that their goal was to NOT kill unnecessarily! AP morons never picked up on that.

[johnny7]

I prefer my animals stuned...

[Bob]

Was that picture near the top of the posting part of the article? If so, I'd have to say that it looks much more like a radar system than any sort of non-lethal crowd control device.

I'm not familiar with Army or Marine Corps radar systems but that sure looks like there's feedhorn mounted out in front of a radar dish.

[centurion316]

I have been involved in the assessment, development, testing, and deployment of many such systems over the past 4 years, including this one. The reason that this system and many others are not yet in production is that they have undergone extensive testing and have come up short, usually in many different respects. Not ready for prime time is what we call it.

I’ll give you a typical generic scenario, not based on any actual system.

Vendor/Rocket Scientist comes up with a brillant idea that is going to win the war, defeat all IED’s, or provide ice cream on demand for all HMMWV’s. He develops a prototype, or a brassboard (working mock up), or maybe just a slick Powerpoint pitch. Mad scientist flys to Washington and makes the rounds pitching his idea to all who will listen. The smart ones go to their local Congress Critter first who usually helps get them in to see people.

Someone like us says, OK, show us what you’ve got. Meet us a Camp Swampy with your gizmo and we’ll give it a go. Device shows up at Camp Swampy mounted on a UHaul trailer or the Business Development Manager’s Lawn Tractor trailer (true story). So we take a look and ask a few questions:

Q: So, how is it powered?

A: Just plug it into any convenient 110 volt outlet.

Q: Did you know that Iraq has 220 volts and there are no convenient outlets?

A: Silence ... We can work on that.

Q: What are the operating temperatures for this system?

A: About 60-75 degrees F.

Q: Did you know that temperatures in Iraq reach 140 degrees F in the summer?

A: Oh. Well, we can supply an air conditioner.

Q: I thought this system was supposed to be man portable?

A: Oh.

Q: I see alot of electronic components. How are they protected from sand and dust?

A: We hadn’t thought about that problem.

Q: What happens when the system breaks?

A: Easy, you just Fed EX it back to us in East Afalacka, AL and we’ll turn it around in about a week.

OK, well I think that this needs a little work. Why don’t you go back to the lab, work out some of these bugs and meet us at an undisclosed location in a couple of months.

Repeat scenario above as necessary.

The common response to rejection is for the owner/CEO to go to his Congress Critter and to the press and claim that his system can save lives and win the war but for the mindless bureaucrats who are keeping his system out of the hands of the troops. The AP knows all of this, but gladly print stories such as this to suit their agenda. Gannett (USA Today) is even worse.

Some of these are good ideas, they just need some serious engineering work. Some are crackpot solutions that will only work on the Science Fiction Channel and on Future Weapons episodes. Some are ready to go, but run afoul of the “Not Invented Here” from some Program Manager who sees this as a threat to his program. Most of them are not in theater for a very good reason, not ready for prime time.

[KingSnorky]

Actually, that’s a DirecTV dish the troops will use to pick-up the Big Ten Network this Saturday. (Sorry, Time-Warner Cable customers!)

[LavaDog]

CNN just ran with this “Story” on Headline News.

[DakotaRed]

Leftists at AP still trying to make this war a video game.

[Badeye]

Its rare I bother to read an Associated Press story these days.

They are less credible than CBS News, and thats saying something all by itself.

[goldstategop]

Their reporters are clueless on military affairs. The story is the product of a first grade scribbling... worthless doodles masquerading as facts.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus