What is "constructive criticsm"?

Constructive criticism is that which is aimed at improving things, not destroying them. There are three simple rules for constructive criticism: 1: Make sure you have all the data you can reasonably obtain. 2: Where things are yet unknown, consider the most charitable view. 3: Have a specific understanding of the problem; make specific suggestions as to how it can be improved.

Whatever one thinks of Rumsfeld, the media's reporting on the Humvee flap was certainly not one which was made in the best interest of the troops and the general public. Violating the first rule, their reporting consistently omitted important data. Violating the second rule, they filled in the informational holes they themselves created with the least charitable view. Violating the third rule, they failed to offer any suggestion which would cause the troops to be better armed. Apparently, if Rumsfeld stepped down, all would magicly be well.

When QandO's McQ apparently followed suit, producing an argument which excoriated Rumsfeld for not up-armoring trucks, I pointed out he was following the media's lead tonally, didn't look for more data (such as the transcript), hadn't identified specific improvements and failures, and seemed confused about the topic of discussion (Humvees, not trucks, I felt).

In light of those failures, I characterized his line of attack as seeming to "think like a liberal" because it lacked specific evidence as to what was being done wrong and how it could have been done better -- and instead seemed to be assuming Rumsfeld had lied when he said the army had assured him they were doing all that was physically possible, presumably because there were no limits, or such limits were actually higher than the army had indicated.

Perhaps that seemed overly harsh, but it seemed fair given the various deficiencies in the argument. It was not meant as a slam against him personally -- I generally enjoy his writing -- but rather just against the specific case I saw laid out. McQ, for all I knew, may have been in the right, factually, but the point I was making was the deficiencies in the case presented.

I stand by those criticisms.

Further, history doesn't appear to have been kind to Rumsfeld's critics. Not that I knew better either -- data might have revealed that Rumsfeld, and the army brass (for the two would have had to have been complicit) were both being dishonest, lying schmucks.

But my point is about process, not simply being right. Being right or wrong is meaningless if your process is bad. Even a mindless nay-sayer will get a few hits now and then.

You Go To War...

One of the most egresious things the press did was to take Rummy's quote out of context in a way which changed its meaning.

"You go to war with the Army you have," Rumsfeld replied, "not the Army you might want or wish to have."

Of course, that wasn't Rumsfeld's whole response, or even an accurate summary of it. Taken out of context, from the middle of the quote, it sounded like Rumsfeld was ordering the soldier to go to war with existing equipment: "Today, YOU, go to war...!" Taken in context it was clearly a historical lead-in to the present situation: "When this started, WE went to war with..."

Yet McQ clearly took that bait, and his answer reflected that he hadn't looked at the transcript before condemning Rumsfeld's response as arrogant:

Well you know what Rummy, that might, just might have been an acceptable answer when we first went into Iraq, but its been what, almost 2 years now? That answer just won't cut it anymore.

But of course, Rumsfeld was referring to two years ago. McQ just got snookered. And I was wrong for pointing this out because:

You find my characterization of Rumsfeld's quote as arrogant to be a result of taking it out of context. I'd simply point out that after reading the rest of the quote it became apparent he was trying to cover his arrogance with a dollop of "gee we're really concerned and working on it" to cover his ass.

Rumsfeld was "trying to cover his arrogance"? But what arrogance? McQ's initial assessment of "arrogant" was based on the his assumption that "you go to war" referred to the present -- an impression which could not be sustained when the quote was read in context. That's what Mc's critique, "That was acceptable two years ago," meant. If the initial charge was false, when what was being "covered" up for?

Unlike most of us, McQ found Rumsfeld's statement, even when taken in context, to still be arrogant. That's fine if that's how he feels -- a man's certainly entitled to his own opinons. But my point was that McQ hadn't even checked the final quote before going to town. It was "shoot first, ask questions later", the exact strategy the mainstream news media uses. We're bloggers, we can afford to keep cool heads and do better.

So we have someting to the effect of: "Ok, Rumsfeld wasn't arrogant for the reason I first stated, but when I read the whole context, I found a different reason to regard his answer as arrogant." Only not stated so forthrightly. What's non-liberal about this kind of argumentation? It's worthy of dKos, not QandO.

Untapped Up-Armoring Capacity?

In the same leitmotiv, we had the question of what could have been done better. My initial complaint was that no evidence of specific areas where we could have done better were cited in McQ's response. Afterwards, a commenter helpfully supplied this link which apparently showed that a Humvee up-armorer had excess capacity that nobody had taken advantage of:

Once again, I was skeptical of the media, and for good reason.

First, there was a potential profit motive on the up-armorer's part. A unscrupulus supplier might say just such a remark to ensure they got a contract for more work got pushed through, pronto.

Second, I noticed there was no statement regarding how long this capacity had existed. This question was obvious and crucial: If they'd just gotten it recently, it wouldn't necessarily reflect any wrongdoing on the Army's part. Yet that information surely had to have been available to the reporter, and yet it was conspicuously absent. I smelled a rat again.

I did a little research and found they had been producing 220 per month in February, and were now doing more than double that at 450. I extrapolated from the starting point (fall 2003 at 15/month), and figured out they probably could not have had that alleged extra capacity sitting around very long -- I guessed not much more than a month.

It was clear to me the fat lady hadn't sung on this issue yet, and that, (see notes on constructive criticism above) more investigation was needed, but we should assume the best (or at least not assume the worst) until conclusive evidence of malfeasance was shown.

McQ again ran with this, as vindication, after the fact, that he had been right:

Ah, this proved there was excess capacity, and that Rumsfeld wasn't doing "his" job (though it would actually have been the army's). Thus any answer to the effect that the Army was doing all it could was dishonest and thus arrogant, not a simple statement of an unpleasant but unavoidable fact.

But once again my point was that he didn't produce this alleged evidence when he made his case. "Shoot first, ask questions later" again. Only later did he figure out that this was the reason his case was correct.

Again, this kind of tactic is more fitting to Atrios than QandOs.

As was the final outcome: McQ was snookered yet again. It turns out the excess capacity didn't exist long at all. In fact, contrary to the report, it doesn't even exist now. And it won't exist for quite some time, and even the supplier can't predict, for sure, when it will:

In short, there is no extra capacity; everyone who believed the report was deceived. But I'm sure XXX will get a contract for the unethical trick they pulled.

The second issue here is not that McQ was wrong, factually, on this point. I've been burned similarly many times before, so I'm certainly not one to throw a rock. Instead, the takeaway point -- as I stated in my first forray into this affair -- should be to stop trusting the media. Especially when your point happens to align with theirs. A lesson apparently not taken to heart.

Trucks and Humvees

Next, we have the question as to whether the debate was about trucks or Humvees. In my response, I limited discussion to unamored Humvees, not trucks.

Why? I had read the transcript, which gave me the strong impression the soldier was asking about a Humvee. It also stated un-armored trucks were not going to be used outside compounds -- for which I saw no evidence to the contrary. If both these statements were true, there was no reason to even discuss truck armor.

Further, even if all that was wrong, if there was a limit to up-armoring capacity (and I saw no evidence to the contrary), I wanted any unarmored Humvees addressed before trucks. So if both unarmored trucks and Humvees existed, the Humvees should get first priority.

McQ apparently saw my avoidance of this issue as some kind of sneaky dodge:

Tim also managed to avoid citing the quote from Col John Zimmerman of the unit in question which points out that after 2 years of knowing the problem existed, Rumsfeld, et. al., allowed this unit to deploy with 95% of his trucks with insufficient armor.

But no dishonesty was meant at all. I had simply given highest authority to the transcript, which led me to believe unarmored trucks were not going to be a serious problem in this guy's unit.

McQ's own take was apparently shaped more by articles like this, which gave the misleading impression that the soldier's question was about trucks. This was probably done so that the reporter could use that impressive "95% unarmored" number. But that complaint doesn't hold water until you can show the army lied about whether such trucks would be used off the compound, much less driven into combat. And such was not in evidence.

Subsequent reportage continues to reveal that the soldier's question, was, in fact, about Humvees, not trucks.

If I had read only that same article and not searched for the transcript, I might have thought that same thing. But, again the takeaway point is approach MSM reportage, in too-good-to-be-true cases like this, with skepticism and questions.

The Question, Itself

Finally, there's the matter of the soldier's question. Since I think we all assumed the best about the soldier, probably none of us would have guessed the question was coached, shaped, and staged by a reporter.

Even when we found the question was coached, I suspect most people, like myself, continued to assume that it was still indicative of a real problem at that unit -- an actual case where some soldiers wouldn't have all the armor they should have.

But sadly (for the critics, but good for the soldiers) even that seems not to have been the case:

Conclusion

So what do we have here? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Perhaps there is a larger issue of unpreparedness. Perhaps things could be done better in some areas. Undoubtedly, in an undertaking, there are many things which could be done better. There are probably serious cases worth discussion, serious things we could do to improve. Serious complaints to make.

But we're not going to discover them if this is the kind of tactics the press continues to use. And we bloggers fall down on the job when we don't take them to task on it, but instead extend unwarranted trust, let them play on our well-intentioned emotions, and become a megaphone for their dishonest tactics.