Shocked & Definitely Not Awed

Andrew Sullivan noted this afternoon that "Ackerman is worried about the firepower Petraeus has unleashed on Afghanistan." And, like we all do, he posted a blurb from Ackerman's piece with the salient particulars. (Spencer Ackerman is a “national security reporter” for Wired.com.)

Long story short: Ackerman is "worried" about the increased use of the M1 Abrams main battle tank (which he derides as "your ultimate in 30-year old precision firepower"). He thinks we’re replicating the “Soviet Union’s failed heavy footprint in Afghanistan” and implies Gen. Petraeus is pursuing a foolhardy strategy. Ackerman gets most of his selective “insights” from a piece written by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, a superb Washington Post reporter. Per Chandrasekaran, the new armored up tactics may actually be working. But never mind. (Read Ackerman here and Chandrasekaran here, and draw your own conclusions.)

This post isn’t about military tactics in Afghanistan. It’s about Ackerman’s sweeping assertions. They struck me as naïve, uninformed and frankly reckless.

So, who the fuck is Spencer Ackerman?

Ackerman graduated Rutgers a year before the Iraq War began. Claim to fame: Editor of the student paper. He then went to work for The New Republic where he was eventually fired for "insubordination." (To prove his pro-war bona fides, Ackerman said he would "skullfuck" a terrorist's corpse at an editorial meeting if that was required. Impressed?) Long story short: He ended up at Wired Magazine where he contributes to its national security blog, “Danger Room.” The 20-something Ackerman is also into comic books and hardcore punk music, per Wikipedia. But hey, he was one of the blogosphere’s Young Lions, according to the Wall Street Journal. That qualifies him to teach tactics at West Point, right?

In order words, on Afghanistan and military strategy, Ackerman has no bloody idea what he is talking about. He’s playing soldier and rockin’ out to Top Gun’s “Danger Zone.” All of which explains his “shocked & not awed” piece.

Yes, I’m being a tad harsh. I presume Ackerman can read and trust he has used that skill to bone up on national security issues and military history (though the wisdom he might have gleamed from study isn’t apparent in his latest piece or the previous ones).

A word to the wise: With Wikipedia, it is easy to check the “bona fides” of the established journalists you regularly read, particularly the armchair generals claiming expertise on topics like national security. Ackerman is probably not a bad fellow, skull-fucking notwithstanding.

But I’d trust his reporting about as far as this former Marine tank commander could throw him.