Too much to ask, I know...

Look, I'm not saying anyone needs to be perfect. Heaven knows I talk about military matters on this blog all the time, and I know a fraction of what a serving member of the CF would about most of those topics.

Of course, writing isn't my chosen profession, it's a hobby. If it was my profession, and if I was writing for Canada's most venerable and supposedly well-respected newspaper, I'd pay a hell of a lot more attention to detail than the clowns in charge did in Monday's edition of the Globe and Mail.

First, we get this from Campbell Clark:

The heavily armoured Leopards are less vulnerable to attacks from rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs than the light-armoured LAV-III vehicles now used by infantry troops. Instead of firing bullets, the Leopards carry huge 105-millimetre guns that can pound targets with explosive shells from a distance.

I get the fact that the average Globe and Mail reader doesn't know his military vehicles, and that the writer obviously feels he has to explain the differences between them in order to add context to the report. Great idea, I'm all for it. But don't dumb the content down so far that you get it wrong, you numpty.

"Now used by the infantry" suggests that the infantry will be using something else when the Leos come to town, like right now they're struggling along in vehicles that aren't properly armoured. And that's simply incorrect: the Leos will be used by armoured troops, and the LAV III's will continue to perform their valuable role with the infantry, engineers, and armour.

But it's the next sentence that amazes me: "Instead of firing bullets..." Instead? You're sure about that, Mr. Clark? What exactly are the two 7.62mm C6 machine guns for, then? Accessorizing? Or did you figure the C6's fired key lime pie instead of bullets? I understand journalists have suffered under similar delusions before, and ended up filing their last report from the inside of a pine box.

Don't even get me started about the "huge 105-millimetre guns that can pound targets with explosive shells from a distance," like the guns we're using now are smaller and can't hit at range. M777 anyone? The issues here are direct versus indirect fire, mobility, and up-armour capability, but since our journalist doesn't understand those subtleties, he can't very well explain them to his readers, can he?

Norman Spector and/or his copy editor is next in line for the cricket bat. Say it with me, Norman: Joint...Task...Force...2.

And Canada's elite troops, J2F2, did in fact help the U.S.-led coalition depose the Taliban government that had harboured Mr. bin Laden.

J2F2? Here's an acronym for you, Normie: WTF? Is J2F2 like R2D2 with green face paint and foul language? Since when did we enlist fictional droids from George Lucas movies as special ops troops?

In the grand scheme of things, a typo on an acronym isn't a big deal. But ask yourself if the abbreviation for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries would ever, EVER make it into print in the Globe and Mail as OPEK.

What grinds me about this sort of silly stuff - and, yes, I'm quite aware that I'm picking nits here - is that it's symptomatic of a bigger, more serious problem than a typo or oversimplification. Our journalists, with very few exceptions (ahem...Thorne, Wattie, and increasingly Akin), know so little about the military that they cannnot possibly report on it with any credibility whatsoever. They do anyhow, and get away with their manifest errors, because the Canadian public in general doesn't know enough to call bullshit.

That needs to change.