The Torch: Drop ten words and fire for effect

Through the most labyrinthine hat-tip process imaginable, it has come to my attention that the good folks at CTV have yet another reason to bump their payroll - to hire more bodies to research their stories, and to hire better bodies to provide understanding and context to those stories. In fact, one of these days, I'd like to meet Mr. or Ms. News Staff and provide them with a list of folks they could call to verify stuff like this before they put it out to the general public:

The Canadian Forces are investing in a new high-tech shell to be used in Afghanistan. But at $150,000 per round, it could be the most expensive ammunition ever fired by the military.
...
According to Raytheon's pamphlet on the Excalibur, the "GPS-guided projectile provides accurate, first round fire-for-effect capability to all current and future 155-mm howitzers."

The shell uses software to direct it within 10-metres of its intended target, even when fired from up to 40 kilometres away, apparently minimizing unintended casualties. Standard shells are usually accurate to within 50 metres.

"Its accuracy will reduce collateral damage and permit its use close to friendly units, thus increasing employment flexibility," the pamphlet states.
...
But the Excalibur costs roughly $100,000 more than a regular shell, and critics like New Democratic MP Dawn Black argue the extra money would be better spent on reconstruction projects.

"We have to supply clean water," she said. "We have to supply electricity so that they can get on with some kind of economic development. And unless the people of Afghanistan see these kinds of differences, we're not going to win the hearts and minds of these people."

It's unlikely that argument will change the minds of battlefield commanders, who want any technology that improves their fighting power.

John Donovan, who has some experience putting indirect fire downrange, gently spanks the CTV staffers who put a $50,000 price tag on standard 155mm shells:

Heh. Just what is a "regular" projectile to these people? Last I saw a price, oh, 2003 or so, a standard 155mm HE went for $240 w/o fuze. I did some digging, and I found some pricing for some stuff in the works, usually a form of special fuze or add-on guidance package that can go as high as $20K for some long-range navy stuff in the works.

Beyond the factual issues, there's some additional information in the article that requires context as well.

First of all, Ms. Black suggests that we can't win hearts and minds without investing in reconstruction. Too true, that. But it's not the whole story.

The priority for the Canadian Forces should be improving the security situation that facilitates development, although the two concepts are so interconnected in this sort of a mission that the military must do some development work concurrently with fighting the insurgency. That's what the PRT is for.

Think of the PRT as paramedics: they provide the patient - Afghanistan in this case - solid, needed first-aid, but shouldn't be expected to perform neuro-surgery in the back of an ambulance, even if that's what will eventually be required to save that patient.

So yes, Ms. Black is correct when she appeals for more funds for 'hearts and minds' reconstruction projects, and I'll certainly support her efforts if she chooses to lobby Foreign Affairs to provide those funds. But she misleadingly frames the question as 'shells or wells' - an either-or choice - when it shouldn't be. We should fund military equipment and we should fund reconstruction, development, and aid.

Secondly, the separate question of whether the Excalibur shells constitute a worthwhile purchase is not as simple as the Polaris Institute's Staples "firing a Ferrari" quip suggests. I won't invoke the "if it saves just one more life" argument, although I will point out that just about everything the military purchases is pricey in part because it's designed to minimize the loss of friendly lives. There's no doubt a more accurate artillery shell will save lives, both civilian and allied military. The question here should be whether the incremental improvement in capabilities is worth the incremental cost, and that's not an assessment that falls neatly into a box labelled 'right' or 'wrong', it's a judgement call.

I will point out that we use our artillery as a CAS substitute in some ways, and that a $150K shell is far cheaper to use than a jet aircraft and its PGM's, providing it performs as advertised.

One of the points the anonymous CTV reporters got right in the article was that the cost-benefit discussion doesn't even enter into the front-line military mind. For them, the price of a better mousetrap isn't an issue - if it helps them catch mice more effectively and they're authorized to use it, they will.

CTV can mischaracterize the parameters of the discussion, just as Ms. Black and Mr. Staples can mischaracterize the choices facing the government, but at the end of the day this decision will require more thought than any of them seem to suggest.

Update: The knowledgeable crowd at Army.ca is also less than impressed. Best line of that conversation so far?