Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
News article critical of Osprey doesn't fly
October 20,2005
BY LORI ENNIS
SPECIAL TO LIBERTY
Reading the Oct. 17 Liberty section in the Local section of The Daily News made me so angry I could hardly finish the article I was reading. Again and again I asked why the local newspaper for the Marine Corps Air Station New River continues to run articles from reporters in other states that do not support the home team?
In an article written by Bob Cox, a Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram reporter, an insinuation is given with regard to the testing done on the MV-22 Osprey. In his article, Cox quotes a former chief weapons tester at the Pentagon, Philip Coyle, as saying "the V-22 still hasn't been proven for combat." According to Cox, Coyle also insinuated that the Marine test squadron couldn't perform numerous missions or carefully worked around some requirements, stating, "I think they didn't want anything to go wrong, perhaps, so they only did the easy parts."
As I continued to read the article, I noted a news brief on the same page about Bell Helicopter and Boeing Co.'s "politically incorrect ad." Must have been "Bash the Osprey Day" and I didn't get the memo.
I have never met Coyle, but I sure would like to. I would like to ask him why Marine Corps CH-46 squadrons are being stood down as they prepare to transition to and stand up again as fleet MV-22 squadrons. What does he think these new Osprey squadrons are going to be doing - standing around hangars full (that's right, full - they are in production now as operational evaluation statistics have come back favorably) of Ospreys that are not combat ready? No, they are going out on missions!
Adding insult to injury, however, is the most disgusting implication I think I have heard coming out of the Pentagon (and these days, there is a lot to choose from). I don't know how Coyle has the audacity to entertain the notion that this group of Marines who participated in the op-eval were so lacking in integrity that they decided to "just do the easy parts." Let me assure anyone who reads this editorial that my husband is one of those men who "may have only done the easy parts." I am furious that his honor and intelligence were insulted; but moreover, I am saddened by the large numbers of people I know will read this inflammatory article and will, like lemmings, believe whatever they read. Newspapers, reporters and former Pentagon officials don't lie, do they?
For the last two and a half years my husband, the most intelligent man I know, worked with some of the most intelligent men and women I have ever met, and they were all dedicated to one purpose: the honest and factual evaluation of the safety of the Osprey and its validity as a mission aircraft. In no way, shape or form would he or any of the other men and women that spent endless days and nights testing this aircraft be satisfied by only doing the "easy parts." Why on earth would any of these men or women want to fly in something if they felt it was the least bit unsafe? It was not only in the interest of honesty and integrity to test the Osprey as fully as possible, but in the best interests of the men and women who fly the thing (like my husband) every day! Just the "easy parts" - please.
The saddest thing of this all, though, is The Daily News' support and printing of articles such as this - demoralizing, insulting and simply not true. Couple this article with the aforementioned news brief about the makers of the Osprey apologizing for a "politically incorrect ad" and, as I said, it was Bash the Osprey Day.
Politically incorrect? The ad showed an Osprey coming down in combat (of course, this couldn't be true as Coyle decisively stated they were not proven for combat) with the ad headline reading, "It descends from the heavens. Ironically, it unleashes hell." Straight from Webster's, the definition of the heavens is: "The sky or universe as seen from the Earth; the firmament. Often used in the plural." Doesn't seem offensive to me - it is an aircraft. It is a vehicle of the heavens, as defined by Webster's English dictionary. Hell? "A situation or place of evil, misery, discord, or destruction": "War is hell" (William Tecumseh Sherman). Using William Sherman's own words here, war is hell. The ad was a depiction of the Osprey in a war zone. The Council on American-Islamic Relations claimed it was politically incorrect because it had a mosque in the ad. The Osprey was not attacking the mosque, as some have stated, nor was it even hovering over it. The reality is, the lands in which we are fighting war are rife with mosques. This ad was merely an accurate depiction of the war zone. It seems to me that politically incorrect these days just means that somebody doesn't like something so it ends up being offensive. Life's full of things I don't like. I don't get to deem them offensive - that's the great thing about our country - freedom of speech is one of our inherent rights.
While I openly acknowledge freedom of speech, I still wonder why The Daily News continues to gnaw on the bone of the safety (or lack thereof) of the Osprey. It may be the right of the newspaper, but it doesn't really sit well with many readers - readers who value equality in reporting and know firsthand of the integrity, reliability and honor of the men and women who participated in the evaluation of the MV-22.
Lori Ennis of Jacksonville is a first=grade teacher and the wife of Capt. John Ennis, a pilot with VMX-22.
Posted : 2005-10-20 13:07
