I'm honestly disappointed. This tweet is unprofessional in its framing, sensationalist, and not the quality I expect from the M&G. The article is no better, as it adopts a breathless tabloid-style tone and doesn't back up key claims like the purported R200 million cost. 1/
https://twitter.com/mailandguardian/status/1405576206997757963
First, newspapers should ditch the 'Mabena' meme. It's misleading, patronising, and fundamentally unsuited for serious commentary on the armed forces. It would be like framing all reporting on govt departments or politics as 'mamparas', which would obviously be inappropriate. 2/
As for the article, the key claim that the new uniforms will cost 'between R120 million and R200 million' is not supported by any sourcing or justification at all. That's surprising, and frankly unacceptable, given how much that figure has been promoted for this story. 3/
This matters, because how much this costs depends on how it's rolled out. If it's done like previous SANDF uniform improvements there should be little to no extra cost because regular annual uniform purchases will just be switched to the new pattern for for a gradual rollout. 4/
But there's no detail on which rollout process has been picked, or even which of those being evaluated has been picked. In fact as far as can be seen there's no new information on the topic to justify a front-page article, just extra speculation on the months-old story. 5/
Even if there is an extra cost to the new uniforms, the article doesn't justify its opinionated claim that uniform improvements aren't necessary or valuable. It's wrong, because there is a real need for the improvements the new uniforms bring especially in operational areas. 6/
Every officer I've spoken to with operational experience, even those most cynical about the motives of senior leadership, has been fully behind the need for an improved uniform. They've been trying to get the inherent shortcomings of the existing one resolved for years. 7/
In fact the new pattern & cut are the result of CSIR research & evaluations that started decades ago following operational experience in Burundi, the DRC, and Sudan. These new uniforms & boots should last longer in those conditions & improve combat effectiveness. 8/
I really want to emphasise that last part: Uniforms are a crucial element of combat effectiveness. Everything from the material used, to the pattern, to how well it retains colour over time, to where pockets are placed makes a difference in combat. 9/
So it really makes no sense to argue that improvements to the combat camouflage uniform are unnecessary compared to other mission equipment. It all has the same goal. To frame it, as the article does, as merely being done to improve appearances is wrong. 10/
What's worse is that there really is a need for proper investigative journalism on this acquisition, but this isn't it. The key questions such as how it will be rolled out, which companies will be eligible for procurement, how evaluations are done, and so on remain unanswered.11/
In sum this is a disappointing & low-quality article from the M&G, from whom we should expect better. It adds no new sourced information on cost, uses tabloid-style framing, and fundamentally misunderstands the value of combat uniform improvements to combat performance. 12/12
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
