The USA Today's Tom Vanden Brook likes to talk about the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles -  he's covered the topic for years, pushing the notion that the Pentagon was derelict in its reluctance to field these armored busses to forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, while studiously avoiding the issue of whether the vehicles are actually contributing to mission success. He reports that the MRAPs are saving lives in Afghanistan today (despite other reports that the vehicle doesn't really do that well in that country's terrain).

Nearly 80% of roadside bomb attacks on Humvees from January 2009 through the end of July 2010 killed occupants, according to U.S. Air Force Maj. Michael Johnson, a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force, the top command in Afghanistan. That figure dropped to 15% for attacks on Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, and an all-terrain MRAP model tailor-made for Afghanistan's rugged terrain. The trucks are designed to shield people from roadside bomb blasts.

The military estimates that MRAPs have reduced deaths and injuries by 30% over that time. That amounts to dozens of lives saved each month.

More than $40 billion will have been spent by the end of September to build, ship and maintain MRAPs.

It's a good thing that our troops can be protected from IEDs, if not from the shock it causes to their brains, during their multiple deployments to Afghanistan. But hey, that's not today's problem, so Vanden Brook doesn't focus on that post-conflict trauma issue. The important thing is knowing whether the $40 billion investment in MRAPs actually results in our troops being able to accomplish the mission, right? Read on...

The MRAP's ability to reduce casualties is important, said Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. But other factors are also considered in determining its usefulness.

"Ultimately it will be judged more on whether it helped U.S. troops accomplish their mission in Afghanistan than on its ability to reduce casualties," Krepinevich said in an e-mail. "Right now the war's outcome is still in doubt. If we succeed, the MRAPs, despite their high cost, will be seen as worth it. If we fail, some people will likely question whether we could have succeeded by adopting a different strategy and employing our resources differently."

I thought the initial investment of $20 billion in MRAPs for Iraq was irresponsible and a political kneejerk to emotional stories about troops dieing in urban conflicts. While it's tragic to lose one's son or father in an unjustifiably long war, it's worse to think that there were better ways to avoid that loss (like getting all of our forces out of Afghanistan in 2003). To spend $40 billion on the same technology, and then to promote its use in the Army's next Ground Combat Vehicle despite its high cost, operational limitations, and failure to add to mission success, is just stupidity in action. The American military's approach to warfare somehow results in this "technology will overcome our ineptness in combat" attitude that I just do not understand.