Logic Has No Place in Journalism

London's Daily Mail ran an article last week about "nose art", which is the generic description for the images painted on the fuselages of warplanes. [link] As the article notes, nose art had its heyday during World War II, when bombers bore names like the Memphis Belle, and were decorated with images to match.

Apparently, the RAF commanders in Afghanistan think things have gone too far, the pin-up girls painted on the sides of their planes being too raunchy or riske to pass muster. According to the article,

Commanders decided the images were sexist and insisted there was no place for them in the modern armed forces.

There was also concern that they could cause offence in a muslim country where until 2001 all women were forced to wear the head-to-toe burkha in public.

The Daily Mail reports that last tidbit without a hint of irony, and without any follow-up that would suggest that the reporter is engaged in any critical thinking.

Let's be honest here, people.

Is the source of (potential) offense among Afghans really the fact that RAF planes flying there bear caricatures of naked or scantily-clad women that no one on the ground will ever really see?

Or could it be something else that's offending them? Isn't it possible -- you know, maybe, I'm just throwing this out here -- that Afghans might be taking offense because of what these airplanes do, and not how they look? I mean, I'm just saying, but mightn't their offense actually stem from the fact that these planes have an annoying tendency to drop bombs on people -- combatants, yes, but also civilians -- on the ground?