How Tech Almost Lost the War 679
An anonymous reader writes "Blame the geeks for the mess in Iraq? Wired says so. Networked troops were supposed to be so efficient, it'd take just a few of 'em to wipe out their enemies. But the Pentagon got their network theory all wrong, with too few nodes and a closed architecture. Besides, a more efficient killing machine is the last thing you want in an insurgency like Iraq."
AH64s are efficient killing machines (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Actually.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Blame the Geeks? (Score:4, Informative)
== Bad when you create 2x more insurgents because of all the civvies you just collaterally damaged.
Re:Blame the Geeks? (Score:5, Informative)
We should've sent the guys who said we were going to be greeted with candy and flowers.
Re:Honest question (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure there were many reasons we went to war. They all point to money and power.
Author can't get his fact straight (Score:5, Informative)
According to prisoners each Hizbollah anti-tank missile [wikipedia.org] operator launched more than dozen missiles during the training. The Israel Army representative told that IDF "could only dream" about such level of training. BTW cheapest ATGM cost around 5k $. But Hizbollah also used some 9M133 Kornet (60k $ a pop). And Hizbollah had a lot of ATGM operators, so many that ATGM were used often against Israel infantry. Hizbollah operatives were well coordinated, using mobile phones and radio, well supplied and had had a network of concealed concrete bunkers, with communication lines, optic and stores.
It's plain stupid to call combatant capable of successful launch of modern anti-ship missile [wikipedia.org] "primitive foe".
Re:What to Blame (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Tech didn't lose the war (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Blame the Geeks? (Score:4, Informative)
The "iraq body count" guys are just counting dead listed in press releases.
Re:Honest question (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Actually.... (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with him. C is not easy. It is a language for programmers, not for people that are mainly into e.g. mechanical stress simulations. Granted, with appropriate libraries, and all that, you could make an environment suitable for mechanical stress simulations, using C as a base language. But unless you already have that environment, and are able to show it to him, there's no reason for him to start learning C.
I suggest you try to show him MATLAB instead, and see if he's more impressed this time. (And the matlab compiler makes this a "compiled" language too, if "compiled" is of importance to you (I assume it's totally unimportant to him)).
Re:Actually.... (Score:5, Informative)
Jeff Huber just put up an excellent essay [blogspot.com] on this which can be summed up by the two quotes by Clausewitz:
"Policy is the guiding intelligence and war only the instrument, not vice versa."
and
"If we do not learn to regard a war, and the separate campaigns of which it is composed, as a chain of linked engagements each leading to the next, but instead succumb to the idea that the capture of certain geographical points or the seizure of undefended provinces are of value in themselves, we are liable to regard them as windfall profits."
The most efficient "kill-chain" won't do squat unless there is a clear and achievable objective. The other problem is that the "kill-chain" that is being used is purpose built for set piece battles between great powers basically 2nd generation warfare (web 1.0) versus 4th generation asymmetric warfare [d-n-i.net].
You don't even need Clausewitz, Powell will suffice. To use a shortened version of the Powell doctrine:
- Do we have a clear attainable objective?
- Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
- Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
- Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
- Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Acting Like Democrats (Score:3, Informative)
There's no need to read any more into it. The statement is silent on when you should start a war. And it's likewise silent on many other situations where you shouldn't.
If you want to understand the rationale:
1. The purpose of diplomacy is to get something you want.
2. The purpose of war is to get something you want.
3. If you're already getting what you want through diplomacy (ie, having success), then going to war isn't going to get you any marginal benefit.
4.
5. Hence: "Never start a war when you're having diplomatic success."
I don't see why this is so terribly difficult to understand.
Re:Blame the Geeks? (Score:3, Informative)
One thing I don't think the Bush administration understands is that continued occupation time is poisoning the well in Iraq. IMHO we had 60-90 days of good will after the invasion, to begin making daily life for Iraqis better. We squandered it, in fact we did worse, in that we didn't even set the stage well for a hostile occupation. We did things like allow them to carry the weapons and explosives out of their own military bases, and some estimate that with what they took, they can run the current level of insurgency for decades. So it's not a simple case of try this, if it fails try that. Every thing we try that fails, makes the starting point for the next attempt worse. Every month that passes is another month of occupation, and that makes it worse.
Whatever you feel about whether we should or should not have invaded Iraq, just about every aspect afterward has been horribly incompetently managed.
Re:It is their DUTY to kill US soldiers (Score:2, Informative)
The current tribal nature is from emulating the conquering Arabs, and the devastation left by the Mongols, who destroyed (or let die) much of the desert agriculture, and thus the supporting civilization. In fact, most of the so-called Iraqi Arabs are no more Arab than the French are Germanic Franks, or inhabitants of Turkey really Turkmen.