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."
Honest question (Score:4, Interesting)
I have yet to hear a politician actually say why, and I really can't seem to get a straight answer out of anyone.
Bad summary (Score:4, Interesting)
But now a different set of geeks are coming up with new solutions that do work, whilst building on the previous solution.
IOW, Don't Blame The Geeks. Or the tech, for that matter.
Insurgency? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. the state or condition of being insurgent.
2. insurrection against an existing government, usually one's own, by a group not recognized as having the status of a belligerent.
3. rebellion within a group, as by members against leaders.
Funny, the partisans in Iraq are rebelling against a foreign occupier, not their own government. However in the US the word "insurgent" has become the same as "terrorist"...
Oh mod me offtopic, but Iraq has had me sick for the past 4 years. How long did WW2 last again?
An enlisted perspective. (Score:5, Interesting)
After reading the article, I had to go have a smoke and really collect my thoughts before replying here. I hope my perspective offers a bit of insight into "one man's view" of technology's role in modern combat. First a little bit of background information is in order...
I'm a 26 year old male, active duty enlisted in the Navy. I joined about 14 months ago, leaving a career in computing to serve in the submarine force. Prior to the Navy, I did several years of programming, database development, web application dev/support, and networking on Win32 and Linux/UNIX systems. Needing a change of pace, and generally feeling burned out after working full-time in I.T. since age 18, I woke up one day and enlisted in the service. My family and friends were a bit surprised, to say the least
Having been in long enough to form my own (albeit limited) opinion of computing/information technology's role in military systems, I have these thoughts:
(1) The military is mostly comprised of enlisted personnel. Enlisted men and women are, fundamentally, operators. This means they are trained to do a specific set of jobs according to a very specific set of guidelines. We don't make tactical decisions; our job is to inform officers in command of the status of whatever evolution is in progress, and obey orders handed back in response. This means we are trained on specific pieces of equipment, which is increasingly networked to allow for more efficient operations.
(2) It's no secret that the military (and government organizations in general) is a big fan of basing systems on "tried and true" technologies. We use what works, not what the industry is pumping out as the latest, greatest info-tech marvel.
(3) Our reliance on these systems means that we always have to be trained on multiple contingencies, i.e. "if doohickey X is broken, switch over to doohickey Y and proceed." Single points of failure are as much the enemy of fighting units as they are of networks in the civilian world. The human element is therefore still critical in avoiding situational breakdowns, hence the need for constant drilling to ensure proper performance under hostile or stressful conditions.
(4) Monday morning quarterbacking is an inevitable consequence of any large-scale conflict. It's always easy to look back and say "Wow, if only they'd done things this way, it's so obvious that things would have gone better." The military does make a concerted effort to learn from its mistakes; we have a saying that every rule we follow is written in blood, and we take that idea very seriously.
(5) In the final analysis, no amount of technology can prevent loss of human life in war. It's ugly, nasty, sad, but inevitable. Human beings will always defend whatever interests they consider crucial to the survival of their way of life. It's just our nature, the product of an evolutionary process that made us what we are today as a species. Since the dawn of time, we've been constantly incorporating new technologies into both civilian and military operations, with mixed results at every stage of innovation. Again, we learn from our mistakes and move forward.
I hope these thoughts can spark some dialog, and that my views might bring some new perspective to conversations on this topic. Thanks.
An unconventional war with conventional means (Score:3, Interesting)
Properly curbing terrorism activity in a war zone scenario such as Iraq has an excruciatingly high servicemen casualty in return for stability rate.
Re:Or we could blame pre-emption (Score:3, Interesting)
Whats even funnier is how Bush keeps on comparing Iraq to Japan and Germany after WWII, but in those places most of the government infrastructure was left by the military administrations. Leaving these people in place probably helped stave off even larger amounts of starvation, kept the police running etc. But Bush has never, ever been an empiricist. To him, the ONLY thing that matters is ideology. If something they did turns south, that simply means that the ideology wasn't pure enough, since to them the ideology is never wrong. This is why nobody likes Bush today, he refuses to ever admit that maybe his ideology isn't perfect, and instead of stopping bad ideas, he just delves into them further.
Re:Or we could blame pre-emption (Score:3, Interesting)
In terms of mismanagement of the first half of the war, though, I agree with you that Rumsfeld should catch a lot of the blame. He was touting the leaner meaner military at the time, and it became clear later that substantially higher numbers of troops were required to pacify the country. Further, the events shortly after the regime's fall, such as taking very little response to the looting of museums and the rapid increase in crime, indicated that the military was taking a hands-off approach, which was the wrong answer since the power vacuum contributed greatly to the rise of al Qaeda and the Shiite militias.
Fortunately, things are taking some significant upturns there, and while I don't credit the troop surge with the beginnings of this success - largely, it's al Qaeda overplaying their hand and Muqtada al Sadr calling off his men that made it possible - it is fortuitous that the surge allowed us to press that advantage so that legitimate Iraqi military and police forces could set themselves up.
Re:Blame the geeks? (Score:2, Interesting)
The US relies on maneuver warfare. In order to get your pieces in the right place to achieve decisive victory, you have to know both the board layout and the position of both yours and the enemy's forces. The enemy's location is deduced from intel, be it satellite/aerial photos, human leaks, or intercepted communications. What about friendly forces? At the start of the Iraq War, the latest fielded development was a real-time force monitoring system (I don't recall if this particular tech was Blue Force Tracker, or it that came later). By being able to accurately determine the location of your forces, friendly fire incidents and gaps in your attacks could be minimized, resulting in a much higher level of combat effectiveness. The Army division that had this tech at the start of the conflict was the 4th Infantry Division. Where was this high-tech fighting unit? Stuck in Kuwait, because Turkey decided they didn't want the US to use their country as an launching point into Iraq. Without adequate port facilities, 4th ID's entry into Iraq was delayed by a month, rendering the technology's intended purpose (army vs army battle tracking) unnecessary. Is this a failure of technology, or of generalship? I say no, as it would be a matter of diplomacy to negotiate access to Turkey's ports. The military's contingency plan was to proceed without 4th ID, and they were able to succeed without them (we used to poke fun at the 4th ID "I missed the war" patch wearers).
As for the communications technology itself (Mobile Subscriber Equipment, or MSE), there were many inadequacies. The equipment was first fielded in '89, and apparently designed for the Fulda Gap, as leaving the equipment shelter's door open would result in overheating and systems crash (in some cases in less than a minute) in the desert heat. Its biggest failing was if it was necessary to establish comms, either a satellite terminal was used, or a directional antenna had to be erected and oriented, and its trajectory plotted, just to communicate with one (1!) node. By the time this was completed, the supported unit was ready to depart the area. MSE just couldn't keep up with the breakneck pace of modern combat. Most of the blame can be laid squarely on this "proven" technology. Then again, the fact that the Army was able to outrun its communications equipment is equally a credit upon its operations, as were there setbacks in offensive operations, the equipment would have been there to support the battle. Communications wasn't the only problem, as logistics (fuel and water) were in short supply almost from the beginning, and long after the network had stabilized.
Framing the issue (Score:3, Interesting)
Even before you read the article, there is the problem of the question being framed to project the existance of some plan, the assumption that we know what that plan was and that America's campaign in Iraq is failing to achieve the plan's objectives.
Reading the article, you stumble upon another problem with the phrase and that is that by, "What went wrong" Wired means, "Why aren't we winning" and not, "What the fuck happened to the WMD's?"
"Wrong" can mean so many things. Is something going "wrong" in Iraq for KBR? Nope. Is something going "wrong" in Iraq for General Dynamics? Nope. Is something going "wrong" in Iraq for Joe Middle-class American? You bet. Is something going "wrong" in Iraq for America's underprivilaged? Hell, yes. America is not a monolith of interest.
The general public doesn't know "the plan" for Iraq but it is not in the interest of the parties who do to start letting on that the general public doesn't know. Any fairy tale is better than a void. Informed people don't know the plan for Iraq either, but at least they can make educated guesses and validate or invalidate those guesses based on short term outcomes. One thing can be said with certainty and that is that the plan benefits those in the know. I would speculate that the plan didn't account for what is happening right now not because of oversight but because those aspects of what is going on are irrelevant to the plan. Case in point is what happened immediately after Saddam's regime was deposed. Rumsfeld described the massive looting as, "Stuff happens". But, apparently stuff DIDN'T happen at the Iraqi Ministry of Oil because it was magically secured.
I take issue with the article for using the prevailing mainstream media propaganda about Iraq to lash lower level functionary geeks for not winning enough. I take issue with the article for suggesting that a war of choice could be made "more ethical" by the application of lessons learned. As if the pure morality of the American ubermensch is not satisfied with a mere ethical war for freedom and democracy. All questions of immorality need to have ironclad answers that invoke incontinent convulsions of antipatriotism in any individual who even implied to ask them so that ten others may fear to ask in the future.
I would expect as much from the country's paper of record or any local bird cage liner so this raises questions about Wired's stake in this. Are they just another media outlet paroting the MSM for the sake of justifying extra real estate for revenue generating ads? Or, is there some super patriotic editor currying favor with his or her overlords?
Re:Blame the Geeks? (Score:2, Interesting)
Second, its not cute to mangle words like administration with maladministration. It makes the poster sound like a 14 year old trying to sound smart. Throwing in a lot of swear words makes the poster seem closer to an internet tough guy than someone who I would take seriously. Its really easy to claim everything is a conspiracy. But could it be possible that the Bush administration recognized an actual threat to global and US security? Militant Islam (or terrorism) seems like a threat to our way of life to me. Now how the Bush administration proceeded in dealing with that threat is a place where people can disagree, but I would be interested to know if the poster feels Militant Islam (or terrorism) is an actual threat or a tool for this conspiracy theory I see so many people going on about.
Also I feel the poster shortchanges the intelligence of the average person in the military. Most of them I have talked with agree the Bush administration has made errors in the execution of the war. When it comes to that, the US has always made errors in its execution of war throughout history. If the servicemen and women will vote for Republicans, could it be that they feel Democrat policies would be even worse? Is the only conclusion really that they are all being tricked and used and taken advantage of?
In the end it just seems to me like the poster is treating everything he or she doesn't agree with with contempt instead of with respect and consideration. I have no idea why people find that insightful. I've heard WAY more insightful critiques of this war from other sources.
Re:An enlisted perspective. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's very much a Navy view: "Enlisted men and women are, fundamentally, operators." In the Navy, the basic combat unit is the ship. Tactical decisions are made at the ship level, not below. A hundred to several thousand people serve the ship; a few officers make the tactical decisions.
Ground troops need a completely different mindset. The basic combat unit is far smaller, a squad or platoon. Individual soldiers make tactical decisions. Marines are especially big on this. It's Marine doctrine to equip the Marine, not man the equipment. The US Army likes to fight with bigger units, but can break them down into small, independent units when necessary.
War crimes (Score:4, Interesting)
Proof: Israel bombed Beirut, where there's no, and has never been any Hezbollah. It bombed *on purpose* (that's what those LASER GUIDED MISSILES the US sold do) the Beirut oil refinery, leading to the biggest oil spill in history in the mediterranean sea. It bombed most bridges in the south of Lebanon.
Friends of mine got bombed in this war. They weren't part of Hezbollah. However, unsurprisingly when you have a couple more neurons working than your average likkudnik neocon, it made Hezbollah popular with those who used to oppose them in Lebanon.
Mission accomplished! Or rather, war crime accomplished! (Robert H. Jackson, chief US prosecutor at the Nurenberg trials)
Re:Actually.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a crazy idea of mine that the govt would never consider.
How many people in Iraq (27 million and falling)?
There's that OLPC XO thing. Buy one for evreryone, That's a ridiculous amount of money but not as ridiculous as the amount they've already spent.
Set up some good international networking (actually I think they have that part already). The mesh will take care of the local.
Run a campaign in the US that it is duty of every American to talk to an Iraqi, get to know them let them get to know you.
"do you support the war? Talk to the Iraqis and help win it"
"against the war? Talk to the Iraqis and help end it"
There'd have to be support to cover the language barrier, but where there's a will, there's a way*.
Yep it's a crazy idea, but there's this bit in the back of my mind that says it's hard to fight a war against people you know.
* I guess that was the problem from the start, there was never really a will.
now politely ignore my sig just this once.
Re:Actually.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not one to be politically correct, but I think that a better term would be Islamic Fundamentalists can't get along. Plenty of Muslims can get along with us just fine. When lacking a convienent external enemy like us or Israel, they simply shift back to fighting each other. In many respects I compare it to the Catholic/Protestant fights back in the day.
While I know it'd involve huge amounts of graft and waste, I think that a massive employment program ala the marshall plan would be of great benefit - people with full time jobs are less likely to cause trouble.
Technology, EM, and SIGINT on the battlefield (Score:3, Interesting)
Just about anytime they fired up a laptop in the field, incoming enemy fire (i.e. artillery shells) would start raining down on their location within 15 - 20 minutes. Others who served in the Kosovo Campaign relayed similar stories only about US forces zeroing in on an enemy's position using similar SIGINT techniques. I remember interviewing one former translator who just remarked, "It's eeiry to be listening to a radio conversation between two parties and then hear the bomb go off in the background followed by static a second later."
I had lunch with an Army Major and a Captain two weeks ago about working with the local Gaurd depot on a project. We got off on the topic of wargames, simulations, and the like when they started discussing a series of wargames they participated in a few years ago where their were Opfor and abandoned their technology for 18th century methods of communications (i.e. couriers, flags, etc.) They were both laughing that how they didn't win, they proved to be far more effective than what any of the "Spreadsheet" simulations projected. (I've heard this story before from another NCO's or at least a similar story.)
Re:Actually.... (Score:3, Interesting)
your idea is based on two points: first, do something constructive instead of destructive, and second, encourage communication. both are excellent.
the military is actually doing some of the former, but not nearly enough. we did a lot of damage to infrastructure in Iraq during the invasion, and the standards there were never all that high. the army's sole purpose at this point (really since the "Mission Accomplished" nonsense) should be building infrastructure (water, sewage, housing, power, transportation, and telecommunications) and defense of those assets. if the brass needs to feel like they're doing something more "active", let the marines (who're more "surgical" in their actions, and a lot smaller) go after only confirmed foreign military units acting in Iraq; better yet, though, stick 'em on border patrol and training. the key point here is let the Iraqi military and police forces go after Iraqi terrorists; the US needs to stop killing Iraqis if we're going to stop generating new terrorists.
the second point is trickier. the poster below who noted the huge cultural issues is right: direct communication isn't likely to do much in many cases. i don't have a good answer for fixing the American side of the equation, but the Iraqi side is much easier. Iraq is still a resource-rich country; fix the infrastructure so that business can work normally and normal trade will shortly resume. it's not quite as direct as letter writing, but international trade with close neighbors does a good job of helping people get along better. this has been true for at least a millennium (contrast the attitudes of eastern and western Christians towards their Muslim neighbors around the time of the crusades, for example), and has only increased with the industrial and then technological revolutions.
Rifleman Dodd (Score:4, Interesting)
Bullseye. I got my print copy of Wired yesterday (guilty shrug). I skimmed the article. Batshit loony garbage.
I left the Marines 10 years ago. We were just getting digital radios, just getting the first GPS units, and just getting laptops. No intrasquad comms (unless SEALs had them, maybe...) and the laptops were basically just for tracking inventory and leave request admin crap. The GPS units were brand new to everyone...and very cool.
The rest is all crap. Extra weight. To the infantryman: weight is evil unless it is in flavors of 5.56 or 7.62. Everything else is garbage. The radios will break, NVG batteries will die, and you may get stuck without things as basic as fuel or MRE re-supply. Our indoctrinated response to such calamity? MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT. My GPS broke! Tough shit, break out the lensatic and find the target. My radio is busted! Tough shit...you better stretch those quads, Private.
I understand the quoted Naval "operators" point of view. Its accurate. I know this from experience working with squi---er--sailors aboard ship and my brother's experience as a naval officer. The officers don't learn the tasks, they learn how to manage the enlisted ranks to accomplish tasks to complete the mission.
On the ground it is different. Marines have it pounded into them that it basically takes one Marine to overcome an enemy division. "Rifleman Dodd" was on the required reading list. It tells how a Brit sharpshooter gets isolated in Portugal during the Napoleonic Wars. The concept to be conveyed to the enlisted ranks is basically you are the Corps. One Marine. One Rifle. Accomplish The Mission. Lacking the rifle you accomplish it with a knife, an e-tool, a sharp rock, your fists, or harsh language. End of story.
If every technological gizmo had failed at the outset of the war we still would have kicked their collective asses. The difference was not just technological advantage but human will. Iraqi units would get crushed or fade into the dust because: A: our troops hit what they aim at & B: our troops have individual initiative to complete mission objectives. Its the lesson of Thermopylae writ over and over again: enslaved souls make poor soldiers.
The same point is true of the insurgency. Human will. They want us the hell out. Just like the Viet Cong (remember that one?!?!), just like the Mujahedeen, and just like every other insurgency of the 20th and 21st centuries. The Vietnamese were essentially able to muster the social will to absorb any number of casualties. American society did not have that will. We withdrew, and the conflict resolved itself. The Iraqi insurgency remains in question, since, according to some, it appears that people are growing tired of dying for religious fanatics and Baathist stooges. But the question has nothing to do with technology.
It has to do with will. And the most egregiously ill-conceived and poorly planned military occupation in American history.
Re:Honest question (Score:1, Interesting)
9-11 was a catastrophe and should not be underestimated, both in terms of its psychological and financial impact, as well as the actual loss of life. One of the big effects it had was to bring into sudden focus the fact that a large fraction of the Muslim world irrationally hates us and actively seeks to do us harm. It also demonstrated the huge amount of damage that a small number of fanatics could do.
The President and company decided that the best approach to solve the problem for the long term was to remove its root causes, which they diagnosed as a lack of moderate, representative governments leading to Muslim countries being poor and oppressed, and thus breeding extremists. This was the key error.
The first Iraq war had ended with a cease-fire, not actual peace, and this predicated on Saddam's 'good behavior'. Saddam's behavior had not been good in the intervening time, he was known to have possessed WMDs (chemical/biological agents), and had previously actually used them. He was basically acting in such a way that virtually all intelligence services concluded that he possessed WMD stockpiles and was building them up. As it turned out, this was a bluff to deter Iran - a good move, pre-911, but one that proved to be his undoing afterwards. His hatred of the US, coupled with the new threat of Islamic terrorism led to the fear that his WMDs would find their way into the hands of the extremists, who would use them against us.
The President viewed that Saddam's behavior was enough of an excuse to invade, and Iraq would prove the prefect place to start the grand dream of building moderate, representative governments in the Muslim world. We would topple Saddam, give the people of Iraq a functional, democratic government, Iraq would prosper, and would serve as an example to the rest of the Middle East. It would provide the seed that would prompt democratic transitions throughout the Muslim world, thus removing the breeding grounds for the extremists and removing the threat to us, while making the world a better place in the process....
And so, here we are. I'm sure that this analysis will be unsatisfying to many, since no ill-motives are ascribed, no malice, no exceptional incompetence, just grand ideas and good intentions, the beginning of so many tragedies.
Re:if the only president you have is a tool... (Score:3, Interesting)