Army Plans Overhaul of Infantry Gear

nxg125 writes "Wired is running an article about a seven-year, $250 million revamping of the US Army's uniforms. One of the major obstacles is going to be how to power all the electronic devices that the soldiers will use. 'They have at least one idea, though. "Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems," a recent memo on the subject directed. FFW is going open source. Cleaner software needs less energy to run.'"

Comments

One way street...

[grub]

"Once you're in an urban environment, it strips out a lot of (America's) technology advantages," he said. "It puts you in a fair fight. And you don't want to be in a fair fight."

So why are guerilla tactics used by an opposing force often decried as unfair or underhanded? The side at a disadvantage uses any and all means at their disposal to help make the fight more "fair". This fellow seems to back that up, unless having a lopsided fight is only sporting when it's his team doing the slaughtering.

Re:One way street...

[The Other White Boy]

its always unfair when used against you, especially if you tried it first. just like gradeschool recess games/sports.

Re:One way street...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

So why are guerilla tactics used by an opposing force often decried as unfair or underhanded?

Unfair? No, never. Ask anybody in uniform or anybody who's ever served in uniform and they'll tell you that fairness has nothing to do with it. "Overwhelming force" is the watchword.

Some tactics are immoral, though. Like surrounding your troops with civilians acting as human shields, or storing weapons in or basing operations out of hospitals or mosques. Why? Because both of those tactics put civilians in danger. If you make hospitals legitimate military targets, for example, then doctors, nurses, and patients are going to die. That's bad for everybody.

Re:One way street...

[Uhlek]

That's only the press you really see that in. Most soldiers and military planners accept the fact that guerilla tactics are and always will be the only effective way an inferior force can respond to a superior one. Hell, the American revolutionaries did it to the British. It's not always an issue of fighting to the finish...sometimes its possible to just make it so costly for your enemies to hold on to your territory that they just give up and leave.

Fact is, America hasn't been in a "fair fight" since Vietnam. Vietnam wasn't even technically a fair fight -- our force was clearly superior, but our tactics were not.

Thing is, only place you want a fair fight is in a boxing ring. You want to have the clear advantage over your enemy, so that casualties on your side are minimal and victory is assured.

Re:One way street...

[idontgno]

So why are guerilla tactics used by an opposing force often decried as unfair or underhanded?"

"Fair" means I win, as quickly and with as little cost to me as absolutely possible.

Both sides (or all sides) believe this. Both sides believe that anything done by the other side which hampers this is therefore, by logical negation, "unfair".

But most importantly, "Fair means I win. Period."

Re:One way street...

[drmike0099]

You have but to look at our own Revolutionary War (in the USA) to see how these "unfair tactics" were applied to great advantage. In most cases, a tactic is a tactic, and guerilla warfare is just another tactic that can be useful in the right situation.

Fair is in the eye of the beholder until the battle is over. Then it is determined by the victor.

Re:One way street...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I'm gonna nitpick you to death here. Please excuse me, and understand that my intentions are good.

I have heard illegal tactics... Not all guerilla tactics are illegal...

Please don't use the word "illegal" in this context. It propagates the myth that there is such a thing as "international law" or "laws of war." There isn't, and it's a mistake to imply that there is.

Some tactics are prohibited by certain treaties. But that's not the same thing as saying that those tactics are illegal.

I know this seems like a very small thing, but it's an important point.

Re:One way street...

[bobdehnhardt]

"Once you're in an urban environment, it strips out a lot of (America's) technology advantages," he said. "It puts you in a fair fight. And you don't want to be in a fair fight."

So why are guerilla tactics used by an opposing force often decried as unfair or underhanded?

I believe John Madden said it best: "All I want is my unfair advantage." If the scales are tipped to my advantage, that's perfectly okay, and I'll make full use of it. But if the other guy has the upper hand, well, that's just not fair, and must be corrected.... Everyone wants to hold the advantage, and will do (or say) anything to convince the world that they should have it.

Nobody ever said "Hey, you know, our military is vastly superior to theirs. Let's even the playing field a little: we'll wear bright red uniforms and march rank and file into the battle while they shoot at us from behind the trees." Instead, the guerilla tactics of the colonists were decried as unfair and underhanded....

Re:One way street...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like surrounding your troops with civilians acting as human shields, or storing weapons in or basing operations out of hospitals or mosques.

Speaking of this, doesn't anybody else find it a bit odd that the so-called "wedding party" that we wiped out last week near the Syrian border just happened to have stockpiles of RPGs, cash, foreign passports, and guns? Are they now using wedding parties to hide themselves?

Also, I'm no expert on Iraqi culture, but having a bunch of kids at a party at 3am seems very unlikely to me. Does anybody get the feeling that the arab press is working with the insurgents to skew public opinion?

Re:One way street...

[Malc]

Yes sir! I'm going to stand here and accept your overwhelming force because my only other options are immoral. Well, immoral to you as judge, jury and executioner.

How far would you go if somebody invaded your home and imposed their will on you, your family, and nation?

Re:One way street...

[theBraindonor]

"Fair is all my boys come home alive. Fuck the rest."

Re:One way street...

[daniil]

It propagates the myth that there is such a thing as "international law"

There isn't? Then how come there's such a thing as "diplomatic immunity?" Is it just my imagination? Or all those other things i was told about in my introductory law course? Are you telling me that these are all myths, and that in reality, everyone does what they will?

Re:One way street...

[dealsites]

What will be really un-fair, is when we rely on the tech too much. Once (when?) it fails, we will have to go back to the basics. I hope that they will still teach the basics in the future..... If not, we will be sitting ducks.

--
New deal processing engine online: http://www.dealsites.net/livedeals.html

Re:One way street...

[jessemckinney]

IANAL but, not only is this immoral it is also illegal. There are a long series of Geneva conventions that most countries have signed and ratified. In the United States when international law is ratified it holds the same legal standing as the Constitution. This kind of stuff is very illegal in domestic as well as international law. There are some of the newer Geneva conventions that the U.S. has not signed or ratified though. I don't think that they are signatories to the prohibitions on torture, but this is still covered in treaties as far back as the 1907 or 1949 (?) Geneva conventions. This is a big issue right now with the treatment of prisoners of war in Iraq. This body of law is called Ius ad bellum (rules in war).

Re:One way street...

[Malc]

Both sides of any conflict use that argument. The people still fighting in Iraq have chosen their tactics for the same reason. They know that Americans will (justifiably) hesitate before attacking an area with civilians, and so they're taking advantage of it. They think they're right, we think they're wrong... but they're also saying: "fuck the rest".

Re:One way street...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The point under discussion is whether civilians should count as "your boys".

The point of most armies is to keep civilians out of danger, so using them as meat-shields is not honorable. "Your boys" won't come home alive if you use them as meat-shields.

Plus it's not a military tactic, but a media one. Your enemy will kill your civilians if there is no other way, but then you can claim the enemy destroyed a hospital. So turning a hospital into a military target is not a tactical move, it's a PR one. That's why it's hated in the military.

Now, holding the enemy's civilians hostage is a different issue.

Re:One way street...

[SquadBoy]

I would not put my family or members of other peoples family at risk. I would not put targets that have no business being part of the conflict at risk. There are places to draw the line.

But lets put that aside and examine your "point". Ok you have pissed the US off and they are coming for you. Iraq aside for the better part of 200 years if you are in that position you did something to bring it on yourself. Hell even in Iraq Saddam may not have done the thing that W said he did but had he spent the last 25 some odd years being a nice person and playing with puppy dogs and kittens even W could not have found an escuse to be on his doorstep. Vietnam is .... complex. But those are the exceptions that prove the rule. So the problem is that they store munitions in hospitals or set up anti-aircraft guns in schoolyards. Then if we blow the shit out of them they claim we were targeting civilians. So ok if you want to do some of those things that most civilized nations/people agree are wrong then ,IMO, you give up the right to bitch when we respond in kind. People who do that kind of shit are barbs and killing barbs is a good thing. Putting your children in harms way cause you are betting that the peeople coming for you care more for those children then you do is WRONG and STUPID. If you don't want to fight the free world maybe you should quit fucking bringing it on yourselves instead of bitching when we come for your sorry ass.

See this is the thing. W was wrong with the way he brought us into Iraq. What he should have said is "They are bad people and need to die." Then I could be onboard, as it is I have mixed thoughts and feelings. But the point being with a couple of exceptions I could give a shit how or why our enemies think cause for most of the last 200 years every single one of them have been EVIL. We have not always been perfect or even close to it but there is no comparison. So yes they choose to do things that have directly lead to us being on their doorstep and they should take it like men without dragging in those who should not be dragged in. My fear is that we have no choice but to make it clear to them that we will defeat them no matter the cost. Part of the reason I hate the Palestinians is because they have choosen to force the Israelis to kill their children. Fuckers.

Re:One way street...

[Rei]

... hence, our illegal tactics in the Revolutionary War, which were in many places fought exactly in that manner.

Re:One way street...

[the_mad_poster]

I hope that they will still teach the basics in the future..... If not, we will be sitting ducks.

Oh no. America would never abandon teaching the basics in favor of letting high tech gadgetry handle it all. No, never. You, uh, do know how to do long division in your head, right?

Actually, despite the fact that our public schools are miserable failures of education these days, I do seem to recall seeing a story about an equipment drop or a jump or artillery targetting or something gone awry in Afghanistan or Iraq where the soldiers wound up having to do a bunch of trajectory calculations on paper. Turns out they were trained to use the equipment, but they were also trained not to have to rely on it, so all went well in the end.

Re:One way street...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Haven't you been paying attention? The Geneva Convention does not apply to anybody the U.S. says it doesn't apply to.

Re:One way street...

[EvilBudMan]

--Some tactics are immoral, though. Like surrounding your troops with civilians acting as human shields, or storing weapons in or basing operations out of hospitals or mosques. Why? Because both of those tactics put civilians in danger. If you make hospitals legitimate military targets, for example, then doctors, nurses, and patients are going to die. That's bad for everybody.--

Killing is immoral therefore war is.

Re:One way street...

[Rei]

> american revolutionary war .... mujahideen ...

It may surprise you, but both were fought in the same way that the Iraqis are fighting now. It's almost funny seing the same parallels when you read old newspapers.. the Americans claim that the British fired on a big group of unarmed protesters, the British claim that there were armed men attacking their troops in the crowd....

BTW, many of the people we were fighting in Afghanistan this time WERE the Mujahideen in the Afghan-Soviet war. It can be fun to follow the tangled web of ever-shifting alliances in Afghanistan.

> It boils down to this: The tactics of the insurgents in Iraq are not designed to give any military victories, only propaganda ones.

Funny, last I checked, they had won control of Fallujah.

Re:One way street...

[the_mad_poster]

People with that sort of rigid viewpoint don't have much of a moral compass when it comes to "the other guys".

People who don't understand why people have that rigid viewpoint don't have to fight "the other guys" though.

Or, to put it all together: war sucks no matter which side you're on and what part you play, and there just isn't any justification for that fact.

Re:One way street...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

How far would you go if somebody invaded your home and imposed their will on you, your family, and nation?

I'm fairly certain that it wouldn't include signing the death warrants of innocent civilians by using them as human shields.

So why do the terrorists do it? Simple: public relations. The best thing that can possibly happen to the terrorists in Iraq is for the United States to bomb a mosque or a hospital. They can't defeat us militarily, so they try to defeat us from within by weakening our resolve.

Why do you think they claimed that the terrorist camp we destroyed last week was a "wedding party?" Why, for that matter, do you think Saddam put his military intelligence headquarters in the same building as the al-Amirya air-raid shelter back in 1991?

Re:One way street...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Sigh.

Let's see if I can dismantle this argument in the fewest possible words.

If killing is immoral, than the prevention of killing is moral. And if the prevention of killing involves lesser killing, then... well, QED, huh?

Take a seat on the bench, "EvilBudMan." We play for keeps around here.

Re:One way street...

[Malc]

Your last sentence says it all. This was a war of choice, which is bad enough, but made sickeningly worse by the fact that all of the whimsical reasons for justifying it have been debunked as lies... how short GWB wishes peoples memories are as he now turns it in to an issue of freedom and ridding Iraq of an evil dictator. Yes war sucks, and this current situation should never have been made possible. People can finger point at the Iraqi immoral tactics as much as they like, but the point is moot as they really shouldn't have been given the opportunity in the first place.

Re:One way street...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

There are many errors in your post. Also, your conclusion is wrong.

There are a long series of Geneva conventions that most countries have signed and ratified.

There were four Geneva Conventions, not "a long series." One hundred and ninety countries have signed or ratified (not necessarily both) some part of the Conventions (not necessarily all).

In the United States when international law is ratified it holds the same legal standing as the Constitution.

There's no such thing as "international law." That's just a figure of speech. What you're talking about is a treaty. Treaties, when signed by the president and ratified by the Senate, take on the force of federal law. They do not have the same legal standing as the Constitution. Treaties, like all laws, are subject to the constraints of the Constitution. A treaty which violates any provision of the Constitution is not valid.

(That's why, incidentally, the United States could not have ratified the Rome Treaty if it had wanted to. The International Criminal Court would have completely violated the Constitution's protection of our rights of due process, equal protection, and freedom from self-incrimination.)

Now, let's talk about law for a second. Law is legitimate only to the extent that it arises from the collective will of the people. The rules of war, such as the Geneva Conventions, are agreements made between governments without the involvement of the people. Therefore the rules of war do not comprise a body of law. They're legally equivalent to a handshake.

(So, incidentally, is the UN Charter.)

Re:One way street...

[magefile]

Do they still teach hand-to-hand combat in the military? Not just to special forces, but to the standard infantry?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:One way street...

[kpansky]

If you honestly think that the US forces go around responding to fire willy nilly without thinking of the political consequences you are severely out of touch with reality.

Re:One way street...

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

I was in the army for 3 years as a medical laboratory specialist (92B-10) and went to my advanced training school in San Antonio, TX at the lovely Ft. Sam Houston.

I spent several months learning to manually perform all sorts of medical lab work only to arrive at my permanent duty station and be told to forget it all because I'd never need it. Everything in the hospital lab was fully automated with the exception of white blood cell differentials and those were only performed if the machine wasn't sure it had the right answer.

However, if the power had gone out (which it did my very first night working alone on night-shift) I was prepared. Thankfully when it went out it was August and over 100 degrees and that was too warm to perform the tests I knew how to do (as temperature affects reaction rates) and so my very first night being on my own I had to call the hospital commander in the middle of the night and let him know that until the power came back on we (the lab) would be unable to perform any lab work and that we wouldn't be opening the blood bank fridges for anything short of a life or death emergency.

They had to reroute all incoming emergencies to Walter Reed and other area hospitals until about 5:00 am.*

I know a lot of people make fun of the military, but everyone I knew while I was in was well trained and could cope when the expensive equipment wouldn't work.


* Yes, our hospital had emergency backup power.
No, the air conditioning was not on emergency backup power in the wing where the lab was (formerly the psych ward) and so even though the instruments stayed on, the temperature quickly rose to the point where every single instrument started beeping and quickly went out of calibration.
No, the blood bank fridges did not have backup power to keep them cool.
No, I don't know what genius civilian contractor came up with that plan.

Re:One way street...

[anactofgod]

Reminds me of the (US) Revolutionary War, where the Brits were extremely put off that the American irregulars didn't follow accepted military rules of shooting from closed-line fixed formations. Worse, even, was the American penchant for setting ambushes, shooting from behind trees, hedgerows, and fences, and aiming specifically at British officers (ie. sniping). All of these actions were loudly decried at the time, and not just by the Brits.

But, what American patriot contemporary to the minutemen would blame them for using such tactics when defending home and country against a better prepared, better equipped, better commanded, numerically superior enemy? To fight in this manner was the only rational thing to do, but the values of the Americans. To fight otherwise, and accept the rules of military conduct of the Europeans would have been folly and suicide.

It was "asymetrical warfare" at it's best, and it definitely contributed to the desired (by our American POV) outcome.

---anactofgod---

Re:One way street...

[Martin Blank]

From the Third Geneva Convention:

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

In essence, no, al Qaeda forces are not required to be treated as prisoners of war, because they are not members of armed forces, militias, or volunte

Re:One way street...

[CrimsonAvenger]

So why are guerilla tactics used by an opposing force often decried as unfair or underhanded?

The idea is inherited from the Napoleanic Wars. Back in the day, Armies did the fighting, and Civilians were not really much affected by war (unless a battle happened in your backyard) - "The farmer in his field and the Burgher in his town should neither know, nor care, when the state has gone to war". An older phrasing of the idea, already fraying in Napolean's day.

Guerrillas ("little wars") required Armies to make war on the populace at large, or give up. And Armies, traditionally, don't really like making war on the populace or giving up. Note that Air Forces have always been a bit less discriminating that way. Comes from having only area effect weapons.

In any case, the traditional view is that wars have a distinct beginning, middle and end. And Guerrillas mess up that "end" part no end.

Re:One way street...

[Bob McCown]

There's a great quote from the Vietnam Era. Wish I could find out who said it. "You cannot defeat an enemy who is willing to fight a Huey with a bow and arrow".

Re:One way street...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Actually, despite the fact that our public schools are miserable failures of education these days,

Interstingly, the US Military has one of the most effective teaching systems in the world. The sudden dramatic expansion of the US Military in WW2 pretty much required that they learn how to teach pretty much anyone anything, quickly.

And a long service professional military helps there too.

Re:One way street...

[rjstanford]

I'm not really fond of the idea of keeping them out at Guantanamo Bay. I would prefer that they be hooked up with legal assistance and moved stateside, but depending on how some things work out, it appears that there is a loophole in the legal framework that isn't likely to be closed soon. They're not POW's, so there's no requirement to treat them as such. They're not in the US, so US law may not apply to them (last I heard, no one had been able to tell on which side the Supreme Court justices were falling on this). But Guantanamo Bay is also not subject to Cuban law.

The real challenge would be proving that those held at Guantanamo Bay are indeed Al Queda operatives. Especially since it seems that some of those who have been released after being held for multiple years... were not. I don't see anything about the Geneva Convention not applying to suspected terrorists. After all, you could make the case that - as in the constitutional precepts of the US - that people are civillians unless proven terrorists for the purposes of the Geneva Convention. But yeah, its a really hard call to make. And I sure don't have the answer either.

Re:One way street...

[Malc]

Where are these weapons of mass destruction that were an imminent threat to the United States? I watched Colin Powell's presentations to the UN, and I would be quite embarrased if I were he! There's a word here on /. for what he presented: FUD!

As for the executive branch's implications that Saddam had ties with al Quada... hahaha. He was as popular with them as GWB is. That implication was allowed to stand because the average American didn't know better and it was a useful tool for taking advantage of their emotions after the WTC attack.

Let's be honest though, this action in Iraq has weakened the US's ability to deal with terrorists, and in fact might have increased the probability of a larger number of attacks.

Re:One way street...

[Strider-BG]

Afraid you're wrong on that one.

From http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Both the fourth Geneval Convention and the two Additional Protocols extend protections to civilians during war time.

Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.
There is to be no destruction of property unless justified by military necessity.
Individuals or groups must not be deported, regardless of motive.
Civilians must not be used as hostages.
Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.
Civilians must not be tortured, raped or enslaved.
Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.
Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.
Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons and must not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.

Re:One way street...

[CrimsonAvenger]

It's as if the senior military decision makers don't really understand how the military is really just another tool of diplomacy, and should be used in concert, planning and execution of all other diplomatic means.

I understand that British generals think this way (and, based on much reading, that most European generals think much the same)- that war is just part of the diplomatic process. American generals are trained on the assumption that the diplomacy is done by the State Department, and that the military is only called in when it's time to bust heads. So they concentrate on being good at busting heads, and let the striped-trouser types concentrate on the diplomacy parts.

In other words, its a difference of opinion about the role of a general. A fairly common difference of opinion, at least between Americans and Europeans.

Re:One way street...

[micromoog]

Prevention of an immoral act via another immoral act is still immoral, regardless of magnitude. Besides, this falls under ethics, not logic, meaning it can't be proven or disproven (or "dismantled", as you so arrogantly put it).

Body count. It's real easy. Just basic arithmetic: addition and subtraction.

Do people really still take pure utilitarianism seriously? I guess so. The simplest ideas are the easiest to grasp.

Re:One way street...

[anactofgod]

If you honestly think that a patrol in a foreign city being ambushed from a building pauses to determine whether that building is a hospital, building of religious significance or home of orphans, in order to weigh the political consequences of various courses of actions, before opening fire, then you are severely straining your own grasp of reality.

More to the point, I wasn't speaking of the US forces on the ground, in harms way, as it were. I intended to speak to the senior most military and governmental (sorry, left that out in my previous post) officials decision to actually go to war. I am suggesting that those decision makers continue to severely discount how overwhelmingly important national and international public opinion is in rendering a positive outcome to a military action.

If we (the US) fails in Iraq, it won't be because of the US military. It'll solely be the fault of the elected civilian leadership, who stacked the deck against a positive outcome occurring in so many ways, it's going to be the case study of how NOT to go to war for generations to come.

---anactofgod---

Re:One way street...

[kpansky]

Yes. But the revolutionaries did not hide in the towns and use women and children as shields. We did not go hiding among Indian tribes hoping that the British would kill some of them and the Indians would fight for our side.

The revolutionaries used guerilla tactics -- acceptable by rules of modern warfare. The Iraqi resistance is using tactics immoral by any rule of modern warfare.

Re:One way street...

[kin_korn_karn]

I think that's from Brando's character in )_Apocalypse Now_ - which by no means reduces the relevance or the insightfulness.

Re:One way street...

[asoap]

I saw a show similar to that once.

It was some years ago though. Before any attack on Afghanistan. They showed how the military does a drop. Where they dump soldiers, cannons, humvees, etc... out of a plane. They actually pack hard cardboard under the humvees and stuff, so that when they hit the ground. The springs on the humvee collapse, and crush the cardboard, thus preventing damage to the truck.

What was suprising was that the guys working the artillery pulled out paper and a calculator and started to do trajectories by hand. It seemed that the military was worried about electronics falling out of a plane.

It makes sense, but then again, I don't see how a person would survive, and a hand held computer wouldn't.

Then again, this was probably more then a few years ago, that I saw this.

-asoap

Re:One way street...

[anactofgod]

True to a point.

One of the things that the US planners are continually behind to curve on is how communications is getting increasingly instantaneous and decentralized. They were behind the curve in Gulf War I, when they tried to limit the access to the battlefield of the Western news media, only to find that the Western news services reported anyway, from behind enemy lines. This left the Coalition forces with no comparable outlet to the public, and to a situation where the only POV that was NOT being broadcast was that of the US and allied military.

They countered this unacceptable situation by adopting a policy of embedding reporters with the troops in GWII. A nice plan to address the failure of GWI, but it completely failed to address the oh-so-obvious (to me, anyway) difference between that state of communication affairs between GWI and GWII. Namely, that of the rise of the Arabs *own* news services, which are completely outside the purview of Western (esp American) influence.

So, while we get stories from the embedded reporters and others in our news media, they don't have nearly the resonance with the intended target audience that Al J'zera (sp?) and other Arab news media have with *their* target audiences.

And, once again, the US military is put in a situation where it is behind the power curve in winning the overall war. Only, in this case there is no clearly defined, easily attainable goal ("the re-establishment of the government-in-exile of Kuwait"). Rather, there are nebulous, mutable desired end-results, as stated by our government ("End Iraqs ties to terrorism.", "Remove weapons of mass destruction.", "Establish a democratic government in Iraq."

Two of the many ways that the Adminstration stacked the deck against a positive outcome of this war in Iraq...

---anactofgod---

Re:One way street...

[BrodyVess]

Ahh yes, another victim of the neocon propaganda machine. Hey, just because something is the "accepted" view doesn't mean that its the "kooky liberal leftie pinko commie bastard" view.

We won every major "battle" of the Vietnam war. Of which there were relatively few for a conflict as lengthy as it was. We lost nearly every engagement. Just because a victory is phrryic doesn't make it less of a victory.

All war is decided on the battlefied. If we could have truly brought overwhelming force to bear we would have won it. While our tactics may have been superior, our strategy was far and away outmatched. The VC strategy was one of harrassment, supply disruption, and waiting for the United States to leave.

The worst thing is that your post espouses the typical sentiment seen by neocons- the "your either with us or against us" sentiment. Just because any person did not support a war they felt was unjustified does not make them a "Viet Cong irregular" Hey, I dont like vegetables- does that mean that I support deforestation, agent orange, and killing all vegitarians?

In short- tactics != strategy. Good tactics != winning a war. Opposing a war != treason.

Oh, and in the list of "Post-Communist Nihilists" I would include the neocons biggest flunky- Ahmed Chalabi.

Re:One way street...

[Em Emalb]

Depends on which branch.

It also depends on which field.

I was in the Corps, and as of 93, every recruit who went through bootcamp was required to spend one month at Marine Combat Training (MCT) with yearly refresher courses. Of course, you also need to remember the fact that every Marine is a rifleman first and foremost, no matter what their job.

Re:One way street...

[lucabrasi999]

We are fighting an enemy who will not abide by GC

I was about to ignore the whole discussion on Iraq until I saw this. You cannot justify the actions of the MP's based on this thinking. If you follow that thinking, then we should have roughed up a few of the German soldiers during World War II, because they were doing it to "our boys". Or, you could just decide to let the Local Police Department go crazy on one particular neighborhood of a city, because the crime rate in that neighborhood is so high. Who cares if the innocent are tossed in prison? At least the crime rate goes down!

The fact is, if we are going to try to export democratic values to a country that hasn't experienced them before, maybe we should try to treat their citizens the way our citizens would expect to be treated. In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty (at least you were before the Patriot Act). Just because you arrest someone, you cannot decide to beat the shit out of them.

Oh, wait, there are a few dozen Iraqi's out there that killed four contractors and hung them from a bridge. Screw it, let's just beat the hell out of hundreds of prisoners. Who cares if they were actually involved in anything remotely illegal. Fuck human rights. We're trying to bring them democracy! Even if bringing democracy to the country means that we have to rape and/or kill a few of their men in the process. When we leave, they'll appreciate everything we have done for them.

These pictures from that Baghdad prison have destroyed about 40 years of US credibility on human rights and democratic values. We now have no right to discuss bringing our values to anywhere else in the world.

Re:One way street...

[sumdumass]

so a few iraqi people cutting the head from a civilian or hanging other from bridges don't condem the rest of them and shouldn't be used as a means to justify the stuff comming out of that prison,

i cna agree with that. what i find puzzling is that while a few iraqis decapitating inocent people don't represent the hole as a country including captive prisoners

These pictures from that Baghdad prison have destroyed about 40 years of US credibility on human rights and democratic values. We now have no right to discuss bringing our values to anywhere else in the world.

So now, the actions of a few soldiers sent to guard prisioner with little training reflects the holle united states and thier creditability on human rights? WE know these actions were by a minority of people. it apears they acted without cause and it also apears that alot of the pictures we seen were fake too. I understand your disapointment, but if we are going to be fair, let be fair then

Re:One way street...

[0x0d0a]

I don't see anything about the Geneva Convention not applying to suspected terrorists.

That's because the Geneva Convention has the effect of maintaining the status quo. It protects and assists countries with traditional armies, while not extending protection to other combatants. Sure, countries will sign the Geneva Convention. It increases their power relative to anyone *not* currently in power. Take, for instance, rebel groups that are trying to seize control of a country -- these people are not a regular army, and are hence not entitled to Geneva Convention protection. The regular army is easier to build up, because that army can expect Geneva Convention protection if they ever go to war against another country. However, they do not need to respsect Geneva Convention rights WRT rebels, terrorists, freedom fighters, etc.

Re:One way street...

[denise_yenko]

In 1984, I fired a pattern of illumination shells to form a letter "A" (my battery) after winning the battery tests. (Also a neat way to burn up the extra ammo, so as not to have to turn it back in -- a *major* p.i.t.a.)

As section chief of the FDC, I relied on paper chart and paper calulations, although we had specially modified HP's to do the same thing. (A whole 'nother story, but we didn't use the Army's method of data entry either. I taught my people about 'peeks and pokes', and cut down our data entry time by about 75%)

What freaked out our observer from the 505thArty/101airborne, though, was computing a second mission in my head.

The colonel called, ("27 this is 6. That letter "A" is way too small to see well.") Since it was already pretty durn big, I assumed that he wanted the "A" twice as big, so I closed my eyes, computed 5 (one gun could maintain its firing data) sets of deltas for the other guns.

The observer said later (to my Captain and the Colonel) that never in his life had he seen anyone do 3-d trig in their head. It was checked on paper, and my data was 0/0 correct ("Check, 0!)" on all 15 data points (deflection, elevation and tof

Yes I can also do long division in my head!

[B^)

Re:One way street...

[Forge]

most of what Iraq is doing to American troops right now is very similar to what the US (Under general Washington) used to defeat Britain. Hit and run, send 1 goy to shoot up a convoy. Reduce the value of superior firepower.

The American media likes to call such acts terrorism but that just distorts the meaning of the word. As long as you are going after the military and the government it's all warfare (Yes. I endorse assassination as a military tool). Just be careful to define your enemy correctly. I.e. In the original golf war the enemy was Sadam and his ruling elite. It would have made good military and moral sense to assassinate them during that conflict.

The current war is between the US government (I.e. Bush and his cronies) and the people of Iraq. Which is funny since between the Shias, The Curds and Allah knows who else Iraq was never a united nation. Now it is united against a common enemy (The USA for those not paying attention). They are even making friends with Alquida (SP?) which is a novelty for Iraq.

As for the matter of "overwhelming force". War is not like sports. Your goal as a Warlord is to engineer the equivalent of a fistfight between Lenox Lewis and Leonardo Decaprio. The WBA would never approve but who cares. If the little guy caries a switchblade into the ring, hey it wasn't fare to begin with.

The US has the advantage of wealth so it hits you with $3M missiles while Iraq has committed fighters so it uses suicide bombers. Both are "fare". As for striking civilian targets. Iraq is an occupied country. This makes any American in Iraq fare game.

While the original 9/11 tragedy was terrorism in it's pure form, if it was repeated today by Iraqis it would be an act of war just like bombing Hiroshima.

Re:One way street...

[Vindicator9000]

Robert Heinlein was known to say "You cannot enslave a free man - the worst you can do is kill him." I think that his statement could apply in this circumstance.

Re:One way street...

[d34thm0nk3y]

Also, I'm no expert on Iraqi culture, but having a bunch of kids at a party at 3am seems very unlikely to me.

In plenty of places this is quite common.

Only on slashdot could the idea of partying until 3 AM be considered unlikely.

Geek tip: In college, some (cute)girls actually like smart guys, but it does require the occasional all night(and most of next day) party

BSOD

[AtariAmarok]

"'They have at least one idea, though. "Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems,""

Awww. I was so looking forward to the Yankee "Blue Soldier of Death" putting fear in the hearts of the enemy from the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli.

Re:BSOD

[blair1q]

If you see a blue soldier, he is playing in God mode.

Sweet!

[Kulaid982]

Our Armed forces are going to be one giant beowulf cluster!

Bloat.

[cryms0n]

Non-bloat software? I'm surprised the Army didn't just try to strap a nuclear power plant to the soldier's back.

Pork! Pork! Pork!

FFW is part of Future Combat Systems (FCS)...

[tcopeland]

...which already has some open source ties.

For example, the Vishnu planning engine (source code and project site here) is being used as part of FCS logistics planning.

No batteries?

[Sad Mephisto]

How to power those things? Haven't they seen the Matrix?

Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy you know it's not going to be very easy to edit whatever.conf on your jacket. Maybe they should reconsider this.

Very silly post about the Marines.

[The I Shing]

Well, the USMC uses suits like this that are powered by sound. Tiny receivers built into a Marine's helmet transmit sound energy into a belt-mounted unit to the rear. Guttural, high-pitched sounds generate the most energy, so when you see a sergeant right up in a private's face screaming, he's actually just recharging the private's batteries. No, really!

Obligatory kneejerk reaction aside

[Progman3K]

There are very good reasons for the military to avoid using Windows.

Being closed-source, Windows wouldn't be peer-reviewable by the army, nor could the army fix its own problems with the code if they encounter any.

No need for a cheap-shot.

Re:Obligatory kneejerk reaction aside

[jeff munkyfaces]

one would hope easy to use products could be reliable too.

it would certainly make them a lot easier to use..

Re:Obligatory kneejerk reaction aside

[Anonvmous Coward]

"No need for a cheap-shot."

Agreed. I read that little quip and thought I was reading a Dilbert cartoon. "Next we want you to write software that makes the laptop lighter."

Windows Front Line edition

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as you see the whites of their eyes
FIRE.EXE has performed an illegal operation and w.....

Times are changing

[NinjaFodder]

All I got when I was in the military was a gun, uncomfortable boots, and a pair of clean socks. Luckily, I didn't see any combat or I would have needed an extra pair of clean underwear too.

Clippy

[AtariAmarok]

"It looks like you are engaging in offensive manoevers. Would you like help?"

Get help writing battle plan.

Set us up the bomb.

Simple Solution for the power problem

[vijaya_chandra]

One of the major obstacles is going to be how to power all the electronic devices that the soldiers will use

Build their helmets with solar panels

(that the US army spends most of it's time in deserts or barren hills would tell you that this'd be the most efficient thing to do)

Re:Simple Solution for the power problem

[garymcg]

build their helmets with solar panels

Until the reflexion of all the solar panels gives your position away, that sounded like a good idea. However, we are not only looking for practicality, we are looking to keep our troops alive... Nothing like a bringt reflection to make it easier to aim your rifle...

In order to avoid the reflection problem, maybe they should only use the solar panel helmets at night!

Re:Simple Solution for the power problem

[zonix]

Build their helmets with solar panels

Yeah, solar panels will come in handy when powering those night vision goggles. :-)

z

bake sale

[happyfrogcow]

they better be having one hell of a bake sale to make that kind of money...

colonel panic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source in the military? Has anybody made a Colonel Panic joke yet?

Re:I wonder

[gmletzkojr]

I would think that the military would get someone (or themselves) to roll a Military version of Linux. Then they could control deployment of the software for various purposes a bit easier. Make sense?

this just cracks me up! :)

[xutopia]

But tests showed that "some people's heads were literally too thick for that to work," DeGay said.

What might happen if they DID use windows....

[eviljolly]

"Enemy spotted, 100 yards and closing.
"Open fire soldier!"
"Sir my weapon says it's not responding"
"Reboot soldier!"
"I did sir, but each time I reboot it still says "Remote Procedure Call (RPC) service terminated unexpectedly.""
"Disable your wireless connection soldier and switch to manual override, we're being exploited!"

Meanwhile somewhere in the middle east...
"Heheheheh.........silly Americans...."

Military poses interesting problems....

[csmacd]

Like, quietness - I wouldn't want a loud fan, or any fan for that matter, on my back.

Battery life, reliability stability - wouldn't want any of this going down in a critical moment.

Redundancy/Backup system - wouldn't want to be unable to complete tasks if electronic gear is down.

Liability - I can see gunsight video appearing on the internet (already is for some aircraft videos)

Big Boned

[medication]

'DeGay and his fellow Future Force Warriors call it a "load-bearing chassis."' - load-bearing chassis, reminds me of some PC term like 'Big Boned'. She ain't heavy, she's just got a load-bearing chasis.

Recruiting tool.

[AtariAmarok]

If this means full iPods built into the suit, count me in! Where's the nearest recruiting office? Who needs ammo when you are armed with 5,000 songs.

Research shows

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

a strong correlation between tradition in military uniforms, and the strength of ones military. Historically speaking, as uniforms have become more and more advanced, more maintenance is required for upkeep. While in the past, the benefits of the advanced uniform have been able to outpace the cost of maintenance, this is decreasingly the case.

As a consequence, the military has chosen to provide the utmost camoflauge, while at the same time provide a uniform that simply scares the hell out of the enemy. HERE is the prototype. (I know geocities, I'm lazy it's the first imge I could find)

Global Information Grid

[Proaxiom]

Has the Global Information Grid come up on Slashdot before?

It's a similar way too forward-looking military thing. The plan is that by 2020, every soldier will have an IP address.

An illegal operation has been performed...

[UTPinky]

Using a Windows version could really bring about a whole new meaning to the phrase "Blue Screen of DEATH"

No clippy?

[Himring]

"Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems,"

Too bad. I guess that means no MS Word either. I guess that means no clippy, and I guess that means no:

It looks like you're killing people. Would you like help?

Possible Solutions for Power:

[TheTXLibra]

If I were them, I'd take a blanket storage approach to power. Use extremely efficient power drains, coupled with a battery for storage of energy. Then they can harness it in multiple ways: solar (during the day), kinetic (from movement), wind (small portable turbines in a windy environment, or over the shoulder while walking), and water (when camped/resting near a river or stream--you could even use the same turbine you use for wind power).

You wouldn't need to power a city off this stuff, just keep a continual charge building, and add perhaps a max of one-pound of weight for the turbine. Most of the time these special components would not be needed, and any time they aren't used, they can recharge...

Am I missing anything here? Is there some reason the Armed Forces aren't doing this? Or are they?



-The Libra
"You've got no kids, no wife, no job, and you're not in The Tigger Movie!!!"
- my best friend's son, Gabe, at 5 years old.

specialised military batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone who's been in the army knows what I'm talking about.

Your GPS has this big whack battery that only works in it. Your NVG's are the same (well, the 'new' ones will actually takee AA's as well). That big 'ol SINGARS radio, what a beast of a battery. The secure comm unit for it, again another specialised battery.

When I was in the army I always thought our biggest weakness was every single piece of electronic gear took a specialised battery that would only work in that item. Nothing could just use commodity batteries.

I think they are just taking this a step further. You guys whine about windows but, this is REAL vendor lock-in. You get batteries from us or all your shit stops working.

Re:specialised military batteries

[SylvesterTheCat]

While your overall point has validity... some of your details are incorrect.

The PLGR battery is actuallly used in several other devices.
The same is true of the SINCGARS battery.

You are correct that there are _way_ to many batteries which are only used in one device.

Re:specialised military batteries

[Strange]

Not only that, but many of those custom batteries do not react well in field conditions. They have a tendency to explode when wet. The semisealed lithiums are just not safe. I don't want to have to worry about carrying a small bomb when I'm wearing an AERPS kit.

For Air Force aircrew this seems to be changing. Most of the gear I've been issued in the last year runs on AA or AAA. GPS, NVGs, lip lamps, all commodity batteries.

Re:specialised military batteries

[alexatrit]

Perhaps one of the motivating factors behind these specialized batteries is to prevent our technologies from being used against us? Captured components cannot likely be used by the opposition immediately (read: not without a bit of off-the-field reverse engineering). Similar to the destruction plans a radar crew performs if they know they won't make it back.

Re:specialised military batteries

[red floyd]

Thanks. I was going to make the same comment.

Plus thank you for correcting his spelling of SINCGARS.

In addition, many stock military devices take D-size cells. In our lab, we used to have a whole case of OD color MIL-Spec D-cells for various pieces of equipment we had to interface with.

Re:specialised military batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

From my experience in an Airborne unit, I always thought the battery situation was pretty scary myself. Part of one of my jobs was to inventory and hand out batteries to operators. I remember we had this new tactical radio that came in. It ate batteries. It took two BA 5590's. Those two batteries would operate only a few hours. As you pulled out the old batteries and put in the new, you would notice the oven like quality at the base of the radio. I don't know if they fully integrated that radio into the force, but I hope they made some changes. Since I wasn't some badass killer, I took it upon myself to jump with a ruck full of batteries. I could only carry maybe 2-4 of those batteries on a jump as I needed the required 40lb ruck for a good exit. They were too light and took up too much volume. If no changes were made then certainly fewer badasses were coming out of the plane. Just a bunch of dumbasses carrying batteries.

Re:specialised military batteries

[nexthec]

To fix that problem Electric Fuel has created a zinc/air battery for use in the field. To deal with the multiple battery form factors they have a little plugin empy plastic box, that leads out with a single pigtail. The actual battery actually is two 12 volt stacks that can be wired in parallel or series if you need 24V.

Exactly WHO said anything about Open Source?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

"Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems," a recent memo on the subject directed. FFW is going open source. Cleaner software needs less energy to run."

This is what the Wired story says, but exactly what does the memo actually say? Simply saying "Avoid the use of Microsoft Windows operating systems" does not in the least imply they are thinking of open source solutions. What they are much more likely thinking about is proprietary embedded systems.

Honestly, when was the last time a multi-zillion dollar military contract involve Open Source?

Re:Exactly WHO said anything about Open Source?

[molarmass192]

How about this time in particular?

Yes, but...

[moosesocks]

Clean software is better than bloated software.

No software is better than clean software.

No matter how clean it may be, it will still potentially have flaws. In the case of "army stuff", I'd tend to think that traditional computing systems would not be suitable or efficent for that matter. Any software which has to 'boot up' is probably bad.

QNX on the other hand, may be good. It's used pretty widely, is lightweight, and supposedly rock solid. But, still, if the task can be accomplished just as efficently without computers at all, it's probably a better idea.

batteries powered by motion

[kaan]

I remember a few years ago, seeing a bunch of high-end wrist watches that charged up through regular motion while wearing the watch. Or you could just flick your wrist a few times to store some extra energy. I think one of them was called "Kinetic" or something clever like that.

I wonder if there's any possibility for motion-charging batteries to succeed as a power source for soldiers. I admit I didn't rtfa, but obviously the overall power requirements would be relevant to the success of something like this.

Windows has detected.....

[cardshark2001]

The soldier inserts a new clip into his gun.

"Windows has detected new hardware. Please insert the Windows installation disk."

Is it just me....

[Dachannien]

...or does "Future Force Warrior" sound like a bad anime title?

Obligatory Klingon Quote

[CHaN_316]

"History is written by the victors!" -Chancellor Gowron

Re:Obligatory Klingon Quote

[for_usenet]

But before that, I believe it was said by none other than Winston Churchill.

who is this general failure?

[dunkelfalke]

and why is he reading my hard disk?

Re:Cleaner software requires less energy?

[RetroGeek]

I'm all for jumping on window's faults, but assuming that windows uses more energy because it is not "clean" is wrong and biased.

Way back when, I had a machine loaded with Windows and OS/2. When OS/2 was running, the machine ran noticibly cooler than when Windows was running. Yes, the same basic set of software was running on both. Other people noticed this too and did some deeper analysis. The consensus was that the Windows thread scheduler used more CPU time than the OS/2 scheduler. More CPU usage, hotter CPU, more electricity used.

No, there are other considerations

[Sycraft-fu]

As in do you want the enemy (in this case enemy being a major force like the US) to leave your schools, hospitals, churches, and the like alone? The US (and most other nations) is a nation that obeys the Geneva Convention. Part of that is that deliberate attacks on civilian targets aren't allowed. Specifically, hospitals and churches (mosques, temples, etc) are off limits. If you are a soldier wounded in battle and are taken to a hospital, they aren't allowed to blow up the hospital.

This is all well and good but only applies if the structures are NOT being used as military staging areas. If you turn a hospital into a military base and launch attacks from it, it is no longer a civilian target and it not protected under the Geneva Convention. Ther Germans found this out in WWII. They took over a monestary, which was protected under the Geneva Convention, and used it to launch attacks (it was a very strong structure). Well the allies were having none of that, it was now a military target and they reduced it to rubble.

So that's the reason for not using tactics like this, your hurt your own nation and the people that you claim to be trying to protect. That is the point of a military, remember, to protect the people.

How far would I go? Well it depends. If a foriegn dictatorship was trying to take over the US, I'd fight to the death. Of course I'd do that by joining the military. If the US had fallen into dictatorship (and I hadn' already gotten out) and the force was here to liberate me, I'd help THEM.

Re:No, there are other considerations

[Malc]

The US only observes the Geneva Convention when it's convenient or they think the media isn't looking. Look at the prisoners in Cuba: the US government made up new definitions in attempt to thumb its nose at the Geneva Convention and thus bypass it. It sounds like hypocrasy to me.

Re:No, there are other considerations

[mangu]

Well the allies were having none of that, it was now a military target and they reduced it to rubble.

The same can be said of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and other cities in WWII. When daylight precision bombing against military targets was getting too many bombers shot down, the USA and Great Britain shifted to night-bombing using incendiary bombs, obliterating whole cities in order to destroy the war industries located in or near them. In Dresden and Tokyo each, according to the best estimates, 100000+ civilians died. Let's face the truth: in war, Geneva Convention or not, anything is valid. And the victor decides who is to be considered a "war criminal".

Re:No, there are other considerations

[Rick.C]

That is the point of a military, remember, to protect the people.

And the sky is blue, and the fifer and the drummer are playing a little ditty, and the flag is waving we go marching happily off to war.

We (Americans) were all taught in school that the Nazis were protecting Hitler, not the German people. And the Republican Guard was protecting Saddam, not the Iraqi people, etc.

Now clearly the U.S.M.C. is not protecting GWB, so they must be protecting the people, right?

Don't laugh, it's true! I watch my 401(k) go up and down daily based on how well they're protecting my interests.

That's not funny. That's sad.

Re:No, there are other considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

The US only observes the Geneva Convention when it's convenient or they think the media isn't looking.

No, the U.S. observes the Geneva Convention to the best of its ability.

The so-called "soldiers" involved in the Iraq prison scandal violated orders (or obeyed illegal orders) and ignored their training. As for the prisoners at Gitmo: most fall into a gray area not covered by the Conventions (the last modifications to which took place in the late 40s, decades before an pan-national entity like Al Qaeda was considered seriously).

Go check out the Third Geneva Convention. The Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan did not meet all of the conditions in 4A(2) (most did not wear identifiable uniforms or markings, nor did they conduct themselves accordingly with the laws of war), nor did they qualify as a "regular armed force" (a requirement specified in 4A(3)) nor did they "spontaneously take up arms" as defined in 4A(6).

The U.S. officially calls these guys a few things (such as "detainees") rather than "prisoners of war" -- and rightly so. They are little more than a step up from street gangs operating on a larger piece of turf. They have very little resemblance to professional armed forces when it comes to training, discipline or organization. They are thugs, murderers and criminals.

So please, if you're going to wave your angry anti-American flag, do so after you've been better informed.

Re:No, there are other considerations

[Rayonic]

You're getting your tactics mixed up. Some are OK by the Geneva Convention, some are not.

Sexual humiliation -- Not OK.

Sleep deprivation -- OK.

Violent beatings -- Not OK.

*Threat* of beatings -- OK.

Causing pain -- Not OK.

Witholding pain medication -- OK.

Physical disfigurement -- Not OK.

Loud music -- OK.

Etc, etc.. You get the idea, the Geneva Convention is surprisingly flexible.

And all that stuff I listed, that's just for people classified as prisoners of war. If you're not part of the armed forces of a nation... well, the rules are considerably looser.

Re:No, there are other considerations

[archen]

As far as I've ever heard, there really weren't any military targets in Dresden. The bombing there was to obliterate the city and demoralize the German people, just as Hitler tried to do the same with London. I think there is validity for most people in the Geneva Convention, but if anyone is going to talk about "morality" in war, you might as well completely skip WWII because everyone pretty much blatantly ignored all the "rules".

People tend to get on their high horse when talking about what's right and wrong in war (especially when they've never been in one) and tend to gloss over the fact that this is people fighting for their lives here. According to the Geneva convention you're not supposed to use a 50-caliber machine gun on personell. Yeah, if I have no guns and there's a 50cal beside me I'm sure as hell going to shoot back. In the end if you want to avoid atrocities in war, then don't get in one in the first place.

Re:No, there are other considerations

[o'reor]

They are thugs, murderers and criminals.

Oh, yeah, all of them, sure. Like this British guy who got captured by the Talibans while traveling across Afghanistan and was then deported to Guantanamo before he could say anything ?

And I'm not even mentioning people who were told on to the US forces by their neighbours under false pretenses, just to get the reward for it.

Listen buddy, even thugs and criminals have a right to a trial. At the very least, the innocent must be let out of this place.

Re:No, there are other considerations

[orzetto]

No, the U.S. observes the Geneva Convention to the best of its ability.

...which appears to be quite limited.

The U.S. officially calls these guys a few things (such as "detainees") rather than "prisoners of war"

Which proves how limited their ability to follow the Geneva convention is. Wars with "regular armed forces", with "identifiable uniforms or markings", are more an exception than a rule today.

For the information of your only Proud American neuron in that empty thing you insist calling head, the American war of indipendence was also fought by people you stigmatise as "thugs, murderers and criminals" (at least the Red Coats called them so, and they were indeed a proper regular army).

It's very convenient for the US military to call these POWs with euphemisms such as detainees to deny them any basic right. If they are, as you say, a

little more than a step up from street gangs

they should be entitled at least to the rights a gangster has, which comprises that thing that used to be called "fair trial", which in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib has not been especially followed. Or do these rights apply only to American citizens?
And please don't start saying that it was just "a few cases", the only thing Rumsfeld did was to put on trial the ones that had taken pictures and forbidding cameras. So much for the commitment to human rights.

I've seen this worrying development in the US mentality, everybody seems to justify anything the military does. General Kimmit had yesterday the guts to say that bad people have parties too, after a movie showing the bombing of a wedding in Iraq was found. That guy would really deserve being tried for war crimes.

Mod me down as you wish, I could not care less. But remember that a country heading this way is heading to no good.

Re:No, there are other considerations

[Sinterklaas]

No, the U.S. observes the Geneva Convention to the best of its ability.

Nonsense, Article 75 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions states that torture is always forbidden, regardless of whether the victims have POW status. And we know that the US has been guilty of torture, directly and indirectly (the Canadian guy who was sent to Syria to be tortured).

The so-called "soldiers" involved in the Iraq prison scandal violated orders (or obeyed illegal orders) and ignored their training.

First of all, the US is always responsible for the well-being of their detainees. A lack of training and policing with regard to the actions of the torturers is the fault of the US leadership. It may not technically be against the law to be stupid at the expense of the well-being of others, but it definitely can and should be held against them.

However, the situation seems even worse with illegal orders from high-ups and willing disregard of the Geneva conventions on the highest level (yes, Rumsfeld).

Go check out the Third Geneva Convention. The Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan did not meet all of the conditions in 4A(2) (most did not wear identifiable uniforms or markings, nor did they conduct themselves accordingly with the laws of war), nor did they qualify as a "regular armed force" (a requirement specified in 4A(3)) nor did they "spontaneously take up arms" as defined in 4A(6).

The fact that they don't have POW status doesn't mean that the US can do what they want. Both morally and legally, the US should treat everyone decently. As for the latter, Article 75 states that every detainee has the right to a trial, innocent until proven guilty, etc.

They are thugs, murderers and criminals.

It's really scary to see how you've been indoctrinated into assuming that people are guilty without a fair trial. Besides, if they truly are thugs, murderers and criminals, then why not give them the same rights that we give to other people who are accused of these crimes?:
- A speedy trial
- No torture
- Access to a lawyer
- Assumed innocent until proven guilty

It's really scary to see people advocating a police state so easily (and no, the 'war' on terrorism is not comparable to WWII). An enemy who can 'only' kill thousands should not be a reason for us to turn our back on freedom.

So please, if you're going to wave your angry anti-American flag, do so after you've been better informed.

I'm not anti-American, but pro-human rights. It's sad that those two are thought to be the same.

Re:No, there are other considerations

[lahi]

This is all well and good but only applies if the structures are NOT being used as military staging areas. If you turn a hospital into a military base and launch attacks from it, it is no longer a civilian target and it not protected under the Geneva Convention. Ther Germans found this out in WWII. They took over a monestary, which was protected under the Geneva Convention, and used it to launch attacks (it was a very strong structure). Well the allies were having none of that, it was now a military target and they reduced it to rubble.

I assume you are referring to the case of the monastery on Monte Cassini. I've read an explanation for this, which may or may not be true, but in either case adds some insight.

According to this explanation, the attacking allies intercepted a communication between Germans, saying "Abt ist im Kloster". They interpreted that as "the company is in the monastery" (Abt being understood as an abbreviation for "Abteilung" = "detachment".) What was meant, however was "the abbot is in the monastery".

Assuming this is true, bad intelligence led to the attack and destruction of a civilian, protected target. The same situation has occured many times in Iraq, especially while trying to kill Saddam with cruise missiles.

The question it leads to is this: Is the risk of attacking a protected civilian target acceptable, when your intelligence is not 100% sure of whether that civilian target is actually abused by the enemy?

The way I understand the Geneva Conventions, I'd say the answer is no; if you can minimize collateral damage by chosing the appropriate means to attack, you are obliged to do so. In the case of trying to get at Saddam, I suppose an attack using special forces would have been preferable to an attack with cruise missiles.

-Lasse

Liquid body armor?

[Woogiemonger]

I'm disappointed I saw no mention of the liquid body armor Army scientists are working on. Basically you take Kevlar, which is already pretty protective, and soak certain chemicals into it. Then when you get shot or stabbed, etc, the liquid hardens instantly and the wearer remains unharmed. I guess it's a possible future improvement, but perhaps the more conventional body armor is more reliable and tested for now. Less fun to talk about :/

Technology

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Maybe we could forgo the technology that we don't need and have longer enlistments for infantry with more Special Forces type training, i.e. winning hearts and minds. Make it a lifestyle choice with more and better training, higher physical standards, better pay.
Go ahead and shoot me down but I'm going off of 8 years of Marine Corps Infantry.
Some of the new technology is great like the new ACOG 4x scope for the battle rifles. You can use them with both eyes open. My little brother is deploying to Iraq as a Marine Scout Sniper and bought his own (out of his pocket!) Eotech 552 scope. You can see from the link provided that it can be used even when half the lens is damaged.
In keeping in line with my comment about the rifle scopes/sights, the basic gear still needs to be revamped. Tear away chest harnesses are in high demand with most Marines choosign to buy them out of their own pockets rather than use the issue gear. The Marine Corps is still trying to deal with their mistake of using the MOLLE gear system. The MOLLE's plastic pack frame was breaking left and right in Afganistan and now the Marine Corps is replacing the pack with a new design.
So stop fantasizing about the choice of OS on pie in the sky dreams/future projects and get the grunts gear that works.

Re:bullet proof vests?

[devphaeton]

Maybe they should fork over that money to the *current situation* and give the troops some bullet-proof vests NOW!

I ask that question all the time. Why not bulletproof vests? I hear all the arguments of "too much money" "foot soldiers are disposable" to "they're not really bulletproof" and all sorts of other crap. Sure they don't help in all situations (my buddy's helicopter crashed while avoiding ground fire), but i would think that it'd make more sense on every level. Especially the financial one.

Oh well. I'm just a stupie-ayse liberal.

Re:One way street... (it's an all-way-street)

[BgJonson79]

Conditional surrender too often leaves too much wriggle room.

And, if the Japanese were ready to surrender, why did it take two bombs?

Oh boy....

[The-Bus]

[THE SCENE: A battlefield before a hill, with a Commander and several infantrymen, including a Grunt right near him. The enemy approaches...]

Commander: "Here they are men, coming over the crest...!"

Grunt: "Sir, it looks like they are using flame throwers! We were only equipped for ballistics and hand-to-hand combat."

Commander: "No problem soldier, we'll upgrade to flame-resistant armor. I'll issue the command."

[On screen] ***BZT!**** WINDOWS GUI:
Welcome to Windows Battlefield Update
Get the latest updates available for your suit's operating system, software, and hardware.
Windows Battlefield Update scans your computer and provides you with a selection of updates tailored just for you.[End Screen]

Grunt: "Hurry! They're coming over the hill!"

[On screen]. WBU is scanning for updates... 0%... 33%... 66%... 100% Complete!
Windows Update has found other updates for your computer. Browse through these updates and select the ones you want to install:

[X] Flame Retardant Skin 1.56MB
[ ] Ice Shield Update 39459FTG 6.7MB
[ ] SCUBA Fix 3949DFR (Prevents Drowning) 34.5KB
[ ] WBU Hotfix 29399DEE 12.5KB
[ ] S-Prepatch 3030WSA 6.7TB ...

You've selected:
**BZT!
[End screen]

Grunt: "They're getting really close now!!!"
Commander: "Hold them off!"

[On screen] *BBRM***
[X] Flame Retardant Skin

Before being able to install this, you will need:

[ ] S-Prepatch 3030WSA 6.7TB

Estimated download time: 2 days, 6 hours, 5 minutes.

Hit OK to pro--[End screen]

**flames erupt**

[ENTER SCREEN, TOP RIGHT: Clippy, a handsome rogue]

Clippy: Hello! It appears you have 2nd degree burns. Would you like to?
[x] Call a Medic
[ ] No thanks, I'd like to die now

Obligatory Nelson

[pragma_x]

(Microsoft looses millions in DOD revinue)

Ha-Ha.

don't ask, don't tell

[digitalgimpus]

"We have a warring disposition," growled DeGay, a former Ranger, infantry officer and armored platoon leader. "All we do is soldier."

What ever happened to don't, ask don't tell? :-D

Ok, enough playing with ppl's names.

Man he's got a cool job. GI-Joe mixed with geeky technology. Sounds like an awesome gig. Wonder how he got into that? I'm sure there are many others who agree that's everything awesome in the world merged into 1 job. Would be neat get a /. interview with him.

Wired is reading too much - or not enough.

[Beardo the Bearded]

It's not going to run Windows because there's probably not going to be a machine that's capable of running Windows (or Linux, for that matter)

It will likely be a low-power, sleep-capable PIC that doesn't have an OS. To run some bloatware (any operating system is bloatware on a low-power system) would be absolutely ridiculous. The software will be custom-written for the suits and work on the machine level.

electronics in battlefield?

[Keruo]

+40c heat in desert, -40c frost in finland,
deep mud, pouring rain, dust, dirt...
Environment puts the hardware to strain and wearing extra weight while taking cover from enemy fire, or just on transfer march to somewhere doesn't sound very tempting to me..
Sure it would be nice to have gps locator and map which would give you exact location all the time, but once you run out of duracells, you're lost in the woods. Compass+paper map weights much less than gps+some cpu device with map display and endures diving to dirt better.
Uniforms shouldn't really contain any electronics at all. They are one of the most strained items in the army, crawling in ground gets them dirty and they need to be washed every now and then. Having to remove and reattach bunch of electronics to them before and after laundry would add much work to equipment maintenance.
The page 2 in the article refers transferring some of the carried weight to robotic mule. I don't think it's very convinient to drag some robot around in battlefield since the terrain adapts from plains to steep cliffs and water areas to cross.
The robots would also add another step in logistics.. more stuff to drag to battlefield and back.
Modern warfare is very fast advancing on battlefield, and sadly most of the infantry tactics still are based on stationary warfare.
Mounting night goggles to helmet doesn't really help that much nor does radio headsets.. simply too fragile in real combat.

duh...

[Run4yourlives]

Considering a nuclear blast lets out an emp, and they've been around for 50+ years, all military grade eletrical equipment is already EMP protected.

(with the exception of some no critical, off the shelf stuff)

"convenient or they think the media isn't looking"

[glrotate]

You post makes no sense. The Gitmo situation is a topic of worldwide interest, and has been a massive headache for the Administration.

One might wish to consider that the Administration is utilizing Gitmo is because interrogating terrorists and not sending terrorists back home is a no brainer, and any responsible leader would do the same.

Re:Send the Marines! By Tom Lehrer

[magefile]

Forgot to make it "plain old text" rather than HTML. Sorry; here it is, corrected.

Send The Marines
[spoken]
What with President Johnson practicing escalatial on the Vietnamese and then the Dominican crisis on top of that it has been a nervous year and people have begun to feel like a Christian scientist with appendicitis. Fortunately in times of crisis just like this America always has this number one instrument of diplomacy to fall back on. Here's a song about it.

[Cassons song intro]
When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first,
we'll send the Marines!

We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not to Mississippoli,
What do we do? We send the Marines!

For might makes right,
Until they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected.

The members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
We hate that expression!
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo,
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt,
Send the Marines!

I have an Idea for the Army

[Mad Ogre]

Go back to the WWII Uniforms. The were much more classy. Indead of spending 250 million on this stuff - spend that money on training our men how to FIGHT. We have become way too technical and soft, and it's costing us. The Army should train like the Marines - Every Man is a Rifleman FIRST AND FOREMOST. They ALL know how to fight - even the Clerks. The Army only trains the Infantry to fight. Everything else is just support of that. That's not quite right... I have a lot of criticisms of the Military because I was in it. 8 years US Army Infantry, Light Fighter. While I was in, we transitioned from the Steel Pot to the K-Pot (helmets). The old Steel pot was better in my opinion. Better jackets too. This new stuff might be high speed, but it lacks character. What were we talking about?

being in the infantry

[-ryan]

i hate it when people talk about the infantry. it's like some mystical world full of video game and movie references and abstract concepts that seem totally logical to someone who hasn't done it. it's a culture shock and a different, very real, very harsh world. it's really agonizing to hear it discussed but that being said:

being in the infantry you get used to everything just being heavy and ungangly. it would be a shock to most slashdotters just how cumbersome our gear is. fighting at night with NVG's on is NOTHING like in a video game. half the time you can't see a thing because it focuses like any other optic. you have to adjust the focus everytime you look at something more than a few feet closer or further than what you were last looking at. and don't get me started on the skull crushers and rhino mounts. i've never been able to get a PVS 14 to sit properly over my eye. shooting in the prone position is even worse.

here's something funny to illustrate. in the army we have this thing called a PLGR (Portable Lightweight GPS Reciever) or "plugger". i assure you that there is nothing portable, lightweight, or GPS about it. it's huge, like the biggest text book you've ever seen. the batteries don't last for shit, it has only an alphanumeric display (no arrows and maps), it weights a good few pounds, it is TERRIBLE at getting a GPS signal. you practically have to climb a tree or be in the middle of open desert to use it.

which leads me to this: most of us use civialian and so called "special ops" (usually just civilian things that have been ruggedized) gear. we use alot of civialian GPRS/FRS radios (though ours can be encrypted), we use lots of civilian GPS too. pretty much anything special forces uses too gets trickled down into infantry use because our gear sucks and they've got the common sense and freedom to use what works.

now to counter that we do have alot of things that really give us a leap over the enemy. we have infared targeting lasers we use at night which really help in a fire fight. other cool things i dont' want to talk about. but of course the bad guys have night vision too. yea, they do. it's not really that expensive these days. good thing most of them are poor shots.

being a terrorist has it's advantages. you can really be effective in small groups. but our tactics work great too and we are constantly adapting. what they gain in autonomy is thwarted by lack of C2 (command and control), training, and good support channels. besides, we can move and act autonomously too.

Still wind up carring the same amount of weight

[300f1grad]

One interesting thing to note is from the time of the Roman Legionnaires to today the combat load of a soldier has been around 45 pounds. Compared to the WW II infantryman, the uniform, weapon, ammunition and load bearing gear of today's infantry is lighter, but now they carry night vision goggles, radios and other electronics and body armor. Making it lighter is offset by carrying more stuff.

Technicalities

[Vicegrip]

Using a technicality to justify different treatment is exactly the kind of thing that makes countries scoff at the U.S. when after the fact the government takes the moral high-ground about human rights. It may be 'legal' but, judging how the U.S. is perceived internationally these days, not many countries are fooled about whether or not it is right.

If America won't treat its prisoners by the same standards it expects American prisoners to be treated then there is no 'red line' anymore. Soon other countries will be using the words 'terrorist' or 'none-combatant' to justify egregious abuses whilst the U.S. sits quietly by because it can no longer criticize other countries failure to respect the Geneva Conventions in their 'fight' against 'terrorism'.

The U.S. declared itself to be at war against terrorism. The President has himself said that America is at war with terrorists who are the 'enemy of freedom'. How can the very people America is supposed to be fighting against -- who it is at war with -- be none-combatants? These disingenuous distinctions to create convenient excuses to circumvent international conventions that regulate the treatment of prisoners in a war bring only discredit to the very morality of the fight.

This President has in my opinion done irreparable harm to the prestige of the United States in the matter of human rights. The ends do not justify the means if you are a moral person; the same is true for a country.

What will happen when they use Open Source...

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Enemy spotted, 100 yards and closing.
> "Open fire soldier!"
> "Sir my weapon says it's not responding"

"There isn't a driver for the magazine loader."
"The firing module wasn't compiled into the kernel."
"There's no documentation. Throw rocks at the enemy while I look around on Google, Usenet, and IRC."
"The trigger code wasn't tested with this distro. The programmer wants me to use JimBobsBaitAndTackle Linux instead."

Calculator???

[willtsmith]

Couldn't that fall out of the plane as well?????

Re:One way street... SlightlyOT

[HawkPilot]

It's been awhile (left the Air Force in 1989), but as I recall, the Air Force back then used degrees and minutes (which allowed accuracy to the nearest nautical mile) pulled off the lat-longs from our navigational charts, while the Army used a decimal system that allowed them to specify locations down to the meter if needed.

Absolutly true. The Air Force deals with Lat/Long because the earth is curved and the area they cover is large enough that computing distances and heading over a curved surface is computationally easier using degrees and minutes.

The Army, on the other hand, deals in distances much smaller, where the curvature of the earth is not a factor. The Army uses a system called the Military Grid Reference System (MGRS ).

This system suits the Army well because it is simple, accurate, and works in meters instead of nautical miles.

Army pilots, like myself, have to use both systems constantly. And we always have to convert between the two. Although when errors are made, it often deals with using different datums rather than computational error. The DOD is in the process of fixing this though by using a single datum for all maps. (WGS84)

Sounds like a case where code ptimization is neede

[1bammer]

Code optimation went out the window in the 90's with ever increasing CPU and storage capabilites. Perhaps moving back to software coding as artform, designed to minimize CPU (and thus power) usage is one solution vice "more power". For example, KT-V2OIP compresses, and transmits symmetrically over 3G cell phones using a 85 KB compression engine that doeasn't require a hardware accelerator. Just try that with MPEG!

Mod parent up

[shadowbearer]

Please.

While I don't agree that our government is entirely innocent (Rumsfeld apparently knew about the sanction given our intelligence forces carte blanche in anti-terrorist interrogations, and then (arguably) lied about it) the parent post is still spot on with respect to many of the arguments above it in this thread.

I agree completely with the opinion that terrorists - and insurgents in Iraq who don't follow the GC themselves - have no rights under the GC.

Leaving Iraq aside for a moment, let's consider this: EVERY CIVILIZED COUNTRY in the WORLD is "at war" with terrorism. Terrorists - those who would kill, en masse, unarmed and innocent civilians to make a POLITICAL POINT - are as the above AC pointed out, murderers and criminals.

Perhaps they should have trials. Ok, they should at least have an independent body or bodies consider the evidence against them. Unfortunately the WC is so busy examining it's own navel that it's unlikely anything would come of it.

To slow down terrorism, we have to punish those who commit *immediately* - because it's the only deterrent that the civilized world has against this particular kind of scum. Unfortunately some innocents will fall, even with that process, NO MATTER WHO IS DOING THE JUDGING, be it the US, the coalition, or the World Court.

\end rant

SB

Re:No, there are other considerations...Not really

[scheme]

You're getting your tactics mixed up. Some are OK by the Geneva Convention, some are not.

Sexual humiliation -- Not OK.

Sleep deprivation -- OK.

Violent beatings -- Not OK.

*Threat* of beatings -- OK.

Causing pain -- Not OK.

Witholding pain medication -- OK.

Physical disfigurement -- Not OK.

Loud music -- OK.

Etc, etc.. You get the idea, the Geneva Convention is surprisingly flexible.

You're wrong. The geneva convention prohibits physical and moral coericion including threats. In particular,

Art. 27. Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Art. 31. No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.

So withholding pain meds, sleep deprivation, threats of torture, loud starvation, etc. are not okay according to the convention.

Also, threats of physical violence don't really do much unless it's credible in which case someone probably gets hurt in order to make sure prisoners understand that they might be next or that the interrogators are willing to go further.

No, you don't get it...

[slashdot_commentator]

The citizens of the United States were better off with that piece of shit Saddam running Iraq. They never should have changed the status quo of the situation in 2002 by invading Iraq.

Not because "war is wrong", but because once the US unilaterally invaded Iraq, it would have no way to get out, without a worse situation occurring (a theocracy against the US). Because we can't get out (without having a more f**ked up situation), 800 US citizens have lost their lives (and more heroes are about to die for their country), reservists are confronted with the situation of being a grunt for the next ten years, while their families fall apart and loss of potential civilian career, and the cost to the US taxpayer will probably ultimately go into the trillions of dollars for this escapade.

This result of this action was forseen by military & strategic experts before the actual invasion. It only could have been mitigated by better planning and execution by the U.S. Gov't. Obviously, they failed miserably (Invasion suceeded, occupation has failed). Now these same experts are indicating that our U.S. military will become unable to meet its world wide security committments (Korea & Taiwan) because the bulk of our force is now stuck in Iraq & Afganistan. Support the US and the troops all you want. But if you support Bush, then you support an administration that *failed* in reverting Iraq into a stable nation, and made the US geopolitical situation much worse than it was in 2002.

The "imminent threat" to the US by Saddam has been demonstrated to be a lie. A lie concocted by the U.S. Gov't, with the most likely culprits the Bush administration.

You think the lie was merely a mistake caused by British intelligence. But we had US personnel verify that the intel was wrong. When one of those gov't employees tried to point out that the administration was lying about not receiving the information, someone decided to tell the press that his wife worked as a deep cover anti-terrorist agent. There was no reason to reveal her name. Its a federal crime to do so. It damaged the intelligence network she setup against WMD terrorists, jeapardized her life, and now she can't work in CIA because she's been outed.

Why Bush decided to invade Iraq, who was behind it (Israel???), is all distracting speculation.

The only thing left to do is kick out the Bush administration for their egregious failure, and hope the next set of ass-clowns can do a better job. The current group has failed.