Slashdot Mirror
Semper WiFi
Roblimo writes "Armed Forces personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan increasingly use the Internet to communicate with their familes back home, but there are not nearly enough computers and connections for them. Lt. Phillip Geiger, Medical Officer with the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, suggested using a privately-funded, long-range WiFi network to help troops stay in touch. The idea has grown from there, all funded privately with cash and equipment donations. Joe Barr has the details on NewsForge (which, like Slashdot, is part of OSTG)."
Things like this are great. Troops fighting for us deserve to be able to communicate with their friends and family to keep them sane. This really reminds me of the http://www.gmail4troops.com/ project. If you have an extra gmail invite around in you inbox, why not give it to someone who could use it to receive video and pictures from loved ones.
Boxing Equipment Reviews
...front line forces surfing slashdot.
Because government fundded projects are known for taking secureity seriously in cases like this .... :-(
My Paintball Pics
How about saving up money to help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, before we start wiring up luxuries for the inva^H^H^H^H^H liberating forces? I'm not trolling, I just wonder why we're not concentrating on why we're there in the first place...
Eight Oh Two dot Eleven Be. Full Speed Packet.
-- "I'm not a religious man, but if you're up there, save me Superman..."
I want very much for our troops to be able to communicate with their families back home. It's good for morale both in the service and for their families. But the lack of security in a WiFi network, IMO could easily put those military forces in jeopardy. All it would take would be the wrong information packet-sniffed by the wrong person to cause danger to the soldiers there. Is it truly possible to make a WiFi network secure enough to avoid this?
Never look down your nose at others. Someday, someone is bound to see your boogers.
Makes you look at WiFi rifles in a whole new light (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/03/wi-fi_aer ial_gun/).
Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
FAQ is at http://public.afca.af.mil/LIBRARY/MARS1.HTM . Another article explaining the Air Force MARS is http://www.asc.army.mil/mars/history.htm
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
This sounds like an Operational Security nightmare. Unless it is well secured (and fully encrypted end-to-end), it could well be a valuable source of information for the Bad Guys.
Remember, information wants to be free...
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
I did check it out though, and the term 'Semper Wi-Fi' was used previous to mean wireless Internet for Marines... by the Marine Corps itself. http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/0/B2C90 2831D9E2D8A85256E7D004BA4A5?opendocument
-- "A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg."
There is nothing much new in the setup they are proposing, perhaps the biggest thing is that they are proposing it.
I would suggest wireless dumb terminals with certificate based security, going through a WEP that is MAC configured and keeping a tabs on all terminals as much as possible.
No, the thing that shocks me is the reference to ehowa...
Governments spend unbelievable ammounts of money on military equiptment, can't some of it be appropriated to communications?
I thought 'battlefield' communications would be very good - I am utterly mystified how a country can have so many troops in a place and not have a solid redundant communciation netwrok that could be accessible to the troops.
Perhaps this could be an oppourtunity for some community aid? Let the students get involved in configuring the units (after all, we are talking email and video messaging, nothing secret?)
This may be nice.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Hi /. folks!
/. post from the font line!
This is the first
I'm so happy, I cannot choose what joke make...
Let's go!
"All your base are belong to us!"
Hey, what's this here, looks like a grenade...
NO CARRIER
But what the heck does "Semper WiFi" mean? Is this the name of the system? Is this an American idiom or phrase?
If you have older computers lying around, fix 'em up and donate them to local families who have family in the war.
The military has special sites setup for where the families can get free webmail, inet access, etc..
I took two old P3-450s and gave one to my wife's friend and another to the local Marine Reserve base, that they can pass out to other family members.
Josh
Because many of them signed up for the 'One weekend a month and two weeks a year" National Guard and may have overlooked or ignored the fine print saying "in case of military action, you may be used... or more likely didn't think it likely.
None the less, while it's fine to say why don't they come home... I suggest you take that up with the leaders in Washington who call the shots regarding such things.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
All an opposing military need develop now is a missile that homes in on the frequency that 802.11b/g/a uses.
How about a missile that homes in on a particular MAC address?
Shhh, you're going to spoil the fun a friend of mine has been having.
When he shipped out earlier this year, he made sure to bring is entire war driving setup including cantenna... although when we do see him on it's always been from the local and legitimate network connection from where he is stationed.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
mod the parent up and you will get good karma! oh, and god bless usa!
I have to admit, this is probably the best slashdot article headline I've ever read. Good job!
...will not happen. 3 words: Abu Ghraib photos.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
As a non-military-type (hell, I'm Canadian, we don't even know what a tank is) I'm curious how the US military is able to rein in information of a militarily-sensitive nature, as they did with letter censors in previous conflicts? Is this still something that is a concern for the US military? How do they restrict information in the digi age, when any lowly private can jump on gmail or hotmail and send off messages?
And, in response to the article, does anyone see a security issue with a "privately-funded, long-range WiFi network" in a battle zone?
What does it mean to wake out of a dream
and be wearing someone else's shorts?
BNL, Born on a Pirate Ship (1998)
Here Here! I don't begrudge the troops anything, and they deserve alot better, like being home to communicate in person, for example.
/end rant
First off, Iraq is an illegal war, with bullshit objectives. I won't go into all the lies (Previously stated bullshit objectives), but this new one is funnier than the old one: They are there to help the sovereign government. Which sovereign government? Bush doesn't even know what sovereignity means.
Bush quote from two weeks ago:
Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.
But anyway, this sovereign Iraqi government wasn't elected, was appointed, and they are not unlike the bottom feeders like Ahmed Chalabi.
I'm getting off the point. Halliburton (Kellog Brown & Root), has misplaced nearly 2 billion (billion with a b) dollars, and we have to hold fucking fundraisers to give the troops food, communications and body armor!
WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON HERE! Even if you support this dipshit war, how can you support the leadership that gives away no-bid contracts to the company run by the vice president, that in turn, fucks over the troops? How!
You want to be patriotic? You want to support the troops? Put Cheney behind bars. His company is guilty of treason for what it has done in the past and what it is doing right now to our soldiers.
to War Driving...
-- "I'm not a religious man, but if you're up there, save me Superman..."
I wonder how many wifi networks there are actually owned my local iraqis.
This Sig is removed due to factual inaccuracy
n/c.
May Al-Qaeda beat you with a clue stick...
/. will be here when you get back.
Troups need to shut the mouth and open the ears when in combat. The CO is the only thing/person to listen too if you want to live. The person they love will be at home when they return. If they are not then they did not love them anyway.
I wish them all a good safe deployment...
PS>
I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
Armed Forces personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan increasingly use the Internet to communicate with their familes back home, but there are not nearly enough computers and connections for them.
Doesn't Halliburton provide these services (among many others) to the troops? Why not start there and see if a couple of those billions of dollars of tax payer money can be spent meeting this need?
Speak truth to power.
You're a bit naieve aren't you?
Consider this - the gov is contracting civilian security personnel who are paid many times more than the normal troops are. Both the troops and these contractors are paid with your tax dollars. Is that the act of a government that cares?
"In case anyone doesn't get it, "Semper Fi" is the Marine Corp motto."
Other prominent mottos we've use include:
Gee - I guess it really would be 'war driving'...
Just have to mind the crater holes and the militants.
...it would be nice if they left the network in place, if this were at all possible. I'm sure the Iraqis could make great use of it.
[Sorry in advance for the Cher lyric title]
If the US, Europe, and all other developed states could rebuild the infrastructure from a clean slate, wouldn't they implement WiFi (and GPS & cellular/PCS) solutions instead of the mesh(mess) of wires that criss-cross our landscapes and obscure our views?
If the above is true, then Wifi (and the aforementioned GPS & cellular/PCS) solutions are obvious in a place like Iraq that does not have the infrastructure that can support the needs of thousands of 21st century crusaders, er, soldiers. (no slight to the troops, just the politics).
of course, the last piece to the WiFi/GPS/Cellular&PCS puzzle is to figure out a wireless energy source - one that would not rely on massive drilling platforms, huge ovens spewing toxins, deadly radioactivity, or even something as mundane as holding back river waters and flooding lands. Yes, if only there was some way to have wireless energy that was silent and available to everyone, regardless of proximity to a power station (is the Sun a powerstation?).
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
The U.S. Marine Corps motto is "Semper Fidelis", often simply said as, "Semper Fi" It is Latin for "Always Faithful."
Semper Wifi is a joke.
Well, some people went into the military because it was the best choice for them. They're not blood-thirsty or enjoy killing. Most were likely just poor, were trying to escape a bad household, or just were not suited for a regular school. Some were just fooled into believing that the military is just piloting million dollar equipment and having honor.
They took the risk of having to hurt someone to get what they wanted. There is no way you can blame their youthful ambition or ignorance. If you are young, you have it. And if you are older, you laugh at yourself for having so much of it (but you still miss it).
Hmmm, do you think that sending information about soldiers in a particular unit, their kids names, wife's names, possibly home addresses, other personal information is ok? Heck, what about hidden truck/car/donkey cart bomb linked to a laptop running network stumbler waiting for the right signal strength? It's easy to overlook the nasty possibilities of how this could be used against our troops, but this should be thought through completely. I think that the military should provide SECURE connectivity to the soldiers for the purpose of family communication thus promoting morale so that more dangerous insecure methods aren't relied on.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
No less secure than the Bagdad Internet Cafe, or the guy next to you at the bar. (oops, I forgot, this is the middle east)
The most important security is in the minds of the people connecting. Apply the same rules about what is on your computer to what you talk about to a civilian.
However, US soldiers who enrolled (i.e. all US soldiers in Iraq), did so willingly...they're hired killers and they're this administration's accomplices in starting this illegal war and invasion of a sovereign country.
Wow, you really are ignorant. Given the choice, most people wouldn't risk their lives overseas just to "see some action." Most of these people are doing it because they have no other choice. It certianly doesn't pay well, especially for the risks involved. Maybe you're somehow not aware of current tuition costs, but I know of alot of people who cannot even afford to go to a state or community college. Going into the military for a few years then having them pay your tuition is a great way to go to college and be able to get a job that is better than being in the military. Consider yourself lucky that you didn't have to take this route and don't condemn other people who have no other options. You can disagree with the war in Iraq, but the troops did not make those political decisions.
This is not a network that this is not likely to be connected to military networks, folks. There will be what is called an 'air gap' that is a physical lack of connection between the morale network and the military infrastructure.
For that matter, a year ago there was not a significant presence among combat troops of any computer networks, military or otherwise.
That would seem to have changed. 3/6 is an infantry battalion. I don't know their Medical Officer, but their Assistant Operations Chief is a close personal friend of mine. I guess I'll believe that grunts are getting computer time on the front lines when I start getting emails from him.
If a bunch of these people (Marines or whatever)
are briefly gathered arbitrarily "close" to each other,
can they communicate with each other over wifi,
WITHOUT a hotspot or other infrastructure,
i.e. using only their personal portable devices (e.g., PDAs or laptops)?
Can such a wifi swarm form-up easily and on short notice,
spanning any/all change in the set of initial participants?
Is there particularly terminology associated with this kind of usage, so I can google it?
There website only has a link for paypal donations. I've got a few 802.11b APs I'm not using as well as a ton of other hardware they could use. Would love to be able to ship this stuff to them.
That has nothing to do with the troops. The troops, if you ask them, are fighting for their countrymen.
They didn't go over there to make money for someone, they went over there because they were told it would make the US safer.
Now, you can argue whether or not that's true, and you can certainly accuse the top of the chain of command of betraying the country, but don't blame the troops for it. They still want to believe they're doing it for us.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
heh. not my tax dollars. Most of us in the great white north don't believe fighting in illegal wars ;)
The people there now are most certainly "fighting for us"
Now Saddam Hussain has gone, the occupying force has an absolute responsibility to hand the country over to responsible governance. The alternative would be balkanisation and the development of mini states led by fanatics. Many of these warlords would benefit greatly from supporting global terrorism.
Dont kid yourself, Iraq is most deffinitely a threat now and it is a vital responsibility of the occupying forces to support the development of the new government - for our sakes as much as for the Iraquis
For many people opposition to the war before it began was for this very reason - that we doubted that the US would be capable of returning Iraq to peace and prosperity after removing their vile dictator. In particular we doubted that the American electorate had the stomach to take responsibility for the winning of the peace after the war.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of starting the thing, it is now of vital importance to finish the job.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
You're right about people in the U.S. making a lot of money from U.S. government violence. George W. Bush's family is heavily invested in the Carlyle Group, which owns weapons manufacturing companies. See: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
If U.S. government leaders truly respected the soldiers, the soldiers would not need charity.
It's illogical to vote Republican in 2004.
As this poster and this AC have pointed out, this is non-operational, family information trafficing between a small base (probably known to the enemy) and the US for the expressed purpose of letting loved ones know that they are alive and, for the time, okay.
This is not a situation where military details will be disclosed or data stolen from the hard drives of military planners laptops (they have to go to Los Alamos for that - groan).
This is an initiative to send equipment to troops who need to keep their families apprised of their condition.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
If U.S. government leaders truly respected the soldiers in Iraq, the soldiers would not need charity.
It's illogical to vote Republican in 2004.
I fought in Korea, and spent the better part of 2 years without any contact with my family other than by mail. My father and two brothers weren't even able to send mail from D-Day until late in the war. In the next 18 years in the army, I always saw too much communication with home cause problems. Why in the world would the army encourage this? That was one of the problems in Vietnam. We kept reminding the troops of home with shows and merchandise. We always lost a lot more guys after distracting them. Now, they're talking directly to friends and family!
You're right. One legislator from this U.S. government in particular (a senator from Massachusetts, I believe) voted for the 87 billion dollars necessary to properly equip our troops, then voted against it.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Very informative
However, US soldiers who enrolled (i.e. all US soldiers in Iraq), did so willingly. They didn't get that job to play tennis, they knew they could very well be asked to go do some killing on behalf of the government. So, I don't care if they went there to get money for tuition, or to make their families proud, or just to "see some action", they're hired killers and they're this administration's accomplices in starting this illegal war and invasion of a sovereign country.
So, what are you saying?
Are you saying that all soldiers in all armies in the world are "hired killers"? Is it your position that no good person should ever join the military?
Or are you saying that soldiers should independently evaluate each conflict that comes along and decide whether or not they think this one is "moral"?
Or are you saying that people should only join the military whey they know there's a war coming up that they think is worth fighting in?
Or are you saying something else? Please explain, so we can tell you why you're wrong.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
they're this administration's accomplices in starting this illegal war and invasion of a sovereign country
Just because you do not agree with something does not make it "illegal".
Actually I will not be voting for Senator Kerry, and, for the record, do not think that his service was very honorable because it seems he lied or exaggerated the truth many times just to get medals or ribbons. I don't think it is out of line to reply as I did to someone who is condemning every person in the military for joining voluntarily.
Great response.
As far as I can tell, he wants there to only be a military if there is a "good" war, and even then everybody should be drafted and nobody can volunteer for it.
Why not just put a server in each rifle or helmet?
Each device has a transponder/interrogator, like IFF. Every day, each trooper's helmet or device is reprogrammed via satellite or microwave or by a jet or helo overflight (when tightly-focused reprogs are needed...).
Each unit in proximity to another friendly unit could avoid fratricide (friendly fire) by a tone or visual cue.
If enough sensors are placed on the helmet or at distant ends of a rifle or, if a longer triangulation axis is needed, at the point and rear of a moving or fixed unit, then other units can be moved or augmeted where support is best needed or applied.
Now, if enemies "wardial" on this, they could overwhelm the local CQB (Close Quarter Battle) net just by flooding the presumed spectrum. No need to crack the traffic, just jam or disrupt it with irreconcilable garbage.
Now, others more spectrum/signal knowlegeable can improve upon this ad-hoc idea I presented.
If I give a good idea, I will also present a counter, to level the playing field or to neutralize an advantage. At least everyone will have access to the idea.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Would wireless help?
I know more than a few people who went this route (military then college); college is fscking expensive and if you can't afford it, then every bit of money you can get your hands on is a good thing. I spent $300 on books alone last week. Add on housing, tuition, food, etc. and it can be pricey.
Some people will probably join after college and go to OTS. Having a degree is one way to go in as an officer. Others, like Pat Tillman, were probably not motivated to join by money or lack of any other choice. Some people join because it's what they want to do. Hell, I'm considering joining the Air Force or Navy, and I'm not looking to go out and kill people. I'll have a degree in Computer Science by then. Perhaps it'll suck and have burned four years of time, but people spend far much more time in dead end jobs from hell with a PHB. Or maybe it'll be fulfilling and I'll make a career out of it. Stockpiles of money is not what everyone is after.
Yeah, this is supposed to be about WiFi, but I felt the need to respond anyway. Yet those in the military are the ones who protect the freedom to bash those same people.
this is my sig
Hello Fellow Slashdotters,
My name is Michael and I'm a civilian contractor out here in Fallujah, Iraq working with the Marine Headqaurters in their Information Office. On my free time my roomate and I keep the current internet cafe running on base for a large number of Marines and service members.
I can tell you want is needed. There are over 20 internet cafes, which consist of one 1mb/512 satellite and 20 computers and 8 IP's phones. Some cafes have multiple satellites with this configuration. We have 3, which is 60 computers with webcams and IP phones.
The problem is that there was no support included with this package. Most cafe's are not working becasue there aren't any IT or computer geeks to keep them running. And if there are any Marines who could they are busy doing other things.
A wide wireless LAN is risky. The reason is Operational Security. Information is easier to leak if not controlled. So when a Marine sits down in the internet cafe we have signs posted and of course their background reminds them about OPSEC.
Also I have been looking for simple Internet Cafe software on Freshmeat and other places but have not found a good solution.
Currently we are reworking the contract. We are going to use this Internet cafe as a template for all others. I would LOVE suggestions from the Slashdot community on what they think. Please drop me an email or IM on your thoughts.
As a communications professional (worked with radio, satellite, data, voice, crypto) and military member who has spent 2 years in the Middle East, I want to respond to a few things.
(1) Just as a note, pay for use phones are already at several Middle East locations courtesy of AT&T.
(2) I would be concerned about soldiers discussing sensitive info with their family. This happens anyway but even telephone and unclass network signals are encrypted by the military before being blasted out over open airways. This wireless setup would make the information much more accessible to baddys. No, they can not be trusted to police themselves. Trust me, I'm a net admin, I see the bad (from an OPSEC standpoint) stuff people send their families all the time. I don't even want the enemy to know innocent stuff like my mailing address,phone number or wifey's e-mail addy. Hello blackmail/family threats! Most places I've been we burn anything that is personnlly identifiable.
(3) re: "Well, some people went into the military because it was the best choice for them. They're not blood-thirsty or enjoy killing."
How naive... in every war our soldiers have dehumanized the enemy. What makes you think this one is different? If I had a nickel for every time I've heard "I can't wait to kill a f'in raghead". Also, as a previous poster noted, all of these people are volunteers. If they truly did no believe in the cause, there are many ways out. They weigh the odds and consequences and at the end of the day, they choose to go and kill/be killed.
(4) Military people aren't as poor as those who mismanage their money would have you believe. I'm a lowly E-5 and I get ~ 50k a year, mostly tax free. Not bad for a highschool graduate. Those who complain about how poorly their paid are usually poor managers of the money they get. I guarantee everyone house a roof over their head, food in their belly, a car, and a TV. That's not poor.
(5) Someone mentioned the old style "read the GI's mail" censorship of WWII. I've sent hundreds of letters from the desert and never heard of any of them arriving opened or censored.
I don't think this still happens.
(6) Someone said: "Governments spend unbelievable ammounts of money on military equiptment, can't some of it be appropriated to communications?
I thought 'battlefield' communications would be very good - I am utterly mystified how a country can have so many troops in a place and not have a solid redundant communciation netwrok that could be accessible to the troops."
Trust me, the US military has an incredible communications infrastructure. They also have the common sense to devote 99.9% of this infrastructure to fighting the war rather than talking about Tim's tooth ache. I'm much more interested in transporting high resolution UAV footage to the battle center than I am in sending pics of someones kids. Even so, there is plenty of bandwidth available for moral e-mail use. Lets face it, text is pretty small. The problem is abuse of the system. For every guy that just e-mails his family and gets the occasional picture, there are three who download porn, forward stupid video clips, and propogate chaind "get prayer back in school" petitions to 10,000 other users. At every place I've been the biggest reason the network is slow is because people abuse it!
(7) No offense, but I've been living this life for 8 years and I can say that 99% of the posters on slashdot are speaking out their a** when it comes to military comms.
"Are you saying that all soldiers in all armies in the world are "hired killers"? Is it your position that no good person should ever join the military?"
I dunno about that guy, but that is my position.
I don't think you can claim that soldiers aren't killing people for pay.
You will probably suggest that if no good people are in the military, then bad people will be, and your country may well be invaded. This is possible. My suggestion is that should your country be invaded, then you arm yourself and fight - no one can hold a country when the populace is motivated to resist. People will come to realise that invasions are costly and achieve nothing.
This is valid economically and practically, even if you don't like the ethics - guerrilla warfare trumps convential warfare, unless your opponent is willing and able to kill every citizen he is trying to conquer, and in this age of nukes an army can't save your life anyway.
- Jamie
which in turn supports terrorists groups. Given the choice I for one would rather have a President that supports a group that invests in the companies that develop the systems that our Armed Forces are using to protect my family.
I am a Warrant officer stationed in Iraq. I am in the process of standing up a WLAN for my soldiers to be able to e-mail and communicate with family. We have purchased all the satellite equipment and hope to go live next week. Military provided communications leave much to be desired. I just wanted to add my experience to the thread. And chuNET is what we call it here, since half live in Containerized Housing Units.
Making money from an unnecessary invasion is not protecting your family. Your family is now in far more danger now that the U.S. government has invaded an oil-rich Arab country that was, at the time, not threatening other countries. Nothing a Madison Avenue advertising company could do would have given more support to crazed terrorists. It was an effective move for those who want more war, because there is profit in war.
(if only that were true of his "presidency")
I know some of the Army personnel we talk to rergularly in Kuwait are strapped for access too. But they use it a lot for decision support. Loss of that access would be a tactical nightmare for them really and making it easier for them to get access would improve their productivity quite a bit.
I don't think you can claim that soldiers aren't killing people for pay.
So do cops.
Most soldiers never kill anyone. It's a possibility that comes with the job, just as it does with being a policeman. It's the unfortunate nature of the world that, sometimes, killing people is a good thing to do.
My suggestion is that should your country be invaded, then you arm yourself and fight - no one can hold a country when the populace is motivated to resist.
This is technically true, but the brutal reality of such an approach is much, much worse than keeping a standing army of soldiers who, if they do their job well and professionally during peacetime, will never have to fight anyone. Of course, that does create a risk that politicians may decide to use this force for evil, but it's the job of the *citizens* to keep their own government under control.
(Actually, it occurs to me that those who want to blame the soldiers are really trying to shift the blame from their own shoulders. They should have done more to stop their government from doing those things they disagreed with.)
Your suggestion also doesn't consider the fact that the whole populace will not be motivated to resist. A large portion of the populace will prefer to try to get along with the invaders, even if it means that they lose their freedom in the process.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
As a soldier here in Iraq I'll put in my 28 dinars ...
:) The reason invitations are going unused is simply because most soldiers aren't geeks and aren't even aware this exists. Most of em probably don't even know what google is. If internet explorer came up on MSN then that's what they search with. I've had to write a friggen internet policy here for our troops to help guide them away from all the spam and spyware and viruses. Hopefully I'll get alot of them converted over to something like firefox before we leave and hopefully they'll be more responsible internet uses when I'm through with them...
First of all wireless is not all that uncommon here. Though I will admit of the two marine bases I've been on one of them didn't have squat. I didn't take my laptop to the other. As far as it being restricted, nobody is reading over our shoulders to see what we say. They must be using some kind of proxy as we know some soldiers got caught looking at porn. However, when I was in Kuwait the cybercafe there actually charged for the time but provided computers with games installed. Several soldiers there got together and played everquest late at night.
The article very accurately describes our problem with the Morale systems. To top it off most of the soldiers here are computer illiterate. I've managed to "war Drive" a little bit and have found a third party willing to let us hitchike on their wireless. Someone asked me if I'm stealing it. No, they are completely aware we are on their system. They think I'm a friggen genious cause I got the viruses off their computers and helped them with several other computer problems. It's a win-win situation and one of the only true luxuries we have here.
What these people are doing for the marines is great. I can tell you they've got the worst living conditions I've seen in theatre and they certianly deserve better than what the MWR facilites have to offer. I'd be tickled s***less if we could find someone to do the same for us here on our post. Our families are trying to raise money to help us be self sufficient with our internet but it is a slow process when we are from such a rural area back home. Until then we'll do what we do best and improvise.
As far as the comment about Abu Ghraib. As any soldier will tell you there are several things you should know.
First, what was done there is WRONG and a disgrace.
Second, if found guilty they will receive quite the punishment. The UCMJ is fair but cross it and you are in for a world of hurt.
Third, photos and videos are encouraged for reasons just like this. Many times it may help with intelligence. Videos may help later to review tactics and create new plans. We have to think on our feet and keep looking to see what we are doing wrong and right. If it weren't for those photos Abu Ghraib might have been worse.
Finally, put on your tinfoil hats, there was probably someone directing them do to what they did. I wouldn't look so happy about if I was ignorant enough to follow those orders but the same people that are brainwashing the prisoners are likely as influential on the soldiers there trying to do their duties.
Last but not least I did get my gmail account.
Anyway... If anyone has any questions about anything over here feel free to contact me. I'll only say what I can that doesn't endanger anyone else but I'm pretty open to comments. If anyone cares to help us over here feel free to contact us. In the mean time I'll thank the slashdot community for pointing out this article and I'll see if they can't work up some kind of deal for us.
For the contractor in Fallujah, keep your head down man! I'm also glad to hear I'm not the only nerd in Iraq!!
-- this space for rent --
You're a dumbass. The people in the military are made up of all types. The lower ranking people may come more from a particular demographic, but your assertion ignores the fact that there are more people in the military than just the low(er) ranks. Officers in almost all cases have to have at least a 4 year degree. Many of them do not, in fact, have "few other options". They view the military as a calling and have met that call.
Personally, I went in the military not as a poor person, as a person who thought it was simply my *best* option. I *wanted* to go in, my recruiter did not have to woo me. There were other options available to me, but the military one was where my thoughts were. I decided that it gave me as much or more than what I was looking for at the time.
"Cut the crap" indeed. If you'd take the time to follow your own advice, you'd find that it is *your* assumptions that are invalid.
Good points all.
Don't forget the training aspect too. Without a professional training environment, how well would the populace be able to fight, let alone win, a war?
NOT very likely. Not without EXTREMELY high rates of loss, at least (take a look at the number of Iraqi fighters that have been killed vs. the number of coalition troops that have been killed).
hmm... I guess now that the parent is flame bait already I might as well add US IMPERIALISM SUCKS.
todays empire, tomorrows ashes
Muslim extremists didn't want to kill us before we liberated Iraq. 9/11 must have been some kind of mirage.
The Bush administration depends on ignorance to stay in power. Most U.S. citizens do not understand what their government is doing.
Osama bin Laden, according to him, wants two things: 1) He wants the U.S. government to stop interfering in the politics of Saudi Arabia. 2) He wants the U.S. government to stop giving money to the Israeli government to buy weapons made by U.S. manufacturers (like those owned by the Carlyle Group, a company partly owned by the Bush family) which are used to kill Arabs.
Logically, Osama bin Laden's requests are reasonable. Does the U.S. government do 1) and 2) above? YES. U.S. citizens, and everyone in the world, should know what the U.S. government is doing.
About 1) above, you would not like it if Arabs interfered with your government. They feel the same way.
About 2) above, the U.S. government is involved in embezzling taxpayer money. Every year, an amount of about $5 billion is given by the U.S. government to the Israeli government. The money must be spent on weapons made by U.S. manufacturers. This has put the Jewish people into a heavy battle they cannot possibly win. Why does the U.S. government do this, besides the fact that it is a "legal" way of transferring money to U.S. weapons makers? The answer is that the U.S. religious extremists are not less crazy or violent than Arab extremists. Those in the U.S. who call themselves "Evangelical Christians", about 45% of the people, want to kill all the Jews. Encouraging battles with Arabs is working toward this. The U.S. government has participated in killing far more Arabs than the 3,000 Americans killed in the 9/11 attack. Not surprisingly, Arabs don't like being killed. Not surprisingly, some of them believe that fighting violence with violence is a good idea.
Know your government.
"Why are our children dying there ?"
God, I'm so sick of this "children" line. Those "children" will KICK YOUR ASS.
They're not "children", they're adults. And, even if some of them are somewhat young (but still over the age of 18), the majority of them aren't. This "children" bullshit is just that, bullshit. Tell a 32 year old sgt. that he's a "child", and you'll get what I wrote in the first sentence: an ass kicking.
So put it to rest. There are no children there fighting for the US. They're adults, and soldiers, and should be respected as the individuals that they are. They are brothers, sisters, MOTHERS, FATHERS, and, yes, even GRANDPARENTS.
Children, right. Just another fucking twist on the "its for the kids" crap.
Now Saddam Hussain has gone, the occupying force has an absolute responsibility to hand the country over to responsible governance.
The occupiers have an absolute responsibility to leave. It is not for the United States or any other foreign country to decide who should govern Iraq. This is a well-established principle of international law.
What the resistance understand, and what many in the west do not, is that the occupying forces represent the interests of the western ruling classes. They will not willingly return control of the country to the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, the only option remaning the Iraqis is to fight for independence, same as the Americans did against the British.
The alternative would be balkanisation and the development of mini states led by fanatics.
Balkanisation is certainly on the agenda, but not because of the wishes of the Iraqi people, whose solidarity has increased massively since the invasion.
You are familiar with the old technique of 'divide and conquer', yes? This is where the main threat of balkanisation comes from.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of starting the thing, it is now of vital importance to finish the job.
The job will only be finished when popular opinion forces their government to withdraw.
cf. Vietnam.
"The divine sword of God" is another way of saying that the Jews die.
Of course, they can always save their lives by converting to evangelical Christianity, but that won't happen, for numerous reasons.
Anyone who thinks that the Christian Bible is accurate should read The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy.