Slashdot Mirror
How Technology Failed in Iraq
synthespian writes "US troops in Iraq were supposed to have a clear superiority in the battlefield because of sensors and networking devices such as aircraft- and satellite-mounted motion sensors, heat detectors, as well as image and communications eavesdroppers. On April 3, 2003, the task to take over a key Euphrates River bridge about 30 kilometers southwest of Baghdad turned into a bloody hell as 'between 25 and 30 tanks, plus 70 to 80 armored personnel carriers, artillery, and between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi soldiers coming from three directions. This mass of firepower and soldiers attacked a U.S. force of 1,000 soldiers supported by just 30 tanks and 14 Bradley fighting vehicles. (...) "'We got nothing until they slammed into us"''(...). Read more about this story and the troubles and challenges the US military is experiencing in networking troops from Technology Review."
Perhaps we wouldn't have been in that kind of trouble if we hadn't been in Baghdad in the first place.
Technology is the least of our Middle East problems. Support for Israel may be the greatest cause of our problems.
They seem to base a lot of things around the idea that units are always connected.
But the problem came about because tey cannot always be, that while in motion or at great distances they pretty much lost the network meant to make tem most effective.
They need to figure out how to better keep intact the lines of communication, but also how to operate more effictively in a disconnected mode, and make the most of connectivity when it is degraded (seems like if they had email links up some primitive but useful data could have been transmitted to them as well - like an OGRE style text map of the area with enemy uints marked!).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There is no substitute for adequate/superior manpower, that is, quantity is in some cases - including this one - more important than any amount of silicon packed by the armed forces. At least, IMO
A blog like any other.
As if we really need to improve the weapons for the next war...
"If world war 3 is fought with nuclear weapons, then world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein.
Keep working... I'll figure out how to put laser aim to my stones, and heat detectors to my sticks.
Once you become accustomed to what the technology is providing to you, you lose the skills that the technology was either enhancing or replacing. There's no reason, when satellites, sensors, and networks fail, that good old scouts and binocs, pieces of paper and pens can't get this information (Maybe not as readily, but at least some form of smart war-making).
We come back, again, to the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is knowing how to fix your external camera feed, wisdom is knowing that you can look out the window.
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
Um, actually a few US soldiers with aluminum hats and uber guns (as in tanks) did in fact totally decimate a force roughly an order of magnitude more - without ANY deaths. Isn't that even sort of slightly impressive?
Even though there tanks cant really do much to ours, there were still other personell there that could have been killed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"US troops in Iraq were supposed to have a clear superiority in the battlefield..." I think the someone's forgetting that we rolled over the entire country in about a week.
the technology review pasted this flash ad right in the middle of the page --
"See How IBM Middleware connects people, processes and information.
Middleware is Everywhere. Can You See It?"
sheesh.
It's a simple algorithmic problem. The more advanced warfare becomes, the faster and deadlier it is. Military technology will probably always end up trying to reach the speed it has itself dictated for the battlefield.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Is that when you're fighting guerilla warfare, adding more technology doesn't work. That's the entire point of guerilla warfare, is it makes traditional responses impotent.
I think the problem here isn't that the Technology failed. I think the problem is that the American administration is completely misuing it. The technology the American army is based around is designed for very specific things: long-range strikes and getting a specific job done quickly and completely. The War in Iraq really vindicated this-- the beginning of the war was masterful. The problem was what happened once the "war" ended and the "occupation" began. At this point America started using a bunch of technology designed for one purpose for a purpose it just wasn't any good for-- holding territory. Um, this doesn't work so well. The Bush administration should know this, many of the people in the administration are the same people who campaigned within the defense department for these technologies in the first place. When you start trying to take an army that's equipped and trained to do one thing and then send them to do something totally other, you get situations like the ones described in this article.
I can only imagine the backlash that's going to come from this comment.
"Can you say that the world is better with Saddam in power?"
"Don't you see the need to support our troops in this time of crisis??"
Nobody's disputing that first fact, but it was accomplished the Max Power way. If you don't know what the Max Power way is, it's from the Simpsons, when Homer changes his way to Max Power.
Homer (Max Power) - "Kids, there are three ways to do things; the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way!!"
Bart - "Isn't that the wrong way??"
Homer (Max Power) - "Yeah, but faster."
Bush assumed that the US would be hailed as liberating heros when conquering Iraq, and didn't even comprehend the notion of an organized resistance, and now people are dying because of his lack of foresight. But that's not even the point I'm getting at. The point is that people can be against the war and still want the best for the troops overseas. To say that someone who is anti-war is not supporting the troops is like saying people who are anti-crime aren't supporting the work of prision guards. People do recognize the necessity of their work, but you also hope for a world where their services aren't needed, and when they are needed, you certainly don't send them out to die because of some preconceived notion that it's their job to die.
Wrong... this should not be modded as flamebait. You can't have a discussion of technical "failings" without considering the political and moral problems of invading Iraq. Such an artifical "unbundling" would be akin to a President who insists on separating faith, principles and tactics within his own mind. A mind like that might just start a horrible, bloody, mindless war. Nevermind.
Is this sig nificant?
I read one of the blogs about life in Baghdad a few months ago and there was one observation that captured my mind:
Americans are basically like aliens from a different world. They even don't look human with all the body armor and gear. And if they patrol in a city then everyone escapes from their way, the society opens up before them and closes immediately after they have passed. The patrol moves essentially in a vacuum, the streets desert at the sight of a Bradley, and they don't have any contact with the real world around them.
It is similar to shooting an octopus with a shotgun - the bullet passes right through the soft tissue and doesn't do any significant damage.
So it makes me wonder - would we have been any more successful if we didn't put that much effort into technology but human contact instead?
When men used to be men
Just read the whole article over the dinner table. It conspicuously leaves out any discussion of the merits of armor until the final paragraph. Far more interesting was a retired corporal on C-SPAN last night. He pointed out that if your enemy is coming at you with AK-47s and improvised bombs, putting on LESS armor is pretty much the stupidest thing you can do.
The TR article does mention hours-long downloads and network outages for soldiers in the field, making it sound like our info-warfare is not yet ready for demo, let alone rollout.
They gave a great example at the end of the article about a time when the connectivty model really worked, with great coordinating from a number of units including ground and air led to the very quick destruction of a convoy in Afganistan just because a pilot saw lights flashing out the window on a plane.
One of the things they nated was that Afgan special forces units were independant nodes just wired together - and that connection was maintained by an "Ubergeek" of the group. So perhaps what they needed in Iraq was a few more UberGeeks in units to ensure the maximum transmission flow possible for the situation.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Perversely, in three cases, U.S. vehicles were actually attacked while they stopped to receive intelligence data on enemy positions.
Oh great. All that money and all we get is someone yelling "BEHIND YOU!!!"
There was a time when five to ten *thousand* Iraqi soldiers massed together to defend something? They had tanks and artillery and an honst-to-god opposition force? Where were the American press and their "embedded reporters" when this happened? All we ever saw of the invasion over here was M1 tanks driving to Baghdad on cruise control!
0 1 - just my two bits
I think you're thinking of the "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." slogan and trying to generalize it to fit other things.
It doesn't work. Let me provide you with some obviously false counter-examples:
Chicken doesn't taste like chicken. People taste like chicken.
Computers aren't made of silicon. People are made of silicon.
People don't make mistakes. People make mistakes.
As you can see, just making the claim isn't enough for it to be true. That last one doesn't even make sense.
On that note, technology fails all the time. Almost enough to say that it is a property of technology.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Forget being able to spot 30 tanks and 70 APCs. I'm sure they were well hidden.. ..*cough*..
Amongst all that sand and stuff...
I'm sure many nations would just be happy if they got some Friend or Foe recognition technology. Then maybe they'd stop bombing allied troops.
Aswell.. a device that would show them the difference between the home of a family of 6 and a rebel/freedom-fighter safe house might be handy.
There is no substitute for adequate/superior manpower, that is, quantity is in some cases
Don't forget about heart. Many times in history the smaller force has won because they believed in their cause. I'm not trying to say this is 'wrong war' or 'wrong time' but people who join a fight because they believe it's the fight of their generation often win.
Many of the soldiers in Iraq are inexperienced (National Guard), naive ("We'll roll over Bagdad") or they think they don't belong there (Blood for Oil). Take into account the belief that Iraq was nothing more than an upscale Afghanistan - it's far from it. More like Western Europe with sand. When Saddam "fell" they faced resistance from militias and that depressed them (because civilians were kicking their asses).
All in all, the soldiers were lied to. Not so much about why they were fighting, but who they were fighting. A war against Saddam has turned into a war against Iraq - something they were never prepared to fight.
Get your Unix fortune now!
You might find this article interesting
(Visit bugmenot to circumvent registration)
The Romans and British were able to rule large empires with relatively small forces because they were able to move forces around quickly to trouble spots.
This relied on their various subjects not being able to get together and coordinate simultaneous uprisings.
That's not true any more.
The subjects of the American empire can coordinate their resistance worldwide.
In the past a bigger bomb or a better gun had clear understandable benefits and results in a war. However in modern times, people seem to have this belief that better technology will result in better results. Aircraft and satellite motion sensors? Gee, wow like thats helpful in a dense urban area like Baghdad when you have to worry about ambushs, which means your opponents are staying still waiting. Heat detectors? Again, useless in a dense area (is that red blob holding 'something' a policeman or an insurgent preparing to launch an ambush?) Eavesdropping gear? Nice, but we're not talking about spying on the Soviet Union anymore, we're talking about trying to spy on Casual Muhammad while he talks to his next door neighbor.
Sometimes the most basic solution is the best one, having men on the ground handing these situations face to face. Having two or three extra billion dollars worth of aircraft in the air won't do you any good when you're too scare to open fire in fear of killing civilians.
Exactly. What I find strange is that we're talking about the idea of improving "efficiency" on the battlefield as if it's a good thing. War should be difficult. It shouldn't be a cakewalk to go in and kill a bunch of people. Killing people, especially innocent civilians, SHOULD be difficult, if not because your conscience is stopping you, then maybe because the technology has problems, or it's not practical..
War should be difficult, to keep people from using it as a solution to problems that could be solved in another way, or in this case, by admitting that the problem of WMD's in Iraq doesn't even exist.
Despite my faith in technology, I recognize cutting-edge tech does not operate well in uncontrolled environments. Technology did not fail these soldiers, thier leadership did. Clearly some buzzword spouting contractor dazzled the military leadership, and the military leaders failed to cut through the bullshit.
War is the harshest of all conditions, this has been known for thousands of years. Anything that can go wrong, will. Go back to Sun Tzu. Go back to Militaides. The basic principles of war will not change, regardless of your technology. I dont care it it is recurve bows, steel, cannons, or satellite imagery.
Don't blame technology, blame those who blindly relied on it.
"Can you say that the world is better with Saddam in power?"
One might observe that the equivalent hyperbolic reply is, "So you're in favor of killing american soldiers then?"
Also when talking about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their expectations of kisses and rose pettels, one should mention General Shinseki and others, who before congress testified that this was not going to happen, and we needed approximately 3 times as many troops to secure the country. One should also point out that the initial attack on Fallujia that went so awry, was at the objection of the Marine commander and the insistance of the politicians. These are the kinds of things that marked the failures in Somalia and Vietnam. This deficit of leadership has a high price tag, and the purpetual willingness to finance it via a merry-go-round of short term loans does little to bolster my confidence.
As a person who really supports our troops, I think maybe we should do the favor of not manufacturing crises. And how John Kerry handled himself and held a government accountable during a previous deficit of leadership, really gives me something significant to think about. Were I O'Neal, I'd want to think carefully about how well my aims were served by calling people's attention to that period.
Damn right. People are too inclined to just modd down others when they hear something they don't like...
"American forces are not as superior as originally anticipated"
"US technology failed, they might even bring the draft back now"
"Bad politics has more to do with it than technology"
Another words get Bush out of the office now, because these type of statements are on the news every day. Don't modd each other down cause you are too patriotic to face the facts.
> Perhaps we wouldn't have been in that kind of trouble if we
> hadn't been in Baghdad in the first place.
As much as that's an argument for another time, I will say this. What trouble? The article starts out on the premise that there were massive failures in iraq, and goes to state some info about one in particular.
Without comparing to what has happened in the past.
30 years ago it wouldn't be uncommon for 10,000 iraqi soldiers and 1000 american soldiers meeting to end up with most of the americans and a big chunk of the iraqis dead. In the entire war you'd be looking at deaths up above 100,000.
I don't go much on the iraq war, but relative to almost any other war preceding it, deaths on both 'sides' and on civilians has been low. Very very low.
(standard disclaimer: yeah all war deaths suck, all war is a failure of sorts, any loss of life is unacceptable etc)
Tiger I tank wiped the floor with everything. The Tiger II was heavier, more advanced, broke down even more and they couldn't build them fast enough. Eventually the massively inferior Shermans and T34s won due to sheer numbers, they were cheap and easy to make, as well as reliable.
Then there's the AK47. Just works, desert or jungle. M16?
War's rough on kit. Highly advanced stuff tends to be relatively fragile and takes a lot of manufacture. If I was buying kit for an army, I'd be putting words like robust, standardised/interchangable components, ease of manufacture at the very the top of the list of desirable features.
Deleted
What war? Kicked whose ass? You walked in and nobody stood in your way. One of the five larges armies in the world my ass. I bet 99% of the army consisted of conscripted 16 year olds. Yes you kicked their asses alright. Whoo Hoo.
evil is as evil does
If you'd RTFM, you might have noticed that the US troops essentially did roll right over them (zero fatal casualties against a multi-thousand man enemy force). ....which I think was the main point here. They were extremely luck they were fighting with better hardware, because their software was completely useless.
> Bush assumed that the US would be hailed as liberating heros when conquering Iraq, and didn't even comprehend the notion of an organized resistance, and now people are dying because of his lack of foresight.
Indeed, months into the reality zone Rumsfeld was still scolding reporters for calling it a resistance movement.
Some people just can't distinguish between what they want and reality.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Killing people, especially innocent civilians, SHOULD be difficult, if not because your conscience is stopping you, then maybe because the technology has problems, or it's not practical..
Where have you been? Improved technology has allowed a political climate to make killing civilians more difficult.
In ancient times, logistical issues meant armies could raze cities, rob food stores, etc., because they needed to survive. WWII the technology to only hit military targets didn't exist so carpet bombing killing tens of thousands of people was an accepted convention of war. Now a bomb goes awry and kills a half dozen people and the news jumps all over it.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
1. Troop levels. Most of the military observers belive that more troops would have done a better job. Estimates on the ideal number of troops range from 200.000-400.000.
2. Taking Bagdad fast.Yes I know that bypassing some of Saddams forces was intentional. But when they captured Bagdad they stood there with what? A couple thousand soldiers and some tanks/APCs/trucks? And without a plan.. People I have talked to say it took several weeks before troopl levels in Baghdad reached the level they needed to control the central ares in Baghdad.
3. Armor on the 5 ton truck. Non-existant. Say no more. Allready in 1995 Russia discovered that chechnyan "rebells" attacked their underarmed and unarmored supply vehicles with small arms fire and IEDs. This forced the Russians to use up to 60% of their forces for protection/guarding/convoys etc.
4. Armor on APC's and HUMMVEEs. How many of the humvees had some form of armor/extra splinter protection? 15? How long did it take before they started to improve this? 8 months? And what about the M-113; uppgrade program going on for the last ten year and still some without the scheduled armor upgrade?
5. Availability of "bullet-proof" vests. I don't know much about this one. But the litle that I have heard about old flak vests doesn't exactly put the upper managment in a very positive light.
6. Disbanding the Iraqi army. 250.000 young males without a job. Riots in Baghdad.
7. Lack of guarding the Iraqi barracks, storages and weapon sites/dumps. Yes Iraqis do have an extensive weapon culture with AK's, grenades and maybe an RPG stacked under the bed "just in case". But few people store 200 pound bombs in their homes for future IED-use so they must get it from somewhere!
8. Mass-arrests in autumn 2003. Probably prisoning a lot of innocent people. Alienating suporters.
9. Abu Graib torture scandal. A nice mix of contarctors and the CIA. Enough said.
10. Scaling down troop levels in February 2004 and strategy of moving out of many small cities/villages into larger camps.
11. Leaving some areas, effectivly handing them over to the insurgents and making them no go zones.
12. So far, failure to train enough Iraqi troops of high enough quality.
The strange thing is that;
a. To some extent I find it hard to blame the Army/Marines on some of the above mentioned points as no one told them about the need to fight the kind of war they know are fighting.
b. Many of the points are related to non-existant political planning.
c. All the issues are related to #1. Troop levels. With more troops many of them would not have been a problem. So Rumsfeld should resign IMHO.
Yes, I know I'm only some 5 Karma Star Armchair General in front of a PC and it's easy to critize but still...
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
Tech can help you take out the enemy on the battlefield.
Tech will not help after the war.
To re-establish order, you need people on the ground. Lots of them. You need leadership. You need a strategy.
Destruction is easy. It's re-building that is the problem.
Your counter-examples don't fit the form.
The form is: 'X (linking verb) not Y Z. Z Y Z.'
So,
Chicken doesn't taste like chicken. People taste like chicken.
There's no sensical direct conversion (beyond stating P is ~P; P is P), but here's one that uses a few of the components:
People don't taste like chicken. Chicken tastes like chicken.
Computers aren't made of silicon. People are made of silicon.
Computers aren't made out of silicon. Computers are made out of computers.
People don't make mistakes. People make mistakes.
People don't make mistakes. Mistakes make mistakes.
His example is "Technology doesn't fail [people]. People fail [people]." which fits the form. Your only real argument against that is to claim that the implied words aren't "people" but something else in which case you'd be right it fails the form.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
http://slate.msn.com/id/2087768/
"Sorry, Dr. Rice, postwar Germany was nothing like Iraq."
I see alot of comments about how we are stupid for getting into this conflict, but when reading the article I see that it wasn't much of a battle.
"In the early-morning hours of April 3, it was old-fashioned training, better firepower, superior equipment, air support, and enemy incompetence that led to a lopsided victory for the U.S. troops. "When the sun came up that morning, the sight of the cost in human life the Iraqis paid for that assault, and burning vehicles, was something I will never forget," Marcone says. "It was a gruesome sight. You look down the road that led to Baghdad, for a mile, mile and a half, you couldn't walk without stepping on a body part."
Even when our troops were grossly outnumbered we still did quite well:
Yet just eight U.S. soldiers were wounded, none seriously, during the bridge fighting. Whereas U.S. tanks could withstand a direct hit from Iraqi shells, Iraqi vehicles would "go up like a Roman candle" when struck by U.S. shells, Marcone says.
Technology did not fail in Iraq, it allowed us to kill lots of enemies even when those enemies were completely unexpected.
Information. And the best information comes from the soldiers on the ground being friendly with natives who actually want you to succeed.
Bomb from UAVs and you're just a faceless enemy drumming up new recruits.
Deleted
You can't discuss technical failings without considering political and moral problems? You must have been a liberal arts student.
You are certainly welcome to discuss your political views, but it's ridiculous to say that they are inseparable from the technical issues. Here's a little example for you: Let's say that I believe that cars are the cause of moral decay, because they destroy the small-town communities of yesteryear. You don't have to agree -- it's just my personal opinion. Now let's have a discussion about steel.
Since I despise cars, I likewise despise steel; after all, it's the primary ingredient in cars. Next, suppose that steel quality was declining. Certainly this is welcome on the automobile front -- it makes cars more dangerous and expensive, and therefore less useful and common. Unfortunately it also kills people while they sit in their steel-framed office building, or while they ride their bicycle across a steel bridge. But hey, that would be an incomplete technical evaluation -- when you consider the big picture it's not so bad, because automobiles are in decline.
However you feel about the war in Iraq, those feelings would likely not be different if we were fighting them with muzzle-loaded rifles hard doughnuts -- IT'S NOT A TECHNOLOGICAL PROBLEM, AND YOU CAN'T FIX IT BY CHANGING THE TECHNOLOGY. It's been said a thousand times, about a thousand subjects. You can't fix social, moral, ethical, political, spiritual, or any other non-technical issue with technology, or by ignoring technology. Computers will not end world hunger, but they might be used to calculate an optimal planting pattern. Skies will not prevent hypothermia, but they might help you get in from the cold faster. Technology is only a tool; it does not start or end wars.
Maybe the war in Iraq was a terrible idea. You're welcome to feel that way, to tell other about it, and to try to fix it. Refusing to fix military technology seems like a bad plan though. What happens when China decides that they want the oil in Alaska, and they "don't need no stinkin' EPA approval"? When we've meet whatever standard you set for reasonable military action, you'll want the technical issues to be resolved.
Bottom line, they took the bridge and the airport. Something must have worked.
So, rather than saying that American forces overcame an ambush by an overwhelming force, the magazine spins this as the failure of the vaunted U.S. technology.
It's a load of crap.
sigs, as if you care.
Take a look at history, from major conflicts to minor ones. Name me a single conflict, that has had one country defeat and then occupy another for over a year, and taken just 1000 casualties?
Falkland Islands
Grenada
Panama
I study history and nothing comes to mind.
Well then.....
There are many people on Slashdot that just hate Bush, and Americans in general, those people are hopeless useful idiots and they will complete ignore the fact that American and British Planes(The French sent only one plane, that flew rarely if ever), were being shot at daily. That should have been enough to resume hostilities as it was.
We invade Iraqi airspace and you claim it is their fault?
Add to that Mass Graves, the support of terrorists (this is 100% true, you can't deny it), and you have a major wild card out their that you just can't have in a post Sept. 11 world.
Iraq has never supported anti-US terrorism.
Why couldn't we leave Iraq? The containment was working. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone.
I could go on and on, about the UN oil for weapons... err... food program, but I really don't see the point.
RTFA. Those "weapons" you're talking about sure did a lot, didn't they?
omgzergrush
"Its only high-tech so I can sell it to you."
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
MODERATORS: Whoever moderated the parent comment as Flamebait is not smart enough to be called ignorant, he is iggerunt.
The parent comment says, "Support for Israel may be the greatest cause of our problems." The king of Jordan says this is so. The foreign minister of Iran says this is so. (They were both interviewed on the Charlie Rose show.) Osama bin Laden said U.S. government support for Israeli violence was one of the two reasons he attacked the United States. (The other reason was U.S. government support for those who are against needed political change in Saudi Arabia.)
The U.S. government has been supporting the killing of Arabs for many years now by giving between 3.5 and 5 billion of your tax money to Israel, every year. There are only 14 million Jews in the entire world. There are only 4.8 million Jews in Israel. That money is about $1,000 for every man, woman, child, and baby in Israel who is Jewish, every year.
That money must be used to buy weapons made in the United States, at inflated prices. I seriously doubt that anyone who is in control of this policy has anything against Arabs or Jews, or even knows much about their cultures. It's government corruption, only that, not ideology.
To get votes from the millions of Jews in New York, Governor Pataki basically declared war on Arabs. To learn more about this, see the article, New York Governor Pataki's statements are equivalent to a declaration of war. Those who want power don't care how much damage they do.
Osama bin Laden says he wants a Muslim-religion-controlled political coalition. I've studied the matter for years, and I don't think there is much chance he can achieve that. The violent religious extremists in Muslim countries are not crazier than the violent religious extremists in the United States, however. The corruption caused by those who want weapons profits is supported by some of those who call themselves evangelicals. The evangelicals have an ugly plan that sounds to me like it might achieve a terrible goal. They want to kill all the Jews. They don't say that, of course. They don't take reponsibility for that. They say that their ancient books say that all the Jews will be killed or converted. Since there is slim chance that Jewish people would want to be evangelicals, or would be accepted by evangelicals, they are really saying that all the Jews will be killed. They are helping their prophecy by encouraging the 14 million Jews to get into bloody battles with the 1.1 billion Muslims. Experiment: Go into a very poor area of the U.S. and ask the next 10 street kids you see what they think the outcome of such battles will be. I will accept whatever they say.
Abba Eban, a respected Jewish leader, said that after World War II Jews were not welcome in Europe, even though they had suffered a lot. I agree with that. Some Jewish violent extremists believe that Jews must fight for their own land because they are not welcome elsewhere. That's not true, of course; Jews do very well in making contributions to New York. The weapons makers encourage the Jews in their worst impulses.
--
U.S. Gov.: Borrowing money to kill Iraqis. 140 billion borrowed. With interest, you pay 200 billion.
I now this is somewhat offtopic.
But while some people do at least try to count the civilian victims of te latest Iraq war (here),
I never heard any estimates on the number of Iraq military victims.
Does anyone now of any estimates?
The big difference between that conflict and the present one is a major player other than the US is in the region and has a whole lot of nukes.
Seastead this.
Yeah. What if all those kids just walked into town, let their beards grow a little, took their weapons off, and just hung out with the locals, instead of treating them like "The Enemy" (tm)?
.. yet.
I'll tell you: the war would be over. Iraqi's would get to know Americans. Americans would get to know Iraqi's.
Right now, the war is perpetuated by the thin layer that exists between Iraqi and America (uniform, weapon, ammo, base camp). Get rid of that layer, and you'll have no more war.
Human contact is highly effective at finishing war. Imagine if those cruise missiles were delivering water pump parts to Darfur, instead?
And, before the hard-ass warmongers come down on me as a 'non-realist', and try to remind me that if you throw away your weapons, you're setting yourself up for a headshot, let me just say that its a damned good thing that your type haven't figured out how to weaponize human relationships
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Assuming everyone had working satellite phones, and perhaps that was how they were getting email, it seems to me that throwing more people at it could be at least a temporary solution. Simply call up or send an email "Approaching 3 degrees north by 73 west, please advise" might elicit a human reply "20 tanks and 60 vehicles within 5 miles, may be transport. At your current speed, you will intercept them in 30 minutes, they are 4 miles north by northwest of you."
Farther in the future, a computer should be able to extrapolate that information from the satellite images and transform it into plain text that the troops can then download by logging in to a website or something, or perhaps vector graphics and low resolution images could supply them with the information they need. All they need to know is the enemy's position relative to theirs. While this might sound like some sort of tank game from the mid 80's, based on the article it would seem that this rudimentary level if information would have been invaluable to them.
This whole thing reminds me of the book Human Error. Tight coupling (C depends on B, which depends on A, so objective Z will fail to be met if any of the previous 25 points fail) meant that the otherwise available information was unavailable to the people who needed it the most. A looser system, like the one used in Afgahnastan would have worked in a wider range of situations. The methods of communication were flexible rather than fixed, and could therefore be used in a wider range of situations.
Hopefully the next generation of military technology will fail gracefully. That is, still be usable even when bandwidth is low.
I also have to wonder about what will happen, as it always does, when the current cutting edge technology is commonly available. Okay, it's not likely anyone else will have satellites any time soon, but when our enemies can track our movements quickly and easily, share information amongst themselves and have their own un-manned vehicles, what strategic advantage will we have? Once you reach the point of dimishing returns (just how detailed a map can you download if you have broadband in your tank? How detailed does it need to be? Can it have real time satellite images? etc.) what happens to our advantage?
What it has demonstrated it's absolutely useless at is occupying a country and dealing with an insurgency. I'm no expert, but from what I've read a fair whack of blame should be placed on the political leadership that didn't do any planning for this. However, there is also an issue that the US doesn't train or prepare its military for such jobs. That's just asking for trouble.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I agree with everything but this one.
a. To some extent I find it hard to blame the Army/Marines on some of the above mentioned points as no one told them about the need to fight the kind of war they know are fighting.
I find it impossible to blame them (except for #9). We did not ramp up our troops or equipment levels and the US population still has not been asked to make any sacrifices for the troops in the field.
Compare this to WWI and WWII. You'll see the difference. We should have had all the kevlar vests, bullets and vehicular armour before we went it and it should have been a massive, country-wide push to get it.
For example: it has been estimated that several thousand civilians died in the first few days of the war (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/). You would think that this was a major tragedy and worth talking about. What was reported? Little. Where were the pictures of the effects of the war, the analysis?
Both NBCs Dan Rather http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,717097 ,00.html
and NPR's Morning Edition host Bob Edwards http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030423.as p#3
have questioned the propaganda
that they (the media) delivered to us. Dan Rather called it "patriotism run amok" and said that it was in danger of trampling freedom of the press.
Another example: why did the woman who photographed soldier's coffins returning lose her job? Because the war news is being controlled by spin doctors, not being reported in the sense that you and I think of reporting.
and in a democracy citizens are supposed to judge how how well run the country is (which includes how well run its military actions are) and vote accordingly.
Name me a single conflict, that has had one country defeat and then occupy another for over a year, and taken just 1000 casualties?
Occupation of Uganda by Tanzania in the 1970's comes instantly to mind. Also German occupation of Denmark in WWII, (and possibly Norway if you ignore outside raids). British occupation of Egypt. Numerious other examples.
I study history and nothing comes to mind.
This would be the Janet and John Children's History of America?
There are many people on Slashdot that just hate Bush, and Americans in general,
Seems to be an awful lot of Americans that hate Bush too. Generally the intelligent and non-xenophopic ones.
Add to that Mass Graves, the support of terrorists (this is 100% true, you can't deny it)
Which support for terrorists? There was NO connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Quite the reverse as Ba'athism and Islamic Fundementalism don't mix - as you'd know if you'd ever read any Islamic history.
and you have a major wild card out
Iraq was quite nicely contained. Now you're just cutting heads off the Hydra
You Europeans just keep on electing your little Socialist "take care of me cradle to grave" governments
At least we have a civilized attitude to public health (see previous slashdot article) as opposed to the positively barbaric american system. A civilization should be viewed by how it treats it's most vunerable members, on which basis America is a complete and utter failure.
point to the US and complain how we are the cause of every problem in history of the world and we will sit over here on the other side of the pond and kindly ignore you.
Oh, if only you would sit on your side of the pond and ignore everyone else, instead of sticking your big fat uneducated noses into every world situation and making it worse becuase you don't understand history or diplomacy. Vietnam, Chile, Columbia, San-Salvador - the list is endless.
is that Bush had a plan to get out of Viet Nam.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
armed forces myself I don't thing its technology we should be most concerned with...Its 99% leadership. I can't tell how many times things have been screwed up because our senior ranking officals thought their way was better. Just because you have technology doesn't always equate to the right choice. Good leadership and well trained troops well always win the war. (Unless China develops a Death Star.) ex...Patton, Washington...just to name a few
"To say that someone who is anti-war is not supporting the troops is like saying people who are anti-crime aren't supporting the work of prision guards. People do recognize the necessity of their work, but you also hope for a world where their services aren't needed, and when they are needed, you certainly don't send them out to die because of some preconceived notion that it's their job to die."
Sending solders to war and your quote are different. Think it as following. There are hostages in a warehouse filled many thugs and such. So, the police send in the SWAT team to remove the bad guys, but while doing so people are yelling that that it was wrong to send in the SWAT team in the first place.
What your quote is about is having a military force to begin with. You may be anti-war, but agree to needing a military while hoping it is never needed. Having a military and using it is a different concept.
Also, it is not the "preconceived notion" that solders can be sent of to die. But being in the military, I know it is my job to fight war. Also, you must understand that while people are protesting the war, that gives the people we are fighting hope to stick it out longer. The longer they stick out, the more of my buddies they blow holes into.
It may seem that there is no problem with openly having angst to an armed conflict, but the people who are in Iraq at this moment, bad comments, although indirect to you, affect then directly.
If America was really pro-war, the troops would get more equipment, and our enemy's moral would break sooner. I am not saying that you should not be able to talk against the war, but the sad truth is when an insurgent reads on the internet that half of America hates the war and political parties want to just "up and leave", well that gives him the hope to shoot another few people in camouflage, and abduct a few more reporters because if it lasts long enough, America might just "up and leave" just like Vietnam.
This is not a clear cut world, and this is certainty not a clear cut issue. What everyone says effects this conflict as a whole, and the people in Iraq (the troops, and the people who want the insurgents to give up) are the ones who feel it the most.
It's probably got more to do with nationalism then religion. The vietnamese fought like hell too and they weren't muslims.
The problem is that there have been a lot of racist books written about arabs and muslims (I am not saying this is one I haven't read it). The problem gets multiplied when influential people read those books base foreign policy on them.
One of the major reasons this administration didn't forsee this insugency is that the neocons all based their opinions about how the iraqis would act by reading "The Arab Mind" which is racist book. It depicts Arabs as automatons who aonly understand force, shame and humiliation. It pretty much depicts Arabs as less then human insect like beings who have no nuance of emotion or intellect. Not surprisingly it was written by a Jew.
evil is as evil does
going up against those odds and coming out ahead sounds like technology worked damn fine for me. why is it that everyone expects every possible peice of technology to be 100% functional 100% of the time.
These things are made by men to a certain spec and when you try to use it beyond that, well... it may it may not work.
Where have you been? Improved technology has allowed a political climate to make killing civilians more difficult.
You might need to ask yourself the same question.
About 50% of those who died in WW2 were civilian, up from 10% in WW1. In the US invasion of Panama in 1989 about 13 civilians were killed for every military death.
Iraq's ratio of civilian to miltary fatalities is currently running at about 33 to 1, and there is no reason to think that trend will not continue.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
""Can you say that the world is better with Saddam in power?""
Objectively speaking you can definately say that the world was a better place with Saddam in power. Just in the last month there have been bombings in France, Egypt, indonesia, israel, palestine, and of course all over Iraq. That's just in one month. Since the start of the war (when saddam left power) there have been devestating bombings all over the world. remember Bali, Spain, and the hotel bombing in kenya.
The world is much worse off since Saddam has been removed from power no matter how you measure it.
evil is as evil does
5 ton trucks are supposed to be protected by other units, not to be some kind of independent battle fortresses. For troop carrying needs in combat zone there are armored APCs.
Basic armor protection is necessary for actual combat vehicles, but within reason. Stryker is an excellent vehicle (although there are better foreign alternatives) in modern warfare. Speed and troop carrying capability are its strengths and make it harder to destroy. 20 tons or more of extra armor makes it just an easier target.
while Googling refs from posts here I came across an Asian view on the reliance of modern warfare on ancient experience...
Saddam did have ties to al Qaeda.
/.
1 0/ 22/1456213&tid=226
I find it strange that the 9/11 report from Congress does not include that then. How fascinating.
Maybe you'd be interested in this other story on
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/
Also, you must understand that while people are protesting the war, that gives the people we are fighting hope to stick it out longer. The longer they stick out, the more of my buddies they blow holes into. [...] but the sad truth is when an insurgent reads on the internet that half of America hates the war and political parties want to just "up and leave", well that gives him the hope to shoot another few people in camouflage"
To the resistance in Iraq, does it really matter if they know that the American in public in general is "pro-war", "anti-war" or undecided? A U.S.-led force invaded their country, occupied it, killed many of their buddies and family, broke normality and turned their reality into chaos. It doesn't matter whether the resitance has some kind of "right" to fight back or not, or if they were or are "pro-Saddam" or "pro-dictatorship" or muslim or christians or agnostics or whatever. If we think about it, wouldn't they fight back with whatever means necessary for as long as they can, just as you would? It is simply not possible to 'break' the moral of resistance like that psychologically, which has been proved over and over again. The Romans did not succed anywhere. The crusades did not succeed in Jerusalem. Israel has not succeded doing just this in Gaza. Germany did not succeed anywhere in World War II. We might ask ourselves this a retorical question: If the situation would be reversed; if a technologically superior force invaded and occupied the country we live in and enforced the same type of government that exist in Iraq today, wouldn't you try to fight back until the enemy was gone, no matter what?
Think alot of the more senior military types have forgetten with all their joy over their new toys that there is only thing that can take and hold teritory - and that is the PBI.
Sure the airforce, artilery and technology all have their place in helping take and hold ground but without training in dealing with whatever will be encountered - from conventional warface to counter-terrorism, pacification (ideally by getting locals on your side rather than alienating them) - technology is worth bugger all.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
- a) Let them stay at home, in (relative) comfort, and (relative) safety, or
- b) Send them out into the most unstable part of the world, surrounded by tens of thousands of natives who resent their presence and spend much of their time shooting at them, bombing them, and otherwise making their lives a misery?
Huh?Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
[blockquote]Gee. Maybe it could have something to do with the rise of terrorism since 9-11. You think that muslims are beheading old men and woman in Thailand has to do with the war in Iraq?[/blockquote]
yes, the war in iraq has created an image that the US is on a war against muslims
this is really basic... of course you don't tell the point infantry unit what they're running into, if you did they probably wouldn't go.
00010111 always try everything twice
At least Saddam managed to keep Iraq free of muslim extremists, something the US is failing completely.
Americans have always been trying to force their own style of warfare. They come up with a new strategy and test it and then think that it can be applied in real war.
The simple fact is that war doesn't change. Ever. At all. Don't believe me? WW2, D-day landings. You seen the movies and seen the historical footage. Now chance one little thing. The americans soldiers are not emerging from landing craft but instead emerging from holes in the ground, climbing out of trenches and foxholes and running accorss open ground towards an entrenched enemy with plenty of machine guns.
Can you say WW1 and its famous charges? But how was that any different from an agincourt(or however it is spelt) where troops charged into a field of longbow arrow fire?
There are 3 types of combat, the first is where the attacker attacks a prepared enemy firing back. Slaughter unless you got some wicked armour or the enemy is a lousy shot. The second is where the attacker has the suprise and the enemy is unprepared or not fighting back. Slaughter unless the attacker is a lousy shot. The last is where you got two prepared enemies shooting it out. Slaughter on both sides. 1 and 3 are best avoided, you want an enemy asleep, tied down, with no ammo and smaller then you. Outnumbering a 100 to 1 is always nice.
New tactics like blitz krieg really ain't all that new. They are just an attempt at getting to situation 2. Wether or not that is achieved depends on the enemy. Blitz krieg both worked and not worked for the germans. It all depended on how prepared the enemy was. It isn't superiour tactics and technology that decides a battle, it is how inferior the enemy is.
But nonetheless the americans keep trying to change the rules of war, day light raids over germany despite the fact that the RAF had found it to be suicide. Operation market garden launched because surely the germans that had walked all over europe couldn't resist the americans. The resources spend could have been used to strengthen the front. The battle of bulge might not have been so dramatic if troops had not been depleted.
In vietnam america again tried to change the rule of war, the rule that you must hold ground to control it. We all now how well that one went. America got its ass spanked by a tiny pisspoor country. And not just in the jungle. The air war and tank wars were not nearly as one sides as american propaganda would want you to believe.
And now this new mobile army. With the abrahams the americans finally have themselves a tank that can be counted (all their previous efforts were a joke compared to the enemies weapons german and later russian). It is big, it is hard and it works. But it ain't sexy. Like the A-10 wich was so succesfull in the first gulf war it lacks the support of the think tanks back in safe america were there are no enemies shooting at you and the need for thick armour isn't as apparent as when a tank shell is exploding less then a meter away.
As the commander of the peach operation said. If it had been a force of strikers at the bridge they would have takes serious casualties. Notice how all the burned out vehicles from RPG attacks are bradleys and humvees. Not main battle tanks. They can shrug off such an attack and keep the soldiers inside safe and capable of killing the attacker.
But it ain't sexy. The striker is. Just like dropping tiny squads from a helicopter surrounded by enemies with no line of supply is sexy. Just like dropping lots of troops straight into enemey terrain with reinforcements depending entirely on wether the enemey decides to fight back. Just like sending thousaands of soldiers running up a beach into machine gunfire without any of those silly inventions those brits have (hobats funnies) was sexy. Just like sending slow and level flying bombers in daylight over germany was sexy.
US soldiers. You are equipped with weapons made by the lowest bidder and commanded by people who want a sexy war, not a dirty victory. Either you are the most brave or your the most stupid. T
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Well, I wouldn't call creation of a state which lasted some 1000 years, more than 400 of it pretty close to its maximum size, "lack of success". Galia: completely latinised, Spain - the same, (Northern) Africa, including Egypt - the same. Hell, 1000 years after the Fall of the Western Empire, Greeks in Byzantium still called themselves "Romans". I would say Romans were doing pretty well as occupants. Of course, we have to remember their few remarkable failures: German tribes (due to huge political and diplomatic mistakes during the rule of Tyberius), Palestine (due to incredible resistance of Jews, based mostly on Jews' sense of being "the Chosen Nation", so based on religion) and few others. But as a whole Romans did pretty well.
What was their way?
- "divide et impera": play on disputes between your opponents
- be cruel to rebels but reward loyalty
- don't destroy, rather modify (for example: don't change customs, religion, just add yours)
- leave local elite in charge, just add some control over them
- show possibility of becoming "a Roman" - with all good things coming with it.
And so on...
So basically as little change as possible, as long as they pay the taxes, let Roman goods in, provide soldiers, and don't talk about seccesion. And let "the Roman way" creep in into their lifes, slowly...
I think it worked, especially considering means of communication in those times: it is in some way much closer now from NY to Baghdad than it was from Rome to Lyon or Athenes.
Raf
More accurately, had Iraq not invaded Kuwait, or had the UNSC stuck to just pushing the Iraqi's back into Iraq and not trying to force Iraq to give up their CBW's and delivery systems (permantly), or had Iraq complied with the resolutions leveled against it, or had France Germany Russia or China simply backed their previous agreements and not constantly fight against upholding resolutions that they (excluding germany) had agreed to in the first place. Or finally had the US foolishly decided that sanctions and "containment" were really (despite the evidence to suggest otherwise) working and to continue to stick it's head, ostrich like, in the sand and sung "La la la la la I'm not listening!!" . Oddly enough, Israel doesn't figure in this fiasco at all, so your last comment is as inaccurate and irrelevant as your first comment.
... the supposition I heard a few years back that the EMF generated from a nuclear bomb would knock out the avionics of any US plane in the same theatre? About the only thing left flying would be MiGs apparently - and the USAF don't have (m)any of those in service. I also remember the latest british anti-aircraft batteries in the Falklands that were deadly to inbound aircraft - but only if they came into range one at a time. More lives probably got saved by buying the right people off rather than aiming smart bombs at their subordinates. A very low tech solution :-)
Ian W.
I remember an interview with a British officer, where they explained why they were wearing berets instead of helmets. He said the moment they arrived they switched from helmets to berets to appear more human and 'with' rather than 'against' the local population. They received a bulletin where it was stated there was an increased risk to troops. They wore helmets for one day and the officer ordered them back into berets, despite the increase in risk to British lives, as they instantly perceived increased hostility from the locals. This kind of intelligence is worth its weight in gold.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
NO.
You think that muslims are beheading old men and woman in Thailand has to do with the war in Iraq?
Absolutely
How quickly we forget history. Terrorism actually dropped after 9/11. We went into Afghanastan (kinda) and low and behold, much of what was going on in the world slowed down. Then we invaded Iraq. The speed with which we moved in was frightening. and IIRC, there were few reports of terrorism during that time. But since that time, the number and attempts have risen at a quick pace. There is a direct corellation between # of world-wide attacks and our being bogged down by a small group in iraq.
Sorry, but this has everything to do with the war in Iraq, and nothing to do with 9-11. Until last week, when Iraq pledge to work with Al Qaeda.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
While these numbers may be true, war has also changed with each one.
The battlefield has moved from trenches and country side to the city.
In ww1 & ww2 both sides were prepared for war, so civilians and military were not mixed as they are today.
Another point is this:
As a general rule, on a 'normal' battlefield you need to be 3 to 1 in order to win. (If the enemy has 10 men, you need 30 to win.)
In the city the rate is 10+ to 1. Soldiers know about this great risc, and this is why you shoot first, ask later.
And as we all know civilians live in the city, so it is no surprise that more civilians die in modern combats. They can't escape, and 'non regular' armys use them as cover.
The fact that everyone and his brother in Iraq owns a gun does not make things easier.
I only read slash. for the articles...
Iran and North Korea are moving their nuke programs at full speed. In fact, both have sped up when we first invaded Iraq (but that could have more to do with getting information from the pakastani minister).
EU is trying to get Iran to stop, but considering that Russia is helping Iran out with supplies, they are not likely to do much. Israel will almost certainly have no choice but to go in and do the job themselves with our bunker busters. When they do, the middle east will go crazy.
Apparently, Libya never made any progress and had given up nukes during Clinton's time.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The problem is that there have been a lot of racist books written about arabs and muslims..
That's funny, I haven't seen any of these, but I have seen a number of books describing how arab/muslim culture is thouroughly corrupt, self-destructive, and an obvious dead end.
That's not racist, because no one is saying "Damn doon-coones are a bunch of murdering terrorists from birth," but they are saying that their culture- LEARNED BEHAVIORS -leads to suppression of women, backwards thinking, economic failure, brutal regimes, and all around a horrible way to live.
A little over 100 years ago we came in full contact with a society that had nothing on western civilization- feudal, warrior-ruled, emperor worshipping, and about equivalent with europe 500 years ago. The country was called Japan. Instead of turning their backs on a way of life that offered a great deal of benefits, they eagerly embraced the ways of people better than them militarily, in terms of organization, production, etc. Now they are undisputably the equal- if not the better- of many european countries.
The Arab's culture, however, is very face/shame based, and they have been unable to admit they have been bettered by western civilization. That's just one of their problems.
So don't talk to me about 'racist' books that describe their culture as a corrupt failure, because culture can be easily disconnected from skin color.
The current position of Arab nations in the world, when compared to European and many Asian countries makes it clear they are failures in the modern world. These particular losers have chosen to strike out.
(Losers hijack airplanes full of civilians to carry out their war. Winners have an air force.)
People are just people, no matter what the skin color. Cultures can be (and are) quite depraved and dysfunctional. We see alot of that in the middle east.
Oh, by the way, if you still think I'm racist after skimming over how their culture is horrible, then it is you who links behavior to skin color, and that makes you the racist.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
In fact, al Zaqawai hated Al Qaida and wanted NOTHING to do with them. We are forcing many here to choose between Al Qaida or the US. When we are the good guys and stayed out of others lives (and their country), then groups/ppl would rather align with us. Now that we invaded a country and we have made their lives FAR worse than it was under sadaam, they are switching to Al Qaida. A lot of damage has been done.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sure it helps when the "insurgent" or whomever is an Irate Iraqi, but some of them aren't. The are a large number (50%?) of the "resistance" are really just jihadists from neighboring countries that are there to "kill the infidels". The Iraqi's don't want them there, not even many of the native Iraqi insurgents.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Saddam (or members of his regieme most certainly hosted and met with high level AQ officials. What the report DOES say is that Saddam had no direct connections to the 9-11 attack in particular or to Osama himself. But he certainly did have some AQ connections.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
But in the end, when you're talking killing somebody or destroying a vehicle in a straight fight, the guy with the bigger gun, the thicker armor and the better training is the guy who's going to win
It's not about hitting your opponent, and it's not about not being hit. It's about having sufficient force in the right place at the right time, with the right orders.
Almost all fights are decided before the first blow. That's why intelligence is so important, and good military commanders live be this... they always have.
Intelligence is the greatest weapon in warfare - it has always been decisive. The US army is just trying to push the envelope.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I think you should read more about Arab culture. Perhaps you've heard of a city called Cordoba from say 900 years ago or more. Yes currently Arab culture may appear to be a bit backwards, but 900 years ago, the shoe was on the other foot. It was the Moors in Spain that had libraries, streets (lit by lamps), valued education when London was little more than a village. It was the Arabs that preserved the culture of the Greeks and Romans, by preserving their art and literature. It was the Arab culture of Cordoba that helped to spark the Renaissance. You may be asking yourself, what the hell does this have to do with now, well maybe nothting. I just think that before you go calling a culture "losers" maybe you should know that your "Western" culture may not exist without them.
I think a caveat should be made to your Roman Way point "don't destroy, rather modify (for example: don't change customs, religion, just add yours)". This was only the outcome Romans preferred when conquering new lands. If the locals didn't go along they had no problem exterminating the entire population which worked quite well. You mention the so-called incredible resistance of the Jews which is false at least insofar if you judge resistance by its success. The jews were completely and utterly crushed by the Roman nation where all the males were slaughtered and all females sold into slavery. I have no idea why you marked Roman rule over that area as a failure. I would agree that a big mistake was by the Romans in taking Germania which was mostly due to the incompetence of the varus who led 3 legions to their complete destruction in the teutoberg forest.
How is this incident conclusively a technology failure?
I read the article, and this sounds more like a human failure than a technological one. How did spotting and reporting three whole brigades require anything more advanced than, say, World War II-era technology? It seems reasonable to assume that a manuver element the size of a battalion, "at the very tip U.S. Army's final lunge north toward Baghdad" as described in the article, approaching a key strongpoint like that bridge, would've had some sort of reconnaisance available to it. If any air assets were available before 0300, they could've wrapped a note "Enemy in strength approaching objective" around a rock or something and dropped it on the bttn's position, for crying out loud. Or dropped flares, or sent a runner, or something.
I won't say there aren't problems with the technology, but from this article I can't tell whether this is a reconnaisance failure, a communications problem, or command-and-control breakdown. "Zero information getting to me" could be the result of a whole lot of different problems.
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
The TechReview article is titled "How technology failed in Iraq".
/. blurb quotes: "Between 25 and 30 tanks, plus 70 to 80 armored personnel carriers, artillery, and between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi soldiers coming from three directions. This mass of firepower and soldiers attacked a U.S. force of 1,000 soldiers supported by just 30 tanks and 14 Bradley fighting vehicles."
The failure? As the
The result of this failure? 8 American soldiers wounded in a battle that left a mile to a mile and a half stretch of road toward Baghdad so choked with Iraqi casualties that you couldn't walk without stepping on body parts.
Maybe the intelligence layer failed to warn the US, but that's only one technology. The US tank armor is also a technology, and it held up against direct hits by the Iraqi tanks. US tank rounds blew the Iraqi tanks to smithereens.
The Iraqis got slaughtered, the US took eight wounded, and this is a "failure"? With failure like that, who needs victories?
Surely there's other, better examples where intelligence failures cost the US more, but this ain't it.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
With enough warning, the US forces will be able to concentrate troops in a location to defeat the enemy. How? Military flash mobs -- a message goes out to small units to meet at a certain GPS coordinate at a certain time. In the case of needing heavy armor, the lead time would have to be even longer due to the limited numbers of Abrams available. But in the short term, the gap can be filled with ground-attack craft such as rotary-wing aircraft and A-10 Thunderbolt II's.
The idea is to distribute decision making, such as what ocurred in Afghanistan, and to Keep It Simple, by using robust technologies such as email and web browsers.
The big problem that the troops encountered in Iraq was outrunning the capabilities of the microwave-based communications systems. They even outran line-of-sight communications.
One solution to that would be to plant "trees" in the desert. The idea would be to air-drop large numbers of communications relays that would have a spike on the bottom. When it hits the ground, the spike keeps it upright, and the batteries run it for a couple of days. The "trees" form a resiliant packet-driven communications mesh much like the internet.
Chip H.
To this day, they still avoid the words "Guerilla War" since that was associated with 'nam. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush will chide anybody using it.
Yet, in 'nam, the enemies were a small group of citizens that had backing from nearby nations. They hid amongst the locals and were able to operate freely.
But nah, that does not apply to Iraq.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Is there anyone who honestly believes that our military and government wouldn't prefer to line up all of the combatants in a field where we could battle it out? Unfortunately, we don't get to choose the playing field. If we're going to engage guerilla targets, that means going where the guerillas are. Definitely not a preferred state of being, given our strengths and weaknesses.
Updated news, tommorow's headlines:
Last night the iraqies invaded the united states, some terrorists pockets seem to be resisting the invaders.
Obviously they are resisting the abolishment of their corrupt government, the abuse of the poor by the wealthy. The beatings by police in the streets. Forced reeducation, which teaches an altered more patriotic version of history in order to garner support for their corrupt government rather than what actually happened. The masses dying of starvation on the streets.
Lets face it folks, these are terrorists. There is no possible way they could be the teaming masses united against a common foreign invader. There is no way they could really be those who are yearning to breathe free.
No matter how corrupt your nation allegedly is (remember, the only ones contesting the 90+% popularity ratings of Saddam are the guys supporting the war who CLAIM with NO EVIDENCE those numbers are forced, or that any of those alleged atrosities are actually happening). There ARE those who will stand together and fight a foreign enemy who has invaded their soil. If Iraq had a dictator, as far as iraq was concerned, that was there problem and a far less severe one than being conquered by the US.
I wonder here if there really a technology failure to deliver information to the front-line troops or a matter of trust? A more likely explanation to me is that information was withheld. The bridge apparently was so vital that it was worth seizing with a relatively small force. But maybe HQ was afraid that the ground forces wouldn't move in aggressively enough if they knew what the Iraqi army had nearby.
"Can you say that the world is better with Saddam in power?" "Don't you see the need to support our troops in this time of crisis??"
Don't you love how every time someone questions the Bush/Cheney decision to drag us into this unnecessary war, the right-wingers imply that critisizing the Administration is 'helping the enemy and hurting our troops.'
This is just an obvious attempt to prevent anyone from discussing this catostrophic decision during the election. Must be wonderful to have so many people willing to ignore the facts and pretend this was a good idea in the name of 'patriotism' and 'supporting our troops'.
Personally, I believe it is our duty as Patriots to question the Administration, and I feel I support the troops best by getting them home while they are still alive.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
Now that we invaded a country and we have made their lives FAR worse than it was under sadaam, they are switching to Al Qaida. A lot of damage has been done.
FAR worse? WTF are you babbling about you ignorant piece of shit?
They are FREE in case you hadn't noticed dumbass. They can go out and buy satellite dishes and not have to worry about hiding them. They can use the internet, they can run their own blogs, they can even call Saddam Hussein a mother fucker rather than just thinking it to themselves. They have far more income now than they did under Sadaam (except those who are too fucking lazy or stupid to find something to do except bitch about how good they had it when Sadaam was in power, those fools are still dirt poor and always will be since everything that happens in their little world is always someone else's fault and that someone else is usually a Jew to boot.) How the fuck is that worse off?
You sound like one of those goddamned liberal dipshits who go on and on about how Foxnews is so biased yet you want to believe all the other news outlets who don't report anything but the bad shit coming out of Iraq since it supports your opinion that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place.
Too bad your dumb ass doesn't live in a dictatorship. Might cure your ignorance although that isn't guaranteed. Look at the Iraqis. Some of them are stupid enough to think they had it better under Sadaam, but that's because they were his bully boys keeping the rest of the population in line. Now that the Lion of Bagdad isn't so high-and-fucking-mighty anymore all his former bullies have found out that they are just uneducated, ignorant, non-employable, scumbag thugs with no future since all that they ever knew how to do was drink alcohol, steal from people, beat the shit out of people and intimidate people for Sadaam in exchange for chump change.
All the people that Sadaam's bullies oppressed know how much better their lives are. They have hope. They have opportunity. They have the freedom to choose. They can make something of themselves.
All Sadaam's bullies have no hope since the only thing they ever had going for them sits locked up in a cage awaiting trial for his crimes.
If this article is correct the U.S. Bn. in the lead at the bridge had 25/30 tanks, 14 Bradleys and 1,000 troops. This seems a bit short on the Bradleys, unless there were a lot of engineers along for the ride. Was there anyone defending the bridge (I don't think the Iraqis destroyed one bridge during the invasion)? Also, the Iraqi attack (25/30 tanks, 70 APCs and 10,000 troops) would suggest only one brigade of armor- who were the rest of the troops and were they operating under centralized command, or were most of them in locally-led counterattacks. The failure of the Iraqis to deploy mines and explosives- never mind ambush teams- makes me wonder what was up. Dave
It works out to about 1000 a month, not 3000. That's still a 9/11 perpetrated by the Americans, every 3 months.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
"...we needed approximately 3 times as many troops to secure the country."
This apparent discrepancy is interesting since both sides are right.
The U.S. did need 3 times as many troops for one thing, to suppress the looting and lawless chaos immediately following the invasion. In that Shinseki was correct. Obviously they also needed more MP's as they started mass round up of mostly innocent Iraqi's (though of course the better approach would have been to not arrest anyone you didn't know to be dangerous since it helped fuel the insurgency when Americans were breaking down doors everynight and rounding up people for no particularly good reason most of the time).
But if you look at the invasion itself and the current insurgency its questionable if more troops would have helped or will helped.
For the invasion it would have dramatically delayed the war, increased its cost, placed even more stress on supply lines and wouldn't have made the invasion any more successful. You can argue that delaying the war might have been a good thing, maybe cooler heads would have prevailed and it wouldn't have happened, but the Bush administration was in an extreme rush, they had the country whipped in to a frenzy and were still riding 9/11 so they had to do it fast. Thats how they do most things that are ultimately bad... Iraq, the Patriot Act, Medicare Reform and now the National Intelligence reform Act. They rush them through before any opposition can build or the American people can come to their senses.
As for the insurgency it is again very dubious to say putting more troops on the ground would improve the situation. More troops mean more targets for insurgents and especially more supply convoys to shoot up. It also increases the footprint and the feel of occupation which is the thing that fuels insurgency. Having a couple hundred thousand teenage Americans with raging hormones and frequent poor judgement isn't going to make the people in the occupied country happier. If you don't have the intelligence to find and engage the insurgents having more troops is of dubious value. They would end up acting as police, would be bad at since they don't speak the language or understand the culture, and mostly they would just be more targets to shoot at.
That said, its obvious the U.S. Army and Marines are stretched thin, especially if they are going to have to fight a series of ugly urban battles in Fallujah, Sadr City and elsewhere. It is a sign of "stretched thin" that Britain's Black Watch is being sent into the Sunni triangle to free up U.S. troops for a major battle, or if you are a cynic to get some British troops killed so it doesn't look like a coalition where only Americans and Iraqis are dieing.
That stretched thin look and collapsing coalition is going to get worse when "Don't Forget Poland" and Italy pull out right after the elections. Apparently Fiji did contribute a hundred or so troops to defend the UN election effort which makes up for it...sic.
It was interesting to watch the Commons debate on the Blackwatch deployment. In the UK there are plenty of smart politicians that state the obvious that you don't hear at all in the U.S. media. America's propensity for dropping precision guided bombs to fight an urban insurgency is ultimately self defeating. Occasionally they might hit a real target but a fair percentage of the time they are killing women and children in densely populated urban areas. Everytime that happens you create gruesome footage of dead civilians that doesn't air in the U.S. for the most part but is all over the Arab networks and is pouring gasoline on the insurgency. Even the DOD admits it no with estimates of the number of insurgents doubling and charges of massive funding for it from Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran.
The British are in an obviously less challenge zone in Iraq but from what I've seen of their leadership and rules of engagement I'm betting their low key approach is far more likely to succeed than the massively heavy
@de_machina
Do you honestly think that every Iraqi who attacks US soldiers is on Saddam Hussein's side?
Then why are the shiites who were oppressed under Saddam fighting America too? What about the Marsh Arabs, who Saddam Hussein brutally tried to wipe out? The US mentioned them as a group to be liberated by the war, but one or two attacks and the US started bombing and killing them in the same manner as Saddam Hussein.
Sheesh man, go watch some news programs that aren't in english. I saw people holding their dead children's bodies and saying how the US dropped bombs that ruined the houses nearby. What about that Arab woman on Al-Jazeera who was sobbing about her dead family? (A clip of that was in Fahrenheit 9/11) How about the street riot that resulted at a checkpoint when an American soldier unthinkingly threw a Quran to the ground when searching a woman's bag? Or what about when the US helicopter tore down a Shiite religious banner, the US government denied doing it on purpose, and someone showed footage of the American in the chopper leaning out the door and cutting it down? I saw demonstrations on TV when the US shut down newspapers that were too critical of the American forces in Iraq. Did anyone here hear about the Abu Ghraib abuses before the photos came out? Failing that, did anyone read the testimony of witnesses who saw Americans (soldiers and/or contractors) raping Iraqis in that same prison? Has anyone bothered to understand that Najaf is a holy city for shiites, and bombing it like that is akin to bombing Vatican city? Najaf aside, did anyone who isn't shiite pay attention to the fact that the US troops got into a firefight and called in airstrikes in the holy cemetary, or flattened the shrine to one of the 12 Imams? You didn't hear about these things? Shiites all over the world were livid, including the moderates and pro-American ones. Did anyone notice that the US cancelled democratic elections last year, over fears that Iraqis may vote for people who don't support the US occupation? Speaking of which, even Iraqi politicians are accusing the US of acting like Israel in engaging in "Collective punishment."
Do you know how badly the unemployment in Iraq has skyrocketed? This is because the US fired all Iraqis who had any tie to the Ba'ath party (most people couldn't get a promotion unless they joined). In WWII, the Allies didn't fire everyone with Nazi ties, or else all civil servants and teachers and business owners would be out of a job. Imagine how much longer the US Reconstruction period would have lasted if the Union fired every last Southern politician.
Did you hear that people in Iraq are calling us Yazid? What? You don't know who Yazid is? Then WHAT business do we have in Iraq?
Many Muslims all over the world believe it's a war on Islam. Despite Bush repeatedly saying it is not, the Bush administration seemed eager to go to war with muslim-majority Iraq despite shaky evidence and not North Korea. The Administration said Iraq violated UN resolutions, but Israel violated even more and even has nuclear weapons. Bush said he "unconditionally" supports Ariel Sharon, making a lot of Muslims angry. Bush supported the existence of some Israeli settlements, which just rankled further and showed the US wasn't evenhanded on the issue. Bush appointed Daniel Pipes, a harsh islamophobe, to the US Institute of Peace, bypassing the senate when they refused to confirm the appointment. Bush quietly promoted General Jerry Boykin instead of reprimanding him, months after he made comments that Muslims don't pray to the real God. However, he immediately condemned the Malaysian PM's remark about how Jews have other countries fight their wars for their behalf. Those two events happened within 24 hours of each other, and Bush seemed incensed about one and dismissed the other. John Ashcroft was caught trashing Islam, years before he started spying on the American Muslim community and arresting thousands without charge after 9/11.
It's not just the Bush administration, Muslims seem to believe that ALL Americans think Muslims are terrorists. Franklin Graham called Islam "a wicked religion." Pat Robertson followed up with similiar comments. When Jerry Falwell called the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) a 'terrorist,' there was international outrage. The anti-American party in Pakistan swept the election days after, massively increasing its number of seats in Parliment, something never done before. Ann Coulter's remark "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" was something that people still believe, while Bush's "crusade" comment was dismissed by lots of people after the White House apologized for not realizing the connotation.
Don't flatter yourself about Afghanistan, people see Hamid Karzai as a US puppet. Every Afghan and Pakistani I've talked to agrees on that. However, to be fair, the US racked up a lot of good will by helping stop the genocide in Bosnia. Muslims were thankful to Clinton for that, despite their dislike of his other policies and actions. Bush's attempts of helping Sudan aren't going to help much if mosques in Iraq and Afghanistan were bombed. (Yes, some were)
Terrorism dropped in 2002 compared to 2001. Actually, South America had more terrorism than the Middle East. Terrorism went up in 2003 compared to 2002.
The US government really should define "terrorism" because they seem to go after Muslims with it, and maybe drug dealers, but not people who phone in threats to the local abortion clinic or commit hate crimes against the mosque.
The modern idea of danish defense have never been to resist superior force. If someone wants to, they can beat us. The point is to make it so costly that we are not worth the effort.
The soviet union had plans to spend a better part of its nuclear arsenal to slag Denmark completly just to avoid getting bugged down (their navy needs to get through Denmark to get out of the Baltic).