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."
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
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)
"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.
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
A war cannot be fought with nukes until everyone has one; otherwise, it won't be a war with two sides. And when everyone has one, no one side will attempt to use it in battle, because of mutual destruction, or the potential thereof. Thus, they would most likely resort to using conventional weapons.
You forgot the disclaimer: unless the leaders on one side are convinced that the second coming is near and that their faith will save them in the end. But of course, that's just a theory, no sane leader of the free world would be thinking along those lines...
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
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!
I think you misquoted old Al.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein http://www.quotationspage.com/
It was really an observation that science was coming up with some really scary ideas in the realm of making things that go "BOOM"
Bacardi + slashdot = negative karma.
You might find this article interesting
(Visit bugmenot to circumvent registration)
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.
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.
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
> 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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?)
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?