Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Tech Almost Lost the War

Posted by samzenpus on from the just-point-and-shoot dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Blame the geeks for the mess in Iraq? Wired says so. Networked troops were supposed to be so efficient, it'd take just a few of 'em to wipe out their enemies. But the Pentagon got their network theory all wrong, with too few nodes and a closed architecture. Besides, a more efficient killing machine is the last thing you want in an insurgency like Iraq."

2 of 679 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Blame the Geeks? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 5, Informative

    One rather wonders what would have happened if in 2003 we hadn't sent an Army but just airdropped a few million pacifists into Iraq to sing songs and cuddle with everybody.

    We should've sent the guys who said we were going to be greeted with candy and flowers.

  2. Re:Actually.... by monopole · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's much worse than an over-reliance or mis-application of technology, or having the means justify the end, it's mistaking a means for an end.

    Jeff Huber just put up an excellent essay on this which can be summed up by the two quotes by Clausewitz:
    "Policy is the guiding intelligence and war only the instrument, not vice versa."
    and
    "If we do not learn to regard a war, and the separate campaigns of which it is composed, as a chain of linked engagements each leading to the next, but instead succumb to the idea that the capture of certain geographical points or the seizure of undefended provinces are of value in themselves, we are liable to regard them as windfall profits."

    The most efficient "kill-chain" won't do squat unless there is a clear and achievable objective. The other problem is that the "kill-chain" that is being used is purpose built for set piece battles between great powers basically 2nd generation warfare (web 1.0) versus 4th generation asymmetric warfare.

    You don't even need Clausewitz, Powell will suffice. To use a shortened version of the Powell doctrine:
    - Do we have a clear attainable objective?
    - Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
    - Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
    - Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
    - Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?