Slashdot Mirror
New Tools Available for Network-Centric Warfare
Reservoir Hill writes "MIT Technology Review reports that a new map-based application is the latest tool in the military's long-term plan to introduce what is sometimes called "network-centric warfare." The Tactical Ground Reporting System, or TIGR allows patrol leaders in Iraq to learn about city landmarks and past events and more than 1,500 junior officers in Iraq — about a fifth of patrol leaders — are using the map-centric application before going on patrol and adding new data to TIGR upon returning. By clicking on icons and lists, they can see the locations of key buildings, like mosques, schools, and hospitals, and retrieve information such as location data on past attacks, geotagged photos of houses and other buildings (taken with cameras equipped with Global Positioning System technology), and photos of suspected insurgents and neighborhood leaders. They can even listen to civilian interviews and watch videos of past maneuvers. "The ability ... to draw the route ... of your patrol that day and then to access the collective reports, media, analysis of the entire organization, is pretty powerful," says Major Patrick Michaelis. "It is a bit revolutionary from a military perspective when you think about it, using peer-based information to drive the next move. ... Normally we are used to our higher headquarters telling the patrol leader what he needs to think.""
that they should give up some tech, and increase the risk to their lives? or give some tech to an enemy? i don't understand what motivates your thinking
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This sounds a bit like planning a holiday (vacation) using the internet. I was planning a trip to Portugal last night. I looked up lots of guest houses and hotels, saw their locations on a map, read reviews from other travellers, etc. I could even find the locations of tourist sites, see photos of them from other tourists, and get satellite photos of them from Google. I'm glad the military are catching up.
From the article: ... Normally we are used to our higher headquarters telling the patrol leader what he needs to think."
"It is a bit revolutionary from a military perspective when you think about it, using peer-based information to drive the next move.
Peer based information eh? Fundamentally an armed mob and the military are relatively similar: both are large groups of people using force (read: weapons; read: guns) to achieve an objective requiring greater force than any individual member is capable of bringing to bear. I thought (and correct me if I'm wrong) that what differentiated the military from a lawless mob was exactly the fact that the military has a well defined command and control structure, rather than each man being influenced by his neighbor's decisions. This seems to me to be moving down the slippery slope. Now let me say that I understand that this system is not meant to replace or diminish current command and control in any way, and that peers withing the ranks assiting each other is not a bad thing. However, what happens when the information given through peer-based channels is different from and outright contradicts the information (and the orders based on that information) coming from command? While this technology has the potential to be excellent for soldiers in the field, it seems to me that cautious adoption should be the order of the day.
Try to track down one of the detailed stories of how they identified where Saddam was hiding. Not a newspaper account, but a detailed story about it. They did not, as you might assume, get a tip that said "Hey, Saddam is here!" (Or rather, they have way too many such tips.) It was actually a clever approach where they graphed his network of associates, figured out where he was most likely to take shelter, applied carefully-placed pressure to narrow down the options (both in the sense of locating him, and in the sense of corralling him), and eventually fingered his location through logic and information gathering.
I think the news reporters don't report this stuff because they don't really understand it. If they did, they'd be much more panicky about the capabilities the military has been developing. Personally, while most people are screaming and worrying about half-imaginary infractions by the Bush administration, I find myself a little concerned not at how bad our military is at putting down insurgencies, but at how good at it they are getting. Not the usual story line, I know, but one better supported by the actual evidence, IMHO.
I was opposed to this war from the beginning (my opinion has since become more complex), but I think this technology will help end it.
If you read the article, it alludes to the fact that one of the main reasons we (the United States) are losing against insurgents (and have lost against guerrilla warfare in general), is because the manner in which they act and share information is vastly different from the way the US Army operates.
In the US army, systems like this have already existed, but have mostly "been developed for the upper echelons" (from the article), of the military hierarchy. In addition, soldiers had no real way of supplying information to their officers to be rapidly redistributed to the soldiers.
This is one of the main reasons why we have lost guerrilla wars (outside of a lack of support from the populace) has been that our opponents spread information amongst each other freely and act independently. Some of the sources quoted in this article want the military to re-organize they way they think about fighting a counter-insurgency war, and organize the ground troops more like special forces were organized in Afganistan, ie, giving them more independent authority to make action decisions.
While that might be a drastic step (I'm sure some of you are already fearing soldiers gunning down more Iraqis - and a part of me understands - although to tell you the truth I think most of our soldiers are much more disciplined than that), the truth of the matter is that *this* step *needed to be taken*. For the safety of their lives (and others), soldiers deserve to know who is a threat,who is a friend,what IED's look like in certain areas, where they have been planted before, where insurgents commonly shell troops with mortars, what "cover spots" are frequently used,and videos of past interviews of civilians. This way, friendly Iraqi civilians won't lose their lives, and hopefully our soldiers will be warned as to which "civilians" will take theirs.
if used by 911 dispatchers, with feedback from police, fire an EMTs, this sort of a system could lead to police who knew where ambush was possible, firemen who knew when a building was condemned or had toxic or explosive contents, alleyways too narrow for an ambulance and so forth...before they scramble.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
...we (the United States) are losing against insurgents (and have lost against guerrilla warfare in general), is because the manner in which they act and share information is vastly different from the way the US Army operates. And this is supremely ironic when you consider how the US came to be an independent nation. Apparently our military leaders didn't pay much attention in their high school history classes.You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
Yes, apart from being blown up by the IRA, having my grandmother shot dead and a friend blown to pieces it's all been pillows, harps, and peeled grapes here.
I see menace in the wasp's nest, and I see menace in the fool who stirrs the wasp's nest up. Which is more evil?
Take your head out of your ass and take a look around once in a while.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables