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.""
... the print friendly version so you don't get attacked by the annoying ads.....
What did you want? WikiWarfare?
Demented But Determined.
Perhaps you should look at the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) data published by the Census bureau. It is a cool set of map files. You can find more at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/.
I know the transportation departments across the country use the files.
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.
All Baghdad needed from the outset was police on the ground to prevent it from degenerating into the Sunni/Shi'a/USA clusterfuck it is today. In 2003, US troops were not prepared for that job, nor were their bosses prepared for that eventuality, even though many people had accurately predicted what was going to happen.
It's nice to see the boys at the RAND Institute saying that dealing with domestic terrorism is essentially a police problem. Hopefully we'll keep that in mind if anything ever happens again in the USA.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
As a defense contractor who's worked on (and taught) Net-centricity and as a former Marine, I can say that what we're facing is an enemy that is capable of much more speed and agility than we are. The whole point of Net-centric warfare is to move away from top-down Cold War era Command and Control to something more along the lines of what these emergent, adaptive, complex terrorist and insurgent networks use. Intead of wasting time and energy trying to adapt to a moving target, so to speak, these kinds of technologies allow tactical commanders to make faster decisions on the battlespace.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
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.
Only from the top (Majors and above) does it appear that HQ is telling the patrol leader "what to think." On the ground, the NCOs and junior officers are quite capable of evaluating situations and responding to them as appropriate.
In an ideal military (which as a vet, I realize ours isn't--but closer than you might think) the chain of command sets an objective and then the lowers carry it out as they see fit. Micromanagement (something most line soldiers were apprehensive about with the Land Warrior system, or whatever they're calling it this week) is never a good thing in a fight. You don't want a general, most of whom are at least 50% political animals with their eye always on the "how will this look on my evaluation" factor, telling a private which window to throw a grenade in when clearing a house. The general says "take the city" the colonel says "Company A attack from the north, Company B attack from the west" and the captains tell the NCOs "go get 'em" and leave the minor details up to platoon/squad leaders.
On a similar note, more information (contrary to the commonly-held slashdot idea) isn't always better. Aside from information overload (another Land Warrior worry) there's the fact that details can get lost in an outpouring of video and maps. It's equally effective to talk to the last patrol's leader and get him to tell you "don't go down Saddam Street" or "We've had problems when we go past the former Baath Party HQ." Better in some ways, since an actual person can communicate nuances and answer questions. Also, I think there can be a tendency to put some portion of your attention on mapping the actual space to what you've seen in the dog-and-pony show, which lowers your situational awareness.
I'm not completely discounting TIGR, just saying that whether this TIGR deal is the bee's knees or not... remains to be seen
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
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"
If you're interested in the topic, I highly recommend John Robb's Global Guerrillas blog. He's got a good book out too, but the blog is more up-to-the-minute analysis. It won't come as a surprise to folks on slashdot that the insurgency is heavily reliant on an open-source model (and more specifically, exploiting our inability to change tactics on-the-fly). Good reading.
Once all other nations adopt this super duper network centric warfare, Pakistan's ISP will quietly change the routing tables of the internet and completely flummox these developed warriors. Only the soldiers on donkeys, which Pakistan has abundantly, will be able to fight. That is the secret plan of Pakistan to become the military super power.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact